Keith Wyness

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Eastie said:

Surely if Round has the responsibility for the football side then shouldn't he have more clout than wyness on managerial appointments ? 

Possibly. You'd hope that the club's various people draw up a shortlist, considering record, character, style, buying and selling record, player development record, reputation, health considerations, financial aspects, availability, coaching team/associated and then do some interviewing and then come up with a top 2 or 3 and then narrow it down from there. I don't go with the notion that Wyness decides who to recommend. I think the board decide and that Dr X is involved too (as we saw with RDM)

[DCJonah]

6 hours ago, Eastie said:

This . 

Both should be gone , football has changed in recent years and these two have not moved with the times in my opinion , time for swift action by xia .

I'm a bit gutted that xia has spent this amount of money while trusting the wrong guys. 

I believe wyness is probably still arguing for bruce to have more time. 

[Keener window-cleaner]

8 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

 

In my view Wyness should go with Bruce.

I think the last 18 months have been an utter disaster in terms of appointments and the resulting transfer activity.

Away from the football side of things it is hard to see signs of any improvement in the running of the club despite the PR piece put out last week.

Some will say how can I judge, that we don't know enough about what he does to assess, well that is true but people that I know and more importantly trust do and based on their assessment I think change is needed.

Big changes are needed at Villa Park and in my view they don't stop with the manager.

That's interesting to hear. From the outside, my impression was that he has done pretty much everything you can expect from him, especially when it comes to the transfer dealings, getting the players the manager wated. I guess I have fallen for the PR-image of him. It's fundamental that he has the support of the people below him, if they dont believe in him his days should be numbered. 

[TrentVilla]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Not really. Firstly it's not managers plural, it was Bruce (and possibly whoever's next, if or when the time comes). And he doesn't do it based on "his" opinion, but on the results of what the football people (Brian Little etc) and consultation shows up as the way to go, and taking into account the views of the owner, too. I think whatever his strengths and weaknesses to kind of scapegoat one man for the decisions is not quite aligned with reality, if anyone were to do that (not saying you are, Trent).

I disagree. It was managers plural, he was the one he put together the shortlist to replace Di Matteo, I've reason to believe he was also responsible for the ultimate decision. If Bruce went tomorrow should Wyness still be in post I believe it would be the same process. It is also clear Round was his appointment although clearly he isn't a manager.

I don't know but I think it's also reasonable to assume he had some input in the decision to appoint Di Matteo. I struggle to believe the likes of Little had any say in either Di Matteo or Bruce.

 

[markavfc40]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Not really. Firstly it's not managers plural, it was Bruce (and possibly whoever's next, if or when the time comes). And he doesn't do it based on "his" opinion, but on the results of what the football people (Brian Little etc) and consultation shows up as the way to go, and taking into account the views of the owner, too. I think whatever his strengths and weaknesses to kind of scapegoat one man for the decisions is not quite aligned with reality, if anyone were to do that (not saying you are, Trent).

I agree. My opinion is that Di Matteo wouldn't have been Wyness's choice but even if he was he was hardly way left field was he.

In terms of Bruce some fans may not have wanted him but on paper he was hardly an illogical choice. Four promotions the most recent of which was 4 months before we appointed him. Vast experience and experience of captaining a big club and lived in the area for years and fully aware of the size of the club and the expectation that comes with managing us. He ticked a lot of boxes in terms of where we are and where we initially need to get to. It hasn't worked out but it happens and hindsight is a wonderful thing. 

In terms of what goes on behind the scenes the new owner and his CEO have been in place for 16 months. The club was a shambolic mess behind the scenes after years of neglect from the previous regime. You don't fix that in just over a year.

He may be doing a crap job. I don't know. I very much doubt any of us do. The appointment of Bruce though as a stick to beat him with is a weak one for me as even if you weren't over joyed with the appointment looking at his CV you would struggle put an argument together to say it was a diabolical choice and one worthy of sacking the person, or people, who recommended him.

Edited September 10, 2017 by markavfc40

[mikeyp102]

9 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

 

In my view Wyness should go with Bruce.

I think the last 18 months have been an utter disaster in terms of appointments and the resulting transfer activity.

Away from the football side of things it is hard to see signs of any improvement in the running of the club despite the PR piece put out last week.

Some will say how can I judge, that we don't know enough about what he does to assess, well that is true but people that I know and more importantly trust do and based on their assessment I think change is needed.

Big changes are needed at Villa Park and in my view they don't stop with the manager.

Could you give examples of what they say he is doing wrong?

[Eastie]

5 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I agree. My opinion is that Di Matteo wouldn't have been Wyness's choice but even if he was he was hardly way left field was he.

In terms of Bruce some fans may not have wanted him but on paper he was hardly an illogical choice was he. Four promotions the most recent of which was 4 months before we appointed him. Vast experience and experience of captaining a big club and lived in the area for years and fully aware of the size of the club and the expectation that comes with managing us. He ticked a lot of boxes in terms of where we are and where we initially need to get to. It hasn't worked out but it happens and hindsight is a wonderful thing. 

In terms of what goes on behind the scenes the new owner and his CEO have been in place for 16 months. The club was a shambolic mess behind the scenes after years of neglect from the previous regime. You don't fix that in just over a year.

He may be doing a crap job. I don't know. I very much doubt any of us do. The appointment of Bruce though as a stick to beat him with is a weak one for me as even if you weren't over joyed with the appointment looking at his CV you would struggle put an argument together to say it was a diabolical choice and one worthy of sacking the guy who recommended him.

The problem is not so much the appointment of Bruce but that they have still not sacked him having had over 40 games and cash and made little improvement  results wise . 

Fair enough we all make mistakes but when doing so far better to admit it and correct things than hope it will all come good .

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Possibly. You'd hope that the club's various people draw up a shortlist, considering record, character, style, buying and selling record, player development record, reputation, health considerations, financial aspects, availability, coaching team/associated and then do some interviewing and then come up with a top 2 or 3 and then narrow it down from there. I don't go with the notion that Wyness decides who to recommend. I think the board decide and that Dr X is involved too (as we saw with RDM)

My recollection form when Round spoke to us is that he consults with a number of people at the club and then presents reports on candidates and a recommendation to Xia. 

 

[markavfc40]

43 minutes ago, Eastie said:

The problem is not so much the appointment of Bruce but that they have still not sacked him having had over 40 games and cash and made little improvement  results wise . 

Fair enough we all make mistakes but when doing so far better to admit it and correct things than hope it will all come good .

Ultimately the decision to sack will rest with Xia. I don't know if behind the scenes Wyness and/or Round are calling for him to go or not. I guess though having decided he would lead us into this season, backed in him bringing in some of his transfer choices, that they would want to give him a few games. I think had we have failed to get a win before the International break he'd have been sacked but during that last week we beat Norwich and Wigan and drew with Bristol.

I think the club desperately want stability and I can see the  logic in that as chopping and changing managers every few months has gotten us to where we are now. At the same time you can't have stability for stability sake. As long as Bruce remains manager then I'd imagine the hope is he will turn things around but at the moment he is one game away from the sack for me and I think lose on Tuesday and he will be gone. Win and he gets another couple of games before possibly facing the same prospect. For what it is worth I don't see us getting a result on Tuesday and he will be gone.

Edited September 10, 2017 by markavfc40

[Junxs]

I'm not Wyness' biggest fan, but it would be extremely harsh to sack him on the basis of what Bruce has failed to do.

I guess I don't really know what his job role is, but sacking him for the shortcomings of Steve Bruce would be like putting a parent in jail for a crime that their child had committed.

At the time of Steve Bruces appointment we could all (mostly) see the logic behind it, actually it was hard to argue against it.  If it was a blindingly obvious shit appointment like McLeish was at the time, then yeah I'd agree but he's appointed one manager (who many agreed with) but got it wrong - not really a sacking offence

[Eastie]

7 hours ago, Junxs said:

I'm not Wyness' biggest fan, but it would be extremely harsh to sack him on the basis of what Bruce has failed to do.

I guess I don't really know what his job role is, but sacking him for the shortcomings of Steve Bruce would be like putting a parent in jail for a crime that their child had committed.

At the time of Steve Bruces appointment we could all (mostly) see the logic behind it, actually it was hard to argue against it.  If it was a blindingly obvious shit appointment like McLeish was at the time, then yeah I'd agree but he's appointed one manager (who many agreed with) but got it wrong - not really a sacking offence

Depends how long he continues to bsck Bruce or whether he holds his hands up and accepts he's not the right manager.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

13 hours ago, mikeyp102 said:

Could you give examples of what they say he is doing wrong?

This would be interesting to know.

And also, who is making the managerial appointments? What OBE stated is different to what Trent Villa is claiming. Which is it?

[This Could Be Rotterdam]

15 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I disagree. It was managers plural, he was the one he put together the shortlist to replace Di Matteo, I've reason to believe he was also responsible for the ultimate decision. If Bruce went tomorrow should Wyness still be in post I believe it would be the same process. It is also clear Round was his appointment although clearly he isn't a manager.

I don't know but I think it's also reasonable to assume he had some input in the decision to appoint Di Matteo. I struggle to believe the likes of Little had any say in either Di Matteo or Bruce.

 

Do you think theres much chance of him being sacked along with Bruce? 

[omariqy]

If we sack him then who's gonna drive the Villa engine?

[Eastie]

1 hour ago, omariqy said:

If we sack him then who's gonna drive the Villa engine?

Casey Jones ( google if under  55 ) 

[srsmithusa]

6 minutes ago, Eastie said:

Casey Jones ( google if under  55 ) 

Or if over 55, just start humming along?

[DaveAV1]

8 hours ago, Eastie said:

Casey Jones ( google if under  55 ) 

Damn now I've got a night of steaming and a rolling going on 

[TrentVilla]

 

12 hours ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

This would be interesting to know.

And also, who is making the managerial appointments? What OBE stated is different to what Trent Villa is claiming. Which is it?

Bruce was very much down to Wyness.

[OutByEaster?]

19 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Bruce was very much down to Wyness.

Wyness liked Bruce - but Round set up a group looking at manager, got an outside data company in to look at things and presented the recommendations to Xia- that's part of his job, not Wyness's. In general, we're set up - football for Round, business for Wyness. I don't think Wyness makes these decision. Of course, I'm taking Round and Wyness's word for it - what actually goes on I don't know.

 

[TrentVilla]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Wyness liked Bruce - but Round set up a group looking at manager, got an outside data company in to look at things and presented the recommendations to Xia- that's part of his job, not Wyness's. In general, we're set up - football for Round, business for Wyness. I don't think Wyness makes these decision. Of course, I'm taking Round and Wyness's word for it - what actually goes on I don't know.

I don't dispute most of that but I've very good reason to believe that it was Wyness who made the decision having looked at what was presented and having spoken to Bruce and the other runners and riders.

So we will have to agree to disagree.