It’s time to look at the situation we are in with fresh eyes. For far too long now, the defence of the owner’s management has been down to extenuating financial circumstances, largely because the wage bill funding the players has been overinflated. The fact the financial circumstances are, at least partially, down to the owner indicts more than it does inspire.
If we take a closer look at Aston Villa since Randy Lerner purchased the club, a picture has developed of the owner based on his actions alone. Some may think that his lack of communication is a negative but, in the case of trying to understand the psyche of the man in charge, a lack of PR and spin is actually helpful – actions speak louder than words as they say.
After all, Lerner’s actions have shown his choices, either directly or through Paul Faulkner, to be those of a man who doesn’t understand the non-business circumstances around football. The success that Lerner achieved in football terms was orchestrated by a man who was already in the job when the quiet American took over the club – his own hires since have been less than successful.
After all, when one looks at Lerner’s picks to date – Gerard Houllier and Alex McLeish – they have been poorly made. The exercises in how they were recruited, the lack of true insight into their fit at the club, and their short stays were all the result of bad process.
It becomes more and more evident that Lerner, whilst certainly a keen philanthropist and a good person, is lacking the nous to find the right candidate. Last season, the public pursuit of Roberto Martinez ended in failure. This year, the situation is the same, with only the manager – Ole Gunnar Solskjaer rather than the affable Martinez – being different as the target. The result was identical – rejection, and publicly. Surely an embarrassment considering the American’s propensity for avoiding public dialogue.
If you or I were making a purchase of a new business that we had no knowledge of, we would spend significant time either a) knowing the ins and outs of the situation or b) start employing people who do know the ins and outs.
Lerner’s decision to “not mess with the existing setup” indicates more evidence that he didn’t know how to improve the project, preferring to leave the club’s structure as it was when he first arrived.
Some may consider Lerner’s lack of change as an indication of a desire to be kind towards existing employees, but the reality is he didn’t want to change too much because he didn’t know how to change it for the better. Why else do you think Martin O’Neill was given so much free reign? Lerner deferred to people who he didn’t pick, then didn’t have the ability to improve on those who failed his objectives.
When people didn’t fit, he made scapegoats of them to draw attention away from the board. Some took the scapegoating on the chin in silence, whilst others like O’Neill settled scores in court. Courts don’t pay out unless you have some kind of case, do they?
At present, whilst Lerner and Faulkner have both undoubtedly learned a few things through trial and error, and Faulkner’s aptitude in his business based role has been impressive, there is nothing to illustrate that their own footballing knowledge is evolving. Nothing shows that the next steps will be any different, merely that those steps will be more closely managed financially, though pursuing sponsorships whilst ignoring football decisions is bordering on insanity.
In fact, the actions of the board are similar to employing a person to fix your racing car. If, when you bought the car, you had someone who knew what he was doing with regard to repairs, you would get on fine. Should that person disappear though, and you need to find a new mechanic, how would you know what people say is true? Hearsay? Asking someone who runs a rival team? Surely even the simplest of people know that rivals rarely give clear and honest knowledge to their competitors.
As well as issues with asking rivals, anyone who knows nothing about a topic can be easily led astray by someone knowing even a small amount – it is dangerous to assume otherwise as the world is full of people and agendas, many of which are far from perfect.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, though said man may not be the key to a full view of the club’s situation. This is where the club are at present – judging the whole situation through a macro lens that leaves them, blissfully or otherwise, unaware of the full circumstances.
Yes, any person can ask for references but how do you know if a person’s successes or failures are down to their efforts, or mere circumstantial evidence around them? Is it them who is the positive, or is it the system? Is the manager as important to success as the team of players, or the reverse?
Take a look at Martinez. It has been suggested his lack of interest in leaving Wigan Athletic is down to his previous experience at Swansea City, that he doesn’t want to move on and see another man steal his thunder as he believes Brendan Rodgers has.
However, is Martinez logical in his thinking? Has his performance at Wigan, a club who are at least as big as Swansea, done anything to prove he is as good as Dave Whelan seems to think he is?
Yes, we can say he has made strides in playing football “the right way”, but his Wigan team aren’t generally doing much different since his time at the club. They have, since his time there, fought relegation, finishing safely in game 37 this year rather than game 38 in other seasons. Even Steve Bruce did more than that when he was in charge, and I bet there are far fewer people backing Bruce rather than Martinez for the Villa job.
Swansea, by comparison, have come into the top flight and finished higher up the table. Martinez may well believe that his foundations are the reason Swansea have succeeded, but his movement to a different club has perhaps shown he can do little besides come up with the ideas, and not necessarily execute them as well as Rodgers has.
It is either that or Swansea are the better club, which seems to sit at odds with why Martinez would leave them apart from a prior personal relationship with Whelan. If the latter is the case, and Martinez continues to be loyal, he is irrelevant in Villa terms – his loyalty, if still applicable, means Villa can’t get him anyway, and may do well to avoid a second public shunning.
Villa’s choice on managers has parallels with how Swansea made personnel changes when changing their ethos. However, given the lack of longevity for many managers in the modern game, perhaps football dictates that decisions on who selects the team do not need to be deep and considered. Perhaps it really is just pot luck, although dynasties are rarely built on such a process.
Long term success, that which benefits a club across multiple managers, requires an ethos that will last longer than the motivation of any individual manager may well produce. In short, the club needs a structure and informed plan, and one that is backed by people who are both interested in the long term, and who are suitable qualified in knowing what makes a good football manager, as well as knowing when he should be backed or sacked.
Finding counsel that can provide such a solution may well be a challenge, given that it could be argued that the successful clubs in our era have either been stable in managerial terms as well as historically successful, such as Manchester United or
Arsenal, or recently awash with more money than Villa can afford, such as Chelsea and Manchester City.
Given that Lerner and Villa can’t conjure up more money directly, they need stability. The possibility of the currently unchosen manager ending up sacked at the end of the season would only serve to reinforce that Villa are a club in flux, without a direction – not exactly the greatest marketing proposal to sell the club to yet another new man, and more likely to mean more mediocrity via mediocre managers.
The future may well involve taking a risk on the next manager and, in my opinion, this is a product of all of Villa’s turmoil – they need to go for a man who will see the job as a step up, whilst simultaneously ensuring said manager can operate in an ethos that will be longer standing than any individual player, manager, or coach. Villa’s proud history offers little to tempt a candidate who has to work with little compared to the club’s successful periods – their future needs blue sky thinking, not more of the same old, same old.
If Villa can do this, and it will be a massive if, then the club stand a chance of finding a way forwards. If not, and Lerner and Faulkner continue to operate with their sole focus on solving finance problems rather than football ones, then the only way Villa will be moving is down – a football club’s finances will recede regardless if they fail to perform as a footballing project.
So good luck Randy, you’ll need it although, if you are sensible, you’ll realise you need more than mere luck in the search for Villa’s next manager.
*** NOTE *** Apologies for my absence in the past week, I’ve been on holiday with the Mrs but am back now after a week without internet connections, and will continue to focus on developing Aston Villa Life for the benefit of the community.
The Author
