AntrimBlack Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Why not? If they've decided they need to revamp the scouting network and they want to bring somebody else in to do it, but Lerner has said they can't do that and Riley stays, can you not see how that might lead to them being unhappy? I can't see Lerner causing this in order to keep Riley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) 1 minute ago, AntrimBlack said: I can't see Lerner causing this in order to keep Riley. Lerner is an irrational nut job. I could see him causing a resignation over a disagreement on which sweets to stock in the vending machines. Nobody at the club eats Curly Wurlys but he does, so **** em. Edited April 19, 2016 by sexbelowsound 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say he pushed them out the door. I said Lerner not agreeing to sack Riley pushed them out the door because it meant the owner was undermining them. Bernstein said the actions they wanted to take were not open to compromise. Sacking Almstadt, Fox but not Riley could be an example of a "compromise". Sorry Dorris - I miss read. But my point still stands. Reilly for me wouldn't be a resignation factor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 I wouldn't be surprised if Reilly was being an arse behind the scenes as he thinks id is the big man now the other two have gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Maybe Riley had retained a direct reporting line to Lerner (maybe Hollis too)? Bernstein/King advise; Lerner(/Hollis?) ask Riley for "advice on the advice". It's a classic corporate dysfunction, particularly a risk if an organisation is run by a rich incompetent playboy with no real experience of running a business (not that Villa is such an organisation of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 If they had the clout to get rid of the CEO, why would a scout throw a spanner in the works? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 19, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted April 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, villan_007 said: But my point still stands. Reilly for me wouldn't be a resignation factor. Maybe, I can certainly see a situation where he might be. I don't think the size of the factor matters if it causes the owner to undermine the board when he's presumably promised he won't get involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 19, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted April 19, 2016 1 minute ago, villan_007 said: If they had the clout to get rid of the CEO, why would a scout throw a spanner in the works? Because Lerner agreed that Fox should go but not Riley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffmaster Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 It is strange that Riley stays on, when Almstadt and Fox are out the door. Especially when the main problems this season stem from last summer's recruitment process. So there might be something in this Riley theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said: Lerner is an irrational nut job. I could see him causing a resignation over a disagreement on which sweets to stock in the vending machines. Nobody at the club eats Curly Wurlys but he does, so **** em. I bet he has an inferiority complex, he's clearly never going to be half the man his dad was and is squandering everything he built up. He's what you call a massive loser, if you take aside the fact he inherited a **** load of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phumfeinz Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) I was (cautiously) optimistic that with the new board in place we could at least stabilize in the Championship next season and then go from there. It is now clear that we are truly **** as long as Lerner remains in charge. This club is dying. Edited April 19, 2016 by Phumfeinz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted April 19, 2016 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted April 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: If they've decided they need to revamp the scouting network and they want to bring somebody else in to do it, but Lerner has said they can't do that and Riley stays, can you not see how that might lead to them being unhappy? I wonder if that may be part of it, but not all of it. Why would the FB people want to sack Reilly - wouldn't that be a Hollis thing? or the next manager? From the words in their letters it sounds like perhaps there was a "plan of action" that had been drawn up by the football board people and that having been previously told they would be responsible for implementing the plan, RL objected to part(s) of that plan being implemented. We kind of have an idea of what we think needs to happen - which would include urgently appointing a manager (who you would expect, working with the FB would determine scouting and player recruitment and rejections). To interview managers, the FB would need to know what the future of the club is (stability) and what the budget is and what the structure is...etc.) I assume they'd have made proposals in these areas. And that some or all of these might have been rejected. With RL wanting to sell asap, perhaps he was not willing to follow a recommendation that for example a new manager would want know that there would be no change of ownership in the next year, or perhaps RL wanted to choose the manger, not the football board, or perhaps a million things. But we only know that rejection/compromise of a radical plan put to RL was enough for two of the FB to resign on the spot. Given Bernstein in particular is far far better qualified to make and take football based decisions, and given Merv is a genuine lifelong villa fan and an expert in the world of finance and RL is a spoilt rich kid with a record of terrible decision making, it has to be a bad thing. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Because Lerner agreed that Fox should go but not Riley? I just can't see it. They could bring in a few scouts and just ignore everything he suggested whilst keeping him on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchard Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 22 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said: Riley's position is not important enough to cause the resignations. I'd say head of recruitment - the one sorting out managerial appointments, choosing players with his marvellous track record over last summer, makes him very much important enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 This is AVFC. We appointed Fox who previously was a Commercial Manager as CEO, Reilly my have the title of Chief Scout but who knows what his role is or how much authority he holds. Who else could undermine Bernstein? Why hasnt Reilly gone already with the other two cronies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Reilly showed what a incompetent fool he is with collymores statement with moyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 19, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted April 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Reilly showed what a incompetent fool he is with collymores statement with moyes. Assuming that's true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 The problem will be money, with Lerner it always is money. The board have agreed their forward strategy, and Lerner has refused to bankroll it. The obvious answer is often the right answer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Hang on a bit. People are suggesting it is to do with Riley or Reilly. Laughable truly laughable. This lot sacked Tom Fox, CEO and friend of Lerner. Gone fired sacked and now people are trying to say he stopped them sacking a glorified chief scout? Yeah right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 fwiw my guess would be the problem was a lack of response to key questions Lerner won't have been so direct or competent as to have given a high budget, or a low budget, or an idea he would be gone on June 20th or anything else in any way useful. He will have been asked some basic questions, budget and timescale. There will have been no timely response. Which is where the Board is then thoroughly undermined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts