tonyh29 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 My mate went to "Villa Dave's " funeral a month or so back and Graham Taylor was there, representing the club as I understood it ( so was Cowans) ..he asked Taylor if he would come back to the club as DOF or something and Taylor replied "it would be nice , I'd be up for that " (or words to that effect) I can't help think he would have been a better appointment than Little .. I'm not against the little appointment I just think GT would have been better suited 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 If anything, I think Andy Townsend might direct a little too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 thank god that Andy Townsend rumour was shot down quickly. man is an absolute moron 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's Your Round Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Zatman said: thank god that Andy Townsend rumour was shot down quickly. man is an absolute moron Oh good, was it just a rumour then? I've just seen the reports on newsnow and was about to start crying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnock1984 Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Was the most recent chap the head of football operations or are we still expecting somebody else to come in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 What exactly is Steve Hollis doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 On 01/04/2016 at 10:51, Stevo985 said: The thing Stan says about how we should be wary of Lerner just lowering the price is true, and something I've been saying for a while. I want Lerner gone as much as the next guy. But if he lowers his asking price too far, then the chances of us getting someone even worse increases. Even though Lerner is shite, we should still be wary of who takes over from him. Things could actually get worse. £62.6 million he purchased the club for in 2006. 10 years later you have to ask yourself "what are we really worth now?". If you did nothing but account for inflation that would get you to around £82 million, but that assumes of course that value of the assets have not depreciated. That we are (barring the formalities) relegated is a huge and obvious reduction in value of the club. TV money going, reputation in tatters, playing staff requires investment. I would go as far as to say that as the TV money is the huge bulk of revenue generation it is not unreasonable to suggest that we are worth less now in real terms than we were when Randy purchased the club. This is in part a reflection of how big a risk we are to invest in. We have a very real and predictable reduction in income thanks to the parachute payments, with little or no means to mitigate against it other than cut our outgoings. The unpredictable nature of sport means that we are by no means a certainty to get promoted and there is a very small window in which to do that before we become an established lower league team. The risk is massive and risk reduces the value. So without my rose tinted AViators on, what do I hand on heart think the club is worth? Probably not much more than Randy paid for us 10 years ago. Will he sell the club for that sort of money? I doubt it. get relegated again and we won't even be worth the combined value of the assets. He should lower the asking price because we are not worth what he wants for us. No decent businessman is going to pay twice what we are worth and maybe, just maybe this is why we are struggling to find a buyer. If you buy a Ferrari and wrap it round a tree it does not appreciate in value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 6, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted April 6, 2016 34 minutes ago, Straggler said: £62.6 million he purchased the club for in 2006. 10 years later you have to ask yourself "what are we really worth now?". If you did nothing but account for inflation that would get you to around £82 million, but that assumes of course that value of the assets have not depreciated. That we are (barring the formalities) relegated is a huge and obvious reduction in value of the club. TV money going, reputation in tatters, playing staff requires investment. I would go as far as to say that as the TV money is the huge bulk of revenue generation it is not unreasonable to suggest that we are worth less now in real terms than we were when Randy purchased the club. This is in part a reflection of how big a risk we are to invest in. We have a very real and predictable reduction in income thanks to the parachute payments, with little or no means to mitigate against it other than cut our outgoings. The unpredictable nature of sport means that we are by no means a certainty to get promoted and there is a very small window in which to do that before we become an established lower league team. The risk is massive and risk reduces the value. So without my rose tinted AViators on, what do I hand on heart think the club is worth? Probably not much more than Randy paid for us 10 years ago. Will he sell the club for that sort of money? I doubt it. get relegated again and we won't even be worth the combined value of the assets. He should lower the asking price because we are not worth what he wants for us. No decent businessman is going to pay twice what we are worth and maybe, just maybe this is why we are struggling to find a buyer. If you buy a Ferrari and wrap it round a tree it does not appreciate in value. I don't disagree with any of this. You may have misinterpreted my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Andy townsend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Is steve Hollis still chairman or is it Bernstein ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 13 minutes ago, Richard said: Is steve Hollis still chairman or is it Bernstein ? Bernstein has taken over from Fox - running the football department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 In Pat Murphy's article above (in which he says that Andy Townsend won't become DOF 'cos we're not going to have one, instead we're going to have a Head of Football Operations and that will he Bevington), he refers to Bernstein as the "chairman". Maybe an editing error, or a slip of the pen, or maybe he is genuinely confused about Bernstein's role. I know I am. I haven't got a clue about how the club is now being run and who us doing what. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 16 minutes ago, briny_ear said: In Pat Murphy's article above (in which he says that Andy Townsend won't become DOF 'cos we're not going to have one, instead we're going to have a Head of Football Operations and that will he Bevington), he refers to Bernstein as the "chairman". Maybe an editing error, or a slip of the pen, or maybe he is genuinely confused about Bernstein's role. I know I am. I haven't got a clue about how the club is now being run and who us doing what. Bernstein is heading up the football board alongside Little, Merv King and quite possibly Bevington now. Major decisions such as appointing a manager though will ultimately go before the main board which would include Hollis and Krulak. This is what Bernstein said very recently. Nothing has changed as far as who the Chairman is as that would be a major announcement. Ultimately as supporters we just want these people to start making the right decisions don’t we something they haven’t done for years. Changes needed to made there is no doubt about that. Massive test for them coming up over the next few weeks with the appointment of a new manager but regardless of who is sitting on the board unless a manager is going to get assurances regarding financial backing no decent manager is likely to want to touch us. Certainly not someone like Moyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMcKenna Posted April 7, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted April 7, 2016 20 minutes ago, briny_ear said: In Pat Murphy's article above (in which he says that Andy Townsend won't become DOF 'cos we're not going to have one, instead we're going to have a Head of Football Operations and that will he Bevington), he refers to Bernstein as the "chairman". Maybe an editing error, or a slip of the pen, or maybe he is genuinely confused about Bernstein's role. I know I am. I haven't got a clue about how the club is now being run and who us doing what. I agree and am also confused. They appear to have done the right thing by bringing in 'football people' but I have never heard of a football club having a distinct 'football board' as a subset of the main board. Like many things over the last decade, those in power, think AVFC has to do things differently and this has invariably led to disastrous results. It still concerns me that there is window dressing going on. Ultimately Hollis and Krulak will sign off on any new manager, budgets etc etc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, MikeMcKenna said: I agree and am also confused. They appear to have done the right thing by bringing in 'football people' but I have never heard of a football club having a distinct 'football board' as a subset of the main board. Like many things over the last decade, those in power, think AVFC has to do things differently and this has invariably led to disastrous results. It still concerns me that there is window dressing going on. Ultimately Hollis and Krulak will sign off on any new manager, budgets etc etc To be honest I am willing to give it a chance, I am not overly concerned who does what as long as the decisions are made to rebuild this great club in the summer. I have faith in Bernstein to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, MikeMcKenna said: I agree and am also confused. They appear to have done the right thing by bringing in 'football people' but I have never heard of a football club having a distinct 'football board' as a subset of the main board. Like many things over the last decade, those in power, think AVFC has to do things differently and this has invariably led to disastrous results. It still concerns me that there is window dressing going on. Ultimately Hollis and Krulak will sign off on any new manager, budgets etc etc I think it's an acknowledgement that Hollis and Krulak are not qualified to make decisions regarding the football side of the club - and therefore will be taking the advice of those who are (I don't know how Mervyn King does qualify mind you). Perhaps it's just showing how things are now different to the previous disastrous setup. Maybe there'll be a commercial board also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Townsend was here for most of Little's reign and was his captain IIRC. Must be Brian Little who's recommended bringing him in. I hope he doesn't reject any players because "he's almost struck that too well Clive".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 I just hope that, whoever is on whatever board.They get it right FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 I think its a ploy from Hollis to keep Krulak out of the equation The next management appointment will be the most important one since GT1. Imagine if Bernstein, King, Bevington & Little decide on Mr X as the one. They then take that name to Hollis (1) Krulak (2) Bernstein (3) & King (4) to rubberstamp it. (Vote) Hollis chose Bernstein & King (Main Board, Bevington & Little (Football Board) so why appoint them then ignore their suggestions? If Krulak comes up with something like "But Randy wants Mr Y" A simple 3/1 vote ( SH DB SirMK v Krulak) will get the Football Boards man in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 There's obviously a new parlour game in the making here: "Let's invent ways in which AVFC might be run, who does what and how decisions are made." More seriously, the "football board" surely needs to be the main board (and vice versa). Everything the AVFC board does and every decision it takes should be focused on promoting the footballing success of the club. What else would there be for them to discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts