Bernstein/King resign?

[Duck]

I'm thinking it's more likely to do with investment.

Randy seems hellbent on making us a self sufficient club. If he isn't going to spend money to rebuild in any shape or form, then no manager in his right mind is going to take this job. 

If theres no investment then the football boards hands are tied. 

Itd be enough for me to leave as well.

On a different note, why is Dion Dublin showing us around a crap house on homes under the hammer? 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I don't think Riley is the problem either. It sounds like they wanted a budget which would allow them to implement some radical change (I'm still guessing a DOF) and Lerner via Hollis said no chance.

Edited April 19, 2016 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[PieFacE]

12 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

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.

Yup I'd go with this. 

[welshvillan]

Randy has probably been like this since 2009. MON leaving divides opinions but if he is this short sighted and smashes knee jerk reactions in left, right and centre.... who can blame him for leaving like these guys have....

PS - Don't intend to derail thread!

[sexbelowsound]

It was clear to everyone and their dog that this club was going to need substantial investment to make us competitive again.

Are we really suggesting that King and Bernstein went into this, got as far as coming up with a strategy and then found out their wasn't a budget when they wanted to implement it?

They aren't that naive.

[briny_ear]

Why hasnt Reilly gone already with the other two cronies?

Maybe because they spelt his name wrong on the dismissal letter?

Paddy Riley: "Nothing to do with me, then, this one's for someone called Reilly".

[emoji6][emoji6]

[romavillan]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

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.

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell really, Bernstein and King have clearly put everything in the last few weeks to putting a plan to save the club together, whether that included sounding out managers and the requirements these managers would want we don't know, they did have a plan though which involved "radical" change and was "fundamental" to the revival of the club. 

Now it would seem that RL, or Hollis acting on instruction from RL knowing the budgets available or how RL saw the remit of the football board, disagreed with core elements of this plan and King and Bernstein told him to stick it then if he didn't want to listen their position was untenable,

I don't see how Riley would be a sticking point in all this, for me it's about resources, King ran the **** bank of england FFS I'm pretty sure the plans were well costed and I'm pretty sure Bernstein would know what kind of investment was necessary. They probably had an acceptable minimum in mind to acheive the goal of promotion in 1/2 years and the actual funds on the table from RL it seems were nowhere near.

 

[Richard]

1 minute ago, sexbelowsound said:

It was clear to everyone and their dog that this club was going to need substantial investment to make us competitive again.

Are we really suggesting that King and Bernstein went into this, got as far as coming up with a strategy and then found out their wasn't a budget when they wanted to implement it?

They aren't that naive.

Naive no.  Mislead and downright lied to which makes their position untenable.  Maybe

[sexbelowsound]

Just now, Richard said:

Naive no.  Mislead and downright lied to which makes their position untenable.  Maybe

Most likely. I'd like to think two people with the background's that they have, working here whilst Garde was here as well, might have cottoned on that Randolph is a lying prick much sooner.

[Gary Thomas]

If you the letters closely (below) they suggest that Randy played a part but others were also involved (Reilly, Krulak, who knows).  The underlying issue seems to have been proposed new leadership or something related to operations at Bodymoor. That is all we actually get about the proposals, that and the fact they were radical and did not lend themselves to compromise.  We can also infer that some influential people (or maybe one person) did not accepted these radical proposals. He or they refused to adhere to the authority of the new football board and they did not follow the agreed reporting lines. The communications between Lerner and members of the Football Board seem to have brought the issue to a head and King and Bernstein concluded after that meeting that their plans were not backed and hence impossible to implement and hence they could not carry out their role.  That is all we can infer from the actual letters isn't it, everything else about who, what, why and where is speculative until King, Hollis or Bernstein tell us more.

Mervyn King Letter (MKL)

“You will be aware of recent communications between the owner of Aston Villa and members of the Football Board.  Following these, I am sure you will understand that it is with real sorrow that I am writing to tender my resignation.”

“It is impossible to carry out the role that I was asked to perform” 

“New leadership is desperately needed to change the culture and capacity of the Club at all levels…..we were able to make a start.  But progress has stalled.  It is clear that a sale of the Club to a new owner must be brought about as soon as possible, and I wish you every success in that effort”

David Bernstein’s letter (DBL)

I was invited on the board to oversee a much needed review of the football side of the Club including all aspects of operations at BH. Following this I was to lead the implementation of this review and the ongoing management football at Aston Villa.  To this end a football board was created consisting of four people with considerable football and relevant experience.  For this new structure to work it required all at the club the accept new disciplines, clear reporting lines and to adhere to the authority delegated to the new football board. Unfortunately this has proved impossible to implement the agreed structure and position has become quickly untenable. The issues at the Club are fundamental and the solutions are radical and do not lend themselves to compromise.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Gary Thomas

[sexbelowsound]

4 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

Maybe because they spelt his name wrong on the dismissal letter?

Paddy Riley: "Nothing to do with me, then, this one's for someone called Reilly".

Nobody cares how his name is spelt. 

[mwj]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

"...review of the football side of the Club including all aspects of operations at Bodymoor Heath." (apologies, this quote is from Bernstein's letter, I'd remembered incorrectly)

"...New leadership is desperately needed to change the culture and the capability of the Club at all levels."

"...When you, David Bernstein and I were asked join the board, we were able to make a start." (I took this to refer to the sacking of Fox and Almstadt)

"...But progress has stalled." (Riley is still here)

"...It is clear that a sale of the Club to a new owner must be brought about as soon as possible," (Randy insisting Riley stays)


I don't know any of this. I'm just putting a theory out there. I think it's very possible that Bernstein and King wanted Riley gone as part of the cull, yet he's still here. If that's because Randy insisted he stayed then I can see why they would feel they had to resign.
 

I think you are putting 2+2 together and getting 15. I don't think a single person or position or player would cause them both to resign very very publicly.

I read all those quotes as basically Randy / Krulak not wanting to spend any money on anything (on facilities, staff, a new manager, signings, getting rid of the rats for a cut price etc etc.). They were brought in to renovate the club and basically can't do that. King's letter very obviously points the finger at "the owner"

[PieFacE]

Yeah I see it as the board came up with their strategy to go forward and make the necessary changes, they were told they'd have the backing of Lerner to do this, they have put forward their plan and managerial choice, however because there's maybe a slight interest in someone wanting to buy the club Randy has decided to not spend any money until takeover negotiations have finished one way or another, leading in the board not able to do their jobs. 

Edited April 19, 2016 by PieFacE

[rubberman]

This has to be much more fundamental than Reilly.  King and Bernstein are big hitters - they wouldn't walk out of a job like this, so quickly, over one person.  

My take is they have identified a shortlist of managers and have been told they a) can't pay any compensation so aren't able to look at their preferred candidates who are in jobs and b ) possibly due to takeover discussions, or more likely just Randy saying no, aren't able to offer any guarantees that a new manager will be backed so are unwilling to approach candidates without being able to offer them the job properly.  Essentially , they've identified we need a new manager soon and he needs to be properly backed (duh!) - Randy won't commit, so they are unable to deliver and do their job.

[sexbelowsound]

Just now, mwj said:

I think you are putting 2+2 together and getting 15. I don't think a single person or position or player would cause them both to resign very very publicly.

I read all those quotes as basically Randy / Krulak not wanting to spend any money on anything (on facilities, staff, a new manager, signings, getting rid of the rats for a cut price etc etc.). They were brought in to renovate the club and basically can't do that. King's letter very obviously points the finger at "the owner"

When 2+2=5 isn't enough. Go for 15.

I actually don't think it's as wide of the mark as 15 though. A regular 5 would suffice. 

[Richard]

3 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said:

Most likely. I'd like to think two people with the background's that they have, working here whilst Garde was here as well, might have cottoned on that Randolph is a lying prick much sooner.

a month,  one month.  Perhaps they have had limited contact,  perhaps they thought when told everything had to change that included the owners attitude and perhaps,  just perhaps,  this was the last straw which showed he was not changing.  one month,  4 weeks.  King is motivated by being a Villa fan too.  So he quit and shafted Lerner in the process.  Fair play

[sexbelowsound]

1 minute ago, rubberman said:

This has to be much more fundamental than Reilly.  King and Bernstein are big hitters - they wouldn't walk out of a job like this, so quickly, over one person.  

My take is they have identified a shortlist of managers and have been told they a) can't pay any compensation so aren't able to look at their preferred candidates who are in jobs and b ) possibly due to takeover discussions, or more likely just Randy saying no, aren't able to offer any guarantees that a new manager will be backed so are unwilling to approach candidates without being able to offer them the job properly.  Essentially , they've identified we need a new manager soon and he needs to be properly backed (duh!) - Randy won't commit, so they are unable to deliver and do their job.

He might not be worth resigning for as a single entity however imagine if, say David Moyes, had said he didn't want to work with him so they thought "Right, lets get rid" and then were told no.

Speculation of course but that would be a reason why for me they might resign.

[Duck]

Randy really is a plonker.

Two of the most qualified people in the land, King for finances and Bernstein for saving a similar club, come in and try to help. Suggest spending some money to get us back up which in turn would completely bankroll us when the prize funds go up.

And they quit because they basically aren't allowed to do their jobs.

ffs randy if that is the actual reason they left you'll never be able to step foot in the midlands again.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said:

Are we really suggesting that King and Bernstein went into this, got as far as coming up with a strategy and then found out their wasn't a budget when they wanted to implement it?

They aren't that naive.

Indeed. Plus the resignation letters don't mention resourcing at all, not even vaguely. But they do very much mention other areas. Whilst you can never say there's no money related aspect to any of it, there's clearly other factors  - reporting chain, responsibility, authority, comprimise etc. which have been a resigning issue.

[avfcwills10]

I think the fact that the club posted on the official site that we are in 'extensive' talks for a takeover and literally nobody believes a word of it, tells us everything.

If we can see through the bullshit from afar then educated gentlemen like these aren't going to take long to realise that they've been brought in for nothing other than good PR for the club. Glad it has backfired on Lerner.  

Randy is a disgrace and if he doesn't sell (not convinced that's even on the agenda now), we're going to be a midtable championship club for the foreseeable (at the very best).