Alright I've asked this question before, but can anyone clear up why this guy is STILL! At our club.

I just don't get it,he was responsible for bringing in these failures yet he's still picking up a salary. Every single person in the old and even the second phase regime has gone.

Thoughts PLEASE!

Views: 356

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think its probably because contrary to what we believe, he is actually quite good at identifying players.

The players that he identified (or at least we assume he identified) all look/looked like good signings. Amavi, Ayew, Gana were a success, to different degrees. Veretout had trouble settling, which wasn't Reilly's fault, but still looked a semi-decent young player.

I imagine that the core of the rest of our incomings (Richards, Lescott, Gestede) were all Sherwood's - and arguably they were the worse of the summer signings. I don't know who identified Crespo though. That was a waste and a half. 

The real fault came from who decided to replace three key first team players (Delph, Benteke, Cleverly) with a host of players who were either past their best, or had no premier league experience whatsoever. I doubt that decision was Reilly's.

That is only my view though. 

Unfortunately that has been our down fall since O'Neil left,selling our best players.He was experienced enough to know that you can't replace this quality.

There was a thinking that we could go out and replace these established good! Premiership players with young and inexperienced foreign players. I don't accept that Reilly was responsible for the players you have mentioned and absolutely no failures. As "Head of Recruitment" he must! Have had input into EVERYONE! Coming in the door in my opinion,that's why allegedly Sherwood was upset. He certainly mentioned this through the press.

Still very strange to me what's going on.

Think you're right, Umma. Amstadt is probably the most culpable, as he was doing a job for which he had no qualifications, and Reilly reported to him. Sherwood takes some blame as he didn't have the experience or authority to impose his ideas of what the team should look like. The critical problems were the overall balance to the team, too many players with no PL experience and poor choices of "experienced" players. These weren't Reilly decisions.

Having said that, it's clear that Reilly had a big hand in sinking Garde; the failure to bring in the players that Garde wanted seems to have been deliberate, although who actually decided that and who orchestrated it isn't entirely clear. Whatever, it was an appalling case of backstabbing. In the event, even if Garde had been supported, I think we'd still have been relegated because by the end of the season the bar had been raised too high, but we could have put on a much better showing.

Andrew Stone arriving will probably help shift Reilly out, According to the B.Mail Xia also wants a technical director to complete the shakeup. Can't see Reilly surviving that.

I think we do need to realise that Reilly arrived when Lambert was still manager. This guy has had input into signing "players" since 2014. He's head! Of recruitment for goodness sake. Allegedly he had a huge input into bringing in Sherwood too. His judgement with the vast majority of his recommendations has been poor. Rumour has it he had input to ALL! Signings.

As far as I understand this guy has never kicked a football in his life, now for some people that might be acceptable but surely the modern recruitment team or Head of recruitment should have a level of understanding of a player.

There is plenty of ex professional football players with the accedemic qualifications as well as the practical experience of playing and understanding the demands of football.

Just read some of Tom Fox's statements before!the start of the season that for me tells me he had TOTAL control of recruitment. Sherwwood realised this very quickly and indeed made comments for months about it.

The opinion i take on this whole sorry episode of our Clubs recent history is if it was Reily or Amstadt or Sherwood who was at fault for the recruiting of the player's good or bad last close season.

The main problem was as i have stated on here many time's with the cash that was generated by the sale of Benteke and Delpoh the first priority should have been to get quality replacement's for these player's and replace the like's of Cleverly with quality proven Premiership players first team preferably but certainly not player's well past there sell by date or unproven foreign import's .

The action's of trying to complete a full and complete squad overhaul on those fund's available was looking for trouble regardless who recommended the player's from which ever league they were playing in .

The left over fund's from the replacement of those key player's with quality should or could have then be used to buy in unproven talent to develop . We did see some player's make a positive impression but if you look at all the signing's made that was the exception rather than the rule .

That is why in my opinion we find ourselves in the position we are in now .

U.T.V
Rizla01

Couldn't agree more with what you have said Rizla01.

But! It's the "Phylosophy" whis is AND! Was proven wrong. Buy cheap imported untried young or older players, that's where they definitely got it wrong.

You look at your Big Sam's of the world, yes of course bring in new exciting untried Premiership players but mix it with established players.

For that reason ALL! Of the above have to go, and take full responsibility of their "philosophy for Aston Villa" which resulted in our relegation . I strongly believe that these people even influenced Lerner by recommending that there was a cheaper option of success. They thought this was simply a stats game and they had all the answers. One thing is for sure Lerner changed his policy and I strongly believe some muppet influenced him. Probably one of the " Academy coaches " who have stolen a living at our club for over TWO DECADES.

Rizla - yep, and that was basically down to Lerner. Lerner apparently refused to sanction a spend of more than £10m on any player. Hence the "cheapos in numbers" approach. Hence spending money on players like Crespo simply because he was cheap and the overall transfer fund hadn't been exhausted. Rhodes was available last summer and in January - too expensive. So was Austin - too expensive.

Sure Reilly had input into all the transfers. So did Almstadt and Sherwood. With Lerner having the key to the cashbox. A mess all round. Players like Amavi, Gana and Ayew are obviously of PL potential; they were good signings, although lacking PL experience. It was the underlying approach which was the killer. Somehow, we had to compensate for losing Benteke, for a start, and we didn't.

duckie's and McP

That is the part i just cannot get my head around ? .

We had a Owner who everybody know's he was desperate to sell the Club .! .

Would it not make good business sense to protect the Club's standing as a premier League team thus commanding for Learner the opportunity to get the maximum money out of any sale ? .

The action's of Learner and his " Play Station" advisory's robbed him of a considerable amount of money it also robbed Villa of Premier League status ! 

The other pill that me and other fan's find hard  to swallow is that he let the Club get relegated in the very season that the fund's available for the next season for all Club's in the Premiership went through the roof with the new sponsorship deal , This was yet another missed opportunity for Learner to enhance his chances of a sale at maximum price ? .

As we have all said at one time or another the Learner and his adviser's have taken this Club backward's and not forward's and left all fan's feeling frustrated with this owner and his policies .

U.T.V

Rizla01

Reckon the answer is that Lerner was never fit-for-purpose. He hadn't a clue when it came to deciding what was needed in running the club. He never had a workable strategy  which looked to the future. His few public remarks, particularly of late, can only be described as "unusual". His one good act was appointing Hollis.

Well we have signed the keeper today, someone it appears RDM has handled and no mention of Riley. I think he is holding onto the door frame by his finger nails.

So we now have a new keeper and centre half that could be the end of Guzan and Lescott, I do hope so!
I don't fully agree with you Mcparland. Lerner was fit for purpose. We can't possibly say he wasn't, the philosophy was proven successfull under O'Neil's regime, that is a fact.

Now we can argue all day long how O'Neil overspent, but I personally will always come back to a great finishing place top 6 for the last three seasons with an increased points total. For some reason again!we can argue,Lerner changed direction but!this didn't happen until after Houlier left. Lets be honest here Houllier spent a bl......y fortune and was the HIGHEST! Paid manager since we were founded. Lerner fell out with O'Neil I think wanted him out and out of spite CONTINUED TO SPEND. That's a fact.
Darren Bent cost £586,000 for every appearance. £27,000 per touch!
24m!!!!!!!! No this was personal Randy continued to spend.Only when Houllier left did we start to go down the other way which took us in a new wonderful direction.

The problem when MON was here was that there was hardly any contact between MON and Lerner. They met once a year to discuss the strategy for the following season. That alone set the scene for huge misunderstandings. If Lerner needed to cut down on spending then there should have been detailed discussions with MON on the subject. If MON couldn't free up money by moving on unwanted players there should have been discussions why. Lerner's handling of the club was poor from the beginning.

RSS

START A DISCUSSION

© 2018   Created by SPORT WITNESS.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service