Steven Hollis

[OutByEaster?]

There's been quite bit of talk about bringing more people onto the board and hopefully a football man will be amongst them.

 

[VillaCas]

10 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Anyone concluding that this guy is "out of his depth" needs to have a word with themselves.

He might be the worst appointment in the history of the planet, but at least give the guy a **** chance.

 

9 hours ago, Mantis said:

I'm not going to pre-judge somebody just because Lerner's got a history of bad appointments and this guy gave a bad interview.

I'm not quite pre-judging him! That would have been forming an opinion the moment I heard of his appointment.  I am though making a snap judgement based on his public statement and his interview and my snap judgement is that this will prove to be a poor appointment. The statement was "meh" but I would defy anyone who saw the interview to come away with a positive impression of the guy.

I don't know what "give the guy a chance means?" He is going to go ahead with whatever strategy him and Randy have dreamed up regardless of my opinion, so I've very comfortable with my snap decision. It's possible of course that my snap decision is wrong, but if you offered me 1000-1 on being wrong I wouldn't take it. 

Finally, there are many people in the organisation who don't need to be comfortable witrh the media - it doesnt matter if your tea lady, your kit man and your centre forward are crap with the media but you'd like to think that your CEO and your Chairman inspire confidence when they speak

We will need a little more than "hard work and a great attitude"

 

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Agreed. This isn't just blind judgement. Not a single person, in a variety of roles, that we've brought in during Lerner's time here has had a positive impact over a long period. 

If anything, assuming this will work out would be the blind judgement because that would be ignoring 10 years worth of evidence. 

I literally haven't seen one single poster 'assuming this will work out', not one. Please show me any?

[dont_do_it_doug.]

This question of whether or not he's a Non-Executive Chairman or an Executive Chairman is troubling. 

I work for a good sized company that was sold last year, as part of that, our Chairman visited us more often to work with the CEO in finalising the sale, and I got to know what he looked like. Our CEO runs the company, he's physically present within the business, he's in every trade paper, local TV, running events, he makes big decisions from the top, he's shaken the company up and he's the driving force behind our success. I've been with the company for 20 years. I don't know the Chairman's name. He doesn't communicate with the press on our behalf, he doesn't speak to the workforce, he doesn't get involved with the business as  a whole - he has one relationship - he's the link between the money and the CEO. He provides a sounding board and to a degree the boundaries for the CEO's imagination.

Steven Hollis is talking like a CEO, not a Chairman. As a Chairman, by now we should know his name and not a whole lot else - in the press, I'd have expected Tom Fox to have talked a little about him and his role in helping Tom run the club through Randy. Tom is the boss if he's CEO - he should be in the papers, on websites and on TV. The Chairman should be largely invisible.

It looks like a fudge, Hollis seems to be CEO, with the title of Chairman, Tom looks to have been almost demoted - but there's been no discussion about structure or roles, just a lot of 'Shake it up' talk from a man who shouldn't be talking much at all.

In theory, Hollis's remit in terms of a shake up is get rid of Tom Fox or don't. Everything else should be Tom's responsibility. At least that's how I see it.

If he'd come out and said, Tom wants to shake the place up and I'm here to help him do that, then that would be a very different message and one that was easier to comprehend. Instead we've got a lot of macho tough talk from our silent partner - he's come in like Bruce Willis in a vest - well yippee-kay-aye MF - but I'm hearing cowboy, not tough guy.

Now of course, we don't have a mountain of information yet, and I'm aware I'm working on a molehill, but it would be very nice to get a little confirmation on who is doing what, and what our new structure is - and hey, if it's the more traditional Non-Executive Chairman role, it'd be nice to hear less from the new chap.

More substance please, less fudge.

 

Agree in principle, but it was announced 2 days ago. So the PR is expected, as unwelcome as it is. Without actually being there, day to day, it's almost impossible to know what he actually does.

Yes it would be lovely to know what our structure actually is. However as stated above we really do suck donkey balls at public relations, so I won't be holding my breath.

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Agree in principle, but it was announced 2 days ago. So the PR is expected, as unwelcome as it is. Without actually being there, day to day, it's almost impossible to know what he actually does.

The thing is, with a traditional Chairman' role, he shouldn't actually be there day to day, so we shouldn't need to be in order to know what he's doing. Two days ago we announced we'd appointed a Chairman - I'm still not sure if we actually have.

 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Agree in principle, but it was announced 2 days ago. So the PR is expected, as unwelcome as it is. Without actually being there, day to day, it's almost impossible to know what he actually does.

The thing is, with a traditional Chairman' role, he shouldn't actually be there day to day, so we shouldn't need to be in order to know what he's doing. Two days ago we announced we'd appointed a Chairman - I'm still not sure if we actually have.

 

Sure. There's very little evidence either way.

I meant myself or yourself being there day to day and seeing what goes on. Like you are at your place of work.

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Sure. There's very little evidence either way.

I meant myself or yourself being there day to day and seeing what goes on. Like you are at your place of work.

I know. For me the way it's pitched just doesn't sit right - I hope he's brilliant at whatever it is we're paying him to do - I hope he knows what it is.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Sure. There's very little evidence either way.

I meant myself or yourself being there day to day and seeing what goes on. Like you are at your place of work.

I know. For me the way it's pitched just doesn't sit right - I hope he's brilliant at whatever it is we're paying him to do - I hope he knows what it is.

Oh, he will more than likely be a disaster. Because Randy.

I do get start you're saying, I just think it's a little early for myself to make my own mind up.

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I literally haven't seen one single poster 'assuming this will work out', not one. Please show me any?

I didn't say anybody did. Deep breath and relax. 

[HanoiVillan]

So why did you write:

'If anything, assuming this will work out would be the blind judgement because that would be ignoring 10 years worth of evidence.'

if you accept nobody is assuming any such thing? Seems kind of like an utterly pointless dig simply in order to have negative to say to me. 

I'm breathing just normally by the way, but thanks for your concern. 

[DCJonah]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

So why did you write:

'If anything, assuming this will work out would be the blind judgement because that would be ignoring 10 years worth of evidence.'

if you accept nobody is assuming any such thing? Seems kind of like an utterly pointless dig simply in order to have negative to say to me. 

I'm breathing just normally by the way, but thanks for your concern. 

A dig at who? 

There seems to be people saying you can't make pre judgements or negative judgements but IMO the evidence of the last 10 years points to it. The real pre judgement would be assuming everything will be good not the other way round. 

Glad you've calmed down now. 

[TrentVilla]

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

So why did you write:

'If anything, assuming this will work out would be the blind judgement because that would be ignoring 10 years worth of evidence.'

if you accept nobody is assuming any such thing? Seems kind of like an utterly pointless dig simply in order to have negative to say to me. 

I'm breathing just normally by the way, but thanks for your concern. 

He wrote it (as he is free to do) because of criticism of the perception people were writing the guy off. It was therefore a polar opposite view to that was being deemed unreasonable as a way of showing actually the view supposedly expressed was actually reasonable. 

He wasn't saying anyone held the view you quote and it was a perfectly reasonable comment in the context of the conversation at the time.

I'm sure he will be delighted you are breathing well but I'm fairly sure his comment was directed at himself.

[HanoiVillan]

A: 'People who say that Birmingham city centre doesn't exist are going to look mighty foolish when I go shopping there this afternoon!'

B: 'But nobody says Birmingham city centre doesn't exist'

A: '. . .'

Edited January 16, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

He wrote it (as he is free to do) [3] because of criticism of the perception people were writing the guy off. It was therefore a polar opposite view to that was being deemed unreasonable as a way of showing actually the view supposedly expressed was actually reasonable. [1]

He wasn't saying anyone held the view you quote and it was a perfectly reasonable comment in the context of the conversation at the time.

I'm sure he will be delighted you are breathing well but I'm fairly sure his comment was directed at himself. [2]

1] No offence, but I've read this sentence six times and it still sounds like Humphrey Appleby. Could you draw me a diagram?

2] It very clearly was aimed at me, as his response directly above yours makes totally clear. 

EDIT:

3] What was the point of these parentheses? Have I at any point suggested he doesn't have the right to post comments on the site? Weird comment. 

Edited January 16, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[DCJonah]

I have no idea why you're getting so worked up. Pre match nerves?

[HanoiVillan]

To be honest, the only thing annoying me is your patronising comments about my breathing, so if you could cut those out, that would be enormously helpful. 

I responded to your comment because it was clearly a straw man. You criticised the views of people 'assuming this [appointment] will work out'. I pointed out that nobody has assumed any such thing. That's the sum of it really. 

[DCJonah]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

To be honest, the only thing annoying me is your patronising comments about my breathing, so if you could cut those out, that would be enormously helpful. 

I responded to your comment because it was clearly a straw man. You criticised the views of people 'assuming this [appointment] will work out'. I pointed out that nobody has assumed any such thing. That's the sum of it really. 

I made the breathing comment because clearly you were desperate for an argument that wasn't there. You still are as you claim I've criticised peoples views with my comment even though I told you I wasn't. You're wrong in the way you interpreted it and the way you continue to interpret it. 

So maybe count to ten this time. 

[OutByEaster?]

Gents, can you leave it at that please or take it to PM. Thank you.

[Davkaus]

Not much of a public speaker, not much of a writer either. He'd be lucky to get a C in GCSE English with that letter.

[Kingman]

Now go get us a striker, You Whopper!