Steven Hollis

[TRO]

1 hour ago, AntrimBlack said:

I am surprised that so many people seem to be all right with the idea of having 2 boards. Seems to me to be a recipe for disaster.

Maybe they deep down are not alright with it.

........but willing to give it a chance on the back drop of everything else we have done in the last 5/6 years has been unsuccessful

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, AntrimBlack said:

I am surprised that so many people seem to be all right with the idea of having 2 boards. Seems to me to be a recipe for disaster.

Aston Villa: Civil War

[AshVilla]

Where's gareth's photoshop skills when you need him

[PussEKatt]

Seems reasonable to me.One lot handles on the pitch, the other lot handles off the pitch.Surely other clubs do that too ?!

[OutByEaster?]

On 24 March 2016 at 19:49, AntrimBlack said:

I am surprised that so many people seem to be all right with the idea of having 2 boards. Seems to me to be a recipe for disaster.

We haven't really got two boards though - we've got pretty much the same structure we had before, but with different personnel and a re-branding. I think the people who are in those positions know what their roles are (Bernstein is CEO etc) - I think the re-branding is largely aimed at us in order to make us think we're completely changed the way we're doing things. 

We've got a board and a senior management team, same as before, same as everyone else, same as just about any business - the silly titles are the only thing that's making anyone think otherwise.

 

[Harry]

I think I posted something along these lines when Hollis was appointed but I think its worth saying again now he is firmly in role. A good friend of mine, in fact someone I trained with, is a partner at KPMG so knows Hollis very well. His observation was that he would have only taken the role at Villa on the basis of what was in it for him. Given the sort of money he would have made at KPMG over the years I very much doubt it is money he wants (although that always helps!).

Taken in isolation that observation could be construed as worrying as you doubt he would have the clubs interests really at heart. Flip it around and here's a bloke who already has a high profile in Midlands business so why would he risk tarnishing it at Villa unless he is confident he can sort it out and add to that profile. Added to that he must have sought and got clear assurances from Lerner about autonomy and probably financing.

Lerner still wants to sell but he wants to sell a properly run football club rather that the circus we have been treated to over the last decade. Hollis is the man tasked with delivering that. So far apart from the PR gaffs at the start I think he is doing a pretty good job.

[AntrimBlack]

45 minutes ago, Harry said:

I think I posted something along these lines when Hollis was appointed but I think its worth saying again now he is firmly in role. A good friend of mine, in fact someone I trained with, is a partner at KPMG so knows Hollis very well. His observation was that he would have only taken the role at Villa on the basis of what was in it for him. Given the sort of money he would have made at KPMG over the years I very much doubt it is money he wants (although that always helps!).

Taken in isolation that observation could be construed as worrying as you doubt he would have the clubs interests really at heart. Flip it around and here's a bloke who already has a high profile in Midlands business so why would he risk tarnishing it at Villa unless he is confident he can sort it out and add to that profile. Added to that he must have sought and got clear assurances from Lerner about autonomy and probably financing.

Lerner still wants to sell but he wants to sell a properly run football club rather that the circus we have been treated to over the last decade. Hollis is the man tasked with delivering that. So far apart from the PR gaffs at the start I think he is doing a pretty good job.

Early days, Harry. There have been a lot of false dawns. I will wait and see.

[VillaChris]

All about the summer for me.

New manager to be appointed and what sort of transfer budget will we have?

I know players need to be sold....I'd happily get shot of about 15 of them from this squad but we still need to show ambition at a reduced level and sign some good players for championship level.

It's good we're getting competant people at board level now but Brian Little is a bit old now to be scoring match winning goals on the pitch, we need talent on the grass aswell.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, AntrimBlack said:

Early days, Harry. There have been a lot of false dawns. I will wait and see.

Totally agree AB that is why I said 'I think'. So far me seems to be making the right calls which is sort of amusing given the less than look warm reception he was given on the likes of VT. I agree its early days but all we as fans have left now is hope.

[briny_ear]

On 3/28/2016 at 14:08, OutByEaster? said:

We haven't really got two boards though - we've got pretty much the same structure we had before, but with different personnel and a re-branding. I think the people who are in those positions know what their roles are (Bernstein is CEO etc) - I think the re-branding is largely aimed at us in order to make us think we're completely changed the way we're doing things. 

We've got a board and a senior management team, same as before, same as everyone else, same as just about any business - the silly titles are the only thing that's making anyone think otherwise.

 

They may be clear but I'm totally confused now. I thought the club was recruiting a new CEO (the Birmingham mail even suggested Jacqui Smith for the role). So at some point the club will appoint a new CEO who on his/her first day will be introduced to David Bernstein who will say "hello, I'm really the CEO around here". Also I see they have now brought in some guy called Adrian Bevington to do a study of where the season went wrong. Er. thought they'd already done that, which is why all those guys got sacked.

Despite the reassurances of some contributors to this thread, I just can't shake off the impression that they are making it up as they go along in true AVFC Lerner-era fashion.

[terrytini]

On ‎28‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 14:08, OutByEaster? said:

We haven't really got two boards though - we've got pretty much the same structure we had before, but with different personnel and a re-branding. I think the people who are in those positions know what their roles are (Bernstein is CEO etc) - I think the re-branding is largely aimed at us in order to make us think we're completely changed the way we're doing things. 

We've got a board and a senior management team, same as before, same as everyone else, same as just about any business - the silly titles are the only thing that's making anyone think otherwise.

 

Don't agree. In fact I think the opposite. Whilst you consider it effectively a window dressing job with no substance behind it, I think it is a hugely substantive change which happens to have also resulted in window dressing.

I think we have very different people with a very different brief and very different levels of authority.  Any management set up can look like any other but it will be the reasoning behind it, and what has been signed up to, both by the owner and the new guys, that will make it a very different beast.

Whilst the essence is the same, it is still about running a football Club, everything else will be different, and done differently.

 

At least, I hope so.  If you are right we will find out pretty quickly unfortunately.

[dn1982]

10 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

They may be clear but I'm totally confused now. I thought the club was recruiting a new CEO (the Birmingham mail even suggested Jacqui Smith for the role). So at some point the club will appoint a new CEO who on his/her first day will be introduced to David Bernstein who will say "hello, I'm really the CEO around here". Also I see they have now brought in some guy called Adrian Bevington to do a study of where the season went wrong. Er. thought they'd already done that, which is why all those guys got sacked.

Despite the reassurances of some contributors to this thread, I just can't shake off the impression that they are making it up as they go along in true AVFC Lerner-era fashion.

Quoting the Mail is bad enough but mentioning Jacqui Smith as part if it just shows they're clueless!! All clubs have a structure with different layers. Hollis isn't a football man so he's brought in people who are. We are football club that needs to be run like a proper business. In the past we've been one or the other and recently not successful at either! I think the CEO role will be defunct as it seems it's being split. Hollis can get the club running properly with specialised people doing their actual jobs. One thing is we are appointing well known names so we assume they know what their roles will be. We seem to be getting very good experienced people so it's something to be pleased about. 

[terrytini]

Hollis is effectively a 'ghost' owner IMO.

[OutByEaster?]

37 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Hollis is effectively a 'ghost' owner IMO.

Mine too. He essentially replaces Lerner for the purposes of running the football club imo.

I see it this way (from the football board thread) - although I'm not sure what Bevington's role is.

 

So, in terms of how the club is run:

• Hollis has replaced Lerner as the person who makes the bigger decisions and steers things
• Bernstein has replaced Fox as the person that runs the business of the club on a day to day basis
• Ashworth (by the sound of things) has replaced Almstadt as the man who manages lots of day to day sports stuff
• King will now oversee the finances - not a direct replacement for Robin Russell, but overseeing that aspect of the club albeit from a less involved perspective
• Little will provide footballing advice, most likely on player purchasing once the scouting department has been restructured by Ashworth - not a complete like for like replacement for Riley, but removing the need and influence of a super-scout with a less hands on advisory role.

Which means? It's pretty much the same structure as before.

Now there's every reason to hope that this group of people proves more effective than the group of people they're replacing, but in terms of reporting and operations, this isn't a revolution, or indeed a real change to the way the football club operates (and indeed how most football clubs operate) it's a continuation with new people.

In fact, the bit that's strangest about it is the insistence of re-titling everything as a "football board" to provide the illusion of a completely new set of principles and ideas, for me, that's very much a Hollis signature - here's to hoping this isn't the emperors new clothes.

As it stands, by all accounts Bernstein and Ashworth are experienced and talented people, and they're the key - I'm hoping Ashworth is appointed soon and that this group of four (under Hollis) can begin to get us pointed in the right direction again.

[sne]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Mine too. He essentially replaces Lerner for the purposes of running the football club imo.

 

Well that's good.

If things doesn't go as expected at least we know who we're gonna call

[AshVilla]

Has Ashworth been appointed? can't see anything about it on the news

[OutByEaster?]

No, he hasn't, it was strongly rumoured last week but seems to have died off - sorry if that's confusing, I dragged that post out of another thread from a couple of days ago. I guess it's possible that Bevington will now be doing that job, or that he's here on a temporary basis until Ashworth is available - but that's just wild speculation on my part - the announcement on Bevington's role was peculiarly vague.

 

[briny_ear]

Seems everyone is trying to invent structures in an attempt to make sense of the welter of new arrivals/job titles/reviews but the club is one step ahead.

No-one has yet managed to fit Adrian Bevington into the new structure and the OS statement about his role is a s clear as mud.

Pit me down as definitely sceptical about the sustainability of all this.

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

• Hollis has replaced Lerner as the person who makes the bigger decisions and steers things - Yes
• Bernstein has replaced Fox as the person that runs the business of the club on a day to day basis - No
• Ashworth (by the sound of things) has replaced Almstadt as the man who manages lots of day to day sports stuff -No
• King will now oversee the finances - not a direct replacement for Robin Russell, but overseeing that aspect of the club albeit from a less involved perspective- Yes
• Little will provide footballing advice, most likely on player purchasing once the scouting department has been restructured by Ashworth - not a complete like for like replacement for Riley, but removing the need and influence of a super-scout with a less hands on advisory role -.No

Which means? It's pretty much the same structure as before. - No

Only guesses, but the blue is what I think. I agree Hollis is doing the job of overseeing it all and taking the big decisions.

I'm not sure with Bernstein, it depend what you mean by "business". I don't think Bernstein is the new de facto CEO, which is what Fox did (badly). He may have done good commercially, or maybe not, but it looks like Bernstein is providing informed opinion and advice to Hollis, rather than running everything.

Ashworth  - dunno who this is, but my impression was that the saintly sir Brian was to advise on the type of area covered by Almstadt, who seemed to be using stats rather than acquired expertise.

Kind - agree, but probably looking a bit wider

Brian Little I guess is advising on how to set up things, along with Bernstein so it works properly on a sound football basis, relating to scouting, and football structure for most stuff, and probably along with Remi Garde as well.

But we're all kind of in the dark, which perhaps we should't be. There's a risk of it looking like people appointing people to appoint people to do studies too advise people to advise people. Which I don't think it is, I think it's an effort to do a really comprehensive examination of the whole structure and club and culture and do it thoroughly and in a short time.

I don't think they need a new CEO until they have finished reviewing and deciding what needs to change.

[AndyBM]

before the change at the top i had the opinion that there was too many people in the boardroom (too many chefs etc...) then it looked like things would be more stream-lined, but no, too many people in the boardroom again.

ellis. stride and ansell managed to sort everything out between them...

as for the whos who line up of directors, there is still no sign of any money being made available to strengthen the area of the club that needs it the most, the first team.