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.
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.
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 .
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 .
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.
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.