Jump to content

The Randy Lerner thread


CI

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Who is running the football side of things? Is the new chairman going to make decisions on managers and spending or is that Tom Fox? Who is going to be over seeing plans on the pitch? I was hoping we'd moved away from all responsibility given to the manager and we'd have a plan in place, so that what ever manager we hired was working towards that. 

It sounds to me that the new chairman is going to do things that Tom Fox seems much more qualified to do. 

The structure of this club has been an utter shambles. I don't see how this makes any difference. I guess what it does is allow Lerner to have even less involvement. But the problem is the entire club will still be ran to meet his ambition. Whether he's involved or not ultimately the club is run to get by cheaply until a buyer is found. Hiring this guy changes nothing for me. Until the cancer at the club is gone we will always be held back. 

Your failure to understand corporate structures generally or Villa's in particular doesn't make it a shambles. 

 

If Hollis comes in and achieves the "culture of continuous improvement" mentioned in the statement he will have been a roaring success. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Who is running the football side of things?

I actually hope they see Remi as their man in this department. Didn't he have a lot to do with Lyon in terms of the club's footballing strategy re youth etc?....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Eames said:

Your failure to understand corporate structures generally or Villa's in particular doesn't make it a shambles. 

 

If Hollis comes in and achieves the "culture of continuous improvement" mentioned in the statement he will have been a roaring success. 

 

No, my understanding has nothing to do with it, the evidence we've seen for years makes it a shambles. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

No, my understanding has nothing to do with it, the evidence we've seen for years makes it a shambles. 

 

 

Evidence of what? Because the outcome on the pitch and the corporate structure of the business are not as closely aligned as you seem to think. 

 

The CEO of Sainsbury's is not directly responsible for a pack of mouldy tomatoes on the shelf in one of his shops - or even one the stores burning down. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eames said:

Evidence of what? Because the outcome on the pitch and the corporate structure of the business are not as closely aligned as you seem to think. 

 

The CEO of Sainsbury's is not directly responsible for a pack of mouldy tomatoes on the shelf in one of his shops - or even one the stores burning down. 

 

 

But they will be linked in some areas.

For example, the over spending under MON. We seemed to have a manager running everything until it reached financial breaking point. That's not good structure. 

We've appointed contrasting managers with contrasting ideas, which has led to millions in wasted money building and rebuilding squads. That's not good structure. 

Tom Fox, recently said that our commercial revenue improvement over the 10 years has been incredibly low, in an era of FFP that's been terrible for us and that has to be down to the structure in place. 

We're on our 3rd manager in 12 months and our newly appointed transfer committee have put together a squad that's bottom of the league. 

I'm not just focusing on the corporate structure or the football side of things. But from what I've seen over Lerner's time here the structure put in place, that is meant to improve us, has done the complete opposite. That's pretty much a shambles IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, El-Reacho said:

Think this is Lerner signing off and AVFC standing on their own two feet. Fox and Hollis will run the club and take responsibility for everything, set and manage their own budgets, recruit staff etc.

This ^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DCJonah said:

But they will be linked in some areas.

  1. For example, the over spending under MON. We seemed to have a manager running everything until it reached financial breaking point. That's not good structure. 
  2. We've appointed contrasting managers with contrasting ideas, which has led to millions in wasted money building and rebuilding squads. That's not good structure. 
  3. Tom Fox, recently said that our commercial revenue improvement over the 10 years has been incredibly low, in an era of FFP that's been terrible for us and that has to be down to the structure in place. 
  4. We're on our 3rd manager in 12 months and our newly appointed transfer committee have put together a squad that's bottom of the league. 
  5. I'm not just focusing on the corporate structure or the football side of things. But from what I've seen over Lerner's time here the structure put in place, that is meant to improve us, has done the complete opposite. That's pretty much a shambles IMO. 

Numbered for clarity 

 

  1. Yep I'd agree because the structure in place appeared to be Randy => MON. 
  2. Poor recruitment. Not poor operational structure
  3. Poor financial management/poorly run business not necessarily a problem with the structure although I absolutely accept a link 
  4. Nothing to do with the corporate structure of the club. A better manager than Sherwood would have achieved more with these players. 
  5. You're not focusing on the corporate stucture but the crux of the point appears to be that the structure is a shambles because it hasn't yielded an improvement. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'It is similarly clear that this great club has not been on a stable footing for at least five years'

Is this . . . an apology? I do believe it might be. 

'I expect to remain engaged . . . although at a somewhat further distance'

Could he get any further? I told you his comet was leaving near-Earth orbit. 

'Randy has consistently provided financial backing no less so than last year'

6arEaCj.gif

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Eames said:

Numbered for clarity 

 

  1. Yep I'd agree because the structure in place appeared to be Randy => MON. 
  2. Poor recruitment. Not poor operational structure
  3. Poor financial management/poorly run business not necessarily a problem with the structure although I absolutely accept a link 
  4. Nothing to do with the corporate structure of the club. A better manager than Sherwood would have achieved more with these players. 
  5. You're not focusing on the corporate stucture but the crux of the point appears to be that the structure is a shambles because it hasn't yielded an improvement. 

4. That's debatable. I didn't just say structure of the corporate side of Aston Villa. We seem to have people in place who aren't qualified or have the experience of doing it. 

5. I think the structures behind the scenes and in running the football side of things have been pretty shambolic. On the whole we've seen poor results on and off the pitch and are falling behind our competition. If the structures in place worked then that wouldn't be the case.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El-Reacho said:

Think this is Lerner signing off and AVFC standing on their own two feet. Fox and Hollis will run the club and take responsibility for everything, set and manage their own budgets, recruit staff etc.

The word removed signed off five years ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

So was that little sentence within the hollis piece his actual statement as per Garde's request? Or are we expecting something separate to this organisational fluff?

I think this is most likely all we will get. Quite why we had to send staff out to the USA to talk to our "custodian" if this was all that was to come from that escapes me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, El-Reacho said:

Think this is Lerner signing off and AVFC standing on their own two feet. Fox and Hollis will run the club and take responsibility for everything, set and manage their own budgets, recruit staff etc.

I would have thought that our "custodian" would still set the budget and that his staff will then manage it unless there will be no money put into the club by our "custodian" from now on/after this window and the club will then only be able to use income received from profitable player trading/SKY (possibly after this season)/ticket sales/other club income if that income results in a a profit on the balance sheet. If so, money may well be too tight to mention for some time at Villa Park!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2016 at 15:25, Eames said:

Your failure to understand corporate structures generally or Villa's in particular doesn't make it a shambles. 

 

If Hollis comes in and achieves the "culture of continuous improvement" mentioned in the statement he will have been a roaring success. 

 

To a fan, corporate structure doesn't really matter so much, what matters are the results on the pitch, how 'well run' and efficient we are as a corporation is absolutely, at best, a secondary consideration.

Obviously, the two are connected, results on the pitch have a massive impact on corporate endeavors, lets see how our income drops when we're in the championship (for instance).

So far, Hollis has given one interview, and came across as a bit of a word removed. The line about 'it's not about the money' is a stick that he has given others to beat him over the head with. 

Edited by Dr_Pangloss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â