Randy Lerner physically departed less than 12 months ago, but he was spiritually absent well before that. Even though he left so recently we appear to be somewhat impatient that the club is not already showing signs of transforming itself back into the kind of force it was in the mid-70s to early 80s. But recovering from a demise is no easy thing, particularly when the latest downturn was inflicted so harshly.
As a historian (as well as a Villa fan) my feeling is that Villa's demise started with the departure of the people most involved with the growth of the club in its first 50 years - namely George Ramsay (retired 1926) and Fred Rinder (resigned 1925), William McGregor having died in 1911. From that point on, it seems to have been mainly a case of ego dominating the management of the club - people taking over the reins because they felt they were better able to do the job, but usually falling short. Yes, ego was involved from the earliest days as well, but at least it was an enlightened and enterprising ego!
Apart from that time just before the War when Fred Rinder briefly came back onto the board, the only time since that we have had a Villa board that has been truly enterprising in the development of the club was from 1969 onwards (and particularly from 1974) to the return of Doug Ellis in 1982. The problem with the 1974-82 group, however, was that they ran into debt and hence that sealed the return of Ellis and his 'manage with caution' approach as his wily ways beat off the challenge from a rival group.
But that time of resurgence from 1969 (sorry, Christmas, 1968!) happened in such a way for a host of reasons that could not be replicated today. There were still many fans who remembered enough of the great times (some went back to pre-WW1) and the feeling that was in the club during such times. And when the board was re-formed at the start of that revolution it had Harry Parkes as one of its directors, a former player of some 17 years standing as a loyal and valued contributor, and a local man. George Edwards was another former great of Parkes's era who had stood up and said his piece in the effort to have the former board put to graze. Eric Houghton (from 1927-on, a Villa player for near 20 years) later came onto the board. He was possibly even more claret and blue than Parkes and Edwards.
There were people around then who knew from first-hand, or from primary sources, how great the club's contribution had been in the evolution of football and were enthused by that. A tradition and mindset was truly in place and one that conveyed an 'air' about the club. There were so many from the fan-base that were called for and came forward to re-build their club. One ordinary fan (Ted Small) came forward to do some small building repairs and ended up as being the stadium manager.
Until the start of the Premier League at least (1992), the fans' connection with the club and its history was strong. But by that time, the occupancy of the surrounding Aston district had already become much-changed and from 1996 the state of football and its management was to drastically change in this country. Football UK started to lose much of its natural connection with the grass roots, not aided by the digital age. And star footballers no longer connected with the fans as they once did.
It can be argued that it was Doug that helped to breed a new style of club management and that he is to blame for so many things, but the story is much more complex than that. And when he went, another - and foreign - management took over at Villa. Ten years later, that owner departed leaving a shell of a club that once was. The heart had been virtually ripped out of it. And many staff lost their jobs: services that had been run in-house became contracted out to save money. An old Villa fan who knows what goes on there says that the backroom atmosphere at the club is not anywhere near what it was even 10 years ago. Where once fans came in numbers to utilise the various facilities in the ground, there has become a lull. It was once a home-from-home for Villa supporters who also worked at the ground, but no longer - thanks to the running-down of the club up to 2016. And the dissipation in the attitude of too many players, which I believe is still present.
It is virtually 50 years since the previous revolution that helped re-build the club and brought it to a greater level of performance - but then lost its way somewhat. Sadly, the kind of revolution that took place in 1968-69 is hardly possible in the way football is today and the club remains owned by someone without a root connection with the club, although his modus operandi appears to be positively different to that of his predecessor. And he is helped by Brian Little, a further step forward from the attitude of the previous administration who believed they knew all the answers yet failed to apply much of substance that worked.
In 2016, it looked on paper as though a new owner with very substantial amounts of money was coming in to turn things around. And, yes, he did spend, though the situation he found when he first got here was different to what he expected. He got on with the job and appears to have restructured the club's main operations well enough. But the new owner (Dr. Xia) is reported to have recently Tweeted: "we need [to] get the right environment system back first, then build winning mentality, stable performance, and football style." In other words, even now (nearly 12 months later), he hints that there is much work that remains to be done; that re-structuring the club does not mean that everything will suddenly start to work smoothly. He's made a sound start, but to get all the gears properly synchronised does take oil, elbow grease and time.
We - as fans - think that the main issue is what we see on the pitch and look mainly to the team manager as the focal point and the butt of our jibes. In a way that's correct, because it's the success (or not) of the play that brings the needed success of the club. And there are a number of accusations that there is "little or no flair or excitement in the team which is [a] hallmark of Bruce". But for me I believe it's the old mindset that has to be re-found as the higher priority: there was a time (it was said) when the Villa were afraid of no-one and played accordingly. I know of matches of old when Villa finished a match with only 9 or 10 players on the field, and yet won convincingly! There was one match in the 1920s when an 8-man Villa team held Everton to a 1-1 scoreline until 20 minutes from time, but then finally fell to two late goals. I feel that Bruce is the kind of manager that wants to achieve that attitude in his team, and with his record of gaining promotion, he must surely be well qualified for at least that purpose. In other words, what we're seeing just now is not truly reflective of Bruce the manager: he knows he has more work to get through.
A key issue, also, is that a football club is not quite like any other kind of business, particularly in that its main employees (the players) have developed a certain power since the 1990s and can directly influence the way the club operates. The players no longer connect so much with the club they play for, except perhaps those that came through the club's own youth process. Part of the club's (and Bruce's) job is to get the old Villa Way into their skulls, and it can't be done overnight.
Re-formulating a successful system or method at a football club is, of course, not an issue that has affected just Aston Villa. A similar problem has occurred at clubs at all levels up and down the country when a take-over has been necessitated.
One such club was Plymouth Argyle, where the new chairman Paul Stapleton declared (in 2009): "There's a mindset that we used to have in the football club, and we've got to get it back again." For me, he hit the key issue - that the capability of success in the club can only come about from the kind of thinking that exists, and is a rule that is common in all organisations.
For Villa, it's a case of how well and how quickly all its new components and people come together and re-find that 'Villa mindset' of old; particularly the players. The owner is determined it should not take too long; he has set a target of promotion as being no further away than another 12 months, and, being a Chinese businessman of (apparently) some repute, he will do all he has in his power to ensure that target is achieved, with or without flair. And with or without Bruce (if it all starts to go awry), I'm sure.
Yes, 'how' promotion is achieved will be the secondary issue after arriving at the necessary mindset. After all, when the team is 3-1 down you expect them to get off their seats and drive forward in at least an effort to retrieve a point, but we're not seeing that just now, partly because the squad still has some square pegs for round holes. I feel sure the Doc will ensure that the main drive to get that mindset - and promotion - will begin this summer.
As a historian (as well as a Villa fan) my feeling is that Villa's demise started with the departure of the people most involved with the growth of the club in its first 50 years - namely George Ramsay (retired 1926) and Fred Rinder (resigned 1925), William McGregor having died in 1911. From that point on, it seems to have been mainly a case of ego dominating the management of the club - people taking over the reins because they felt they were better able to do the job, but usually falling short. Yes, ego was involved from the earliest days as well, but at least it was an enlightened and enterprising ego!
Apart from that time just before the War when Fred Rinder briefly came back onto the board, the only time since that we have had a Villa board that has been truly enterprising in the development of the club was from 1969 onwards (and particularly from 1974) to the return of Doug Ellis in 1982. The problem with the 1974-82 group, however, was that they ran into debt and hence that sealed the return of Ellis and his 'manage with caution' approach as his wily ways beat off the challenge from a rival group.
But that time of resurgence from 1969 (sorry, Christmas, 1968!) happened in such a way for a host of reasons that could not be replicated today. There were still many fans who remembered enough of the great times (some went back to pre-WW1) and the feeling that was in the club during such times. And when the board was re-formed at the start of that revolution it had Harry Parkes as one of its directors, a former player of some 17 years standing as a loyal and valued contributor, and a local man. George Edwards was another former great of Parkes's era who had stood up and said his piece in the effort to have the former board put to graze. Eric Houghton (from 1927-on, a Villa player for near 20 years) later came onto the board. He was possibly even more claret and blue than Parkes and Edwards.
There were people around then who knew from first-hand, or from primary sources, how great the club's contribution had been in the evolution of football and were enthused by that. A tradition and mindset was truly in place and one that conveyed an 'air' about the club. There were so many from the fan-base that were called for and came forward to re-build their club. One ordinary fan (Ted Small) came forward to do some small building repairs and ended up as being the stadium manager.
Until the start of the Premier League at least (1992), the fans' connection with the club and its history was strong. But by that time, the occupancy of the surrounding Aston district had already become much-changed and from 1996 the state of football and its management was to drastically change in this country. Football UK started to lose much of its natural connection with the grass roots, not aided by the digital age. And star footballers no longer connected with the fans as they once did.
It can be argued that it was Doug that helped to breed a new style of club management and that he is to blame for so many things, but the story is much more complex than that. And when he went, another - and foreign - management took over at Villa. Ten years later, that owner departed leaving a shell of a club that once was. The heart had been virtually ripped out of it. And many staff lost their jobs: services that had been run in-house became contracted out to save money. An old Villa fan who knows what goes on there says that the backroom atmosphere at the club is not anywhere near what it was even 10 years ago. Where once fans came in numbers to utilise the various facilities in the ground, there has become a lull. It was once a home-from-home for Villa supporters who also worked at the ground, but no longer - thanks to the running-down of the club up to 2016. And the dissipation in the attitude of too many players, which I believe is still present.
It is virtually 50 years since the previous revolution that helped re-build the club and brought it to a greater level of performance - but then lost its way somewhat. Sadly, the kind of revolution that took place in 1968-69 is hardly possible in the way football is today and the club remains owned by someone without a root connection with the club, although his modus operandi appears to be positively different to that of his predecessor. And he is helped by Brian Little, a further step forward from the attitude of the previous administration who believed they knew all the answers yet failed to apply much of substance that worked.
In 2016, it looked on paper as though a new owner with very substantial amounts of money was coming in to turn things around. And, yes, he did spend, though the situation he found when he first got here was different to what he expected. He got on with the job and appears to have restructured the club's main operations well enough. But the new owner (Dr. Xia) is reported to have recently Tweeted: "we need [to] get the right environment system back first, then build winning mentality, stable performance, and football style." In other words, even now (nearly 12 months later), he hints that there is much work that remains to be done; that re-structuring the club does not mean that everything will suddenly start to work smoothly. He's made a sound start, but to get all the gears properly synchronised does take oil, elbow grease and time.
We - as fans - think that the main issue is what we see on the pitch and look mainly to the team manager as the focal point and the butt of our jibes. In a way that's correct, because it's the success (or not) of the play that brings the needed success of the club. And there are a number of accusations that there is "little or no flair or excitement in the team which is [a] hallmark of Bruce". But for me I believe it's the old mindset that has to be re-found as the higher priority: there was a time (it was said) when the Villa were afraid of no-one and played accordingly. I know of matches of old when Villa finished a match with only 9 or 10 players on the field, and yet won convincingly! There was one match in the 1920s when an 8-man Villa team held Everton to a 1-1 scoreline until 20 minutes from time, but then finally fell to two late goals. I feel that Bruce is the kind of manager that wants to achieve that attitude in his team, and with his record of gaining promotion, he must surely be well qualified for at least that purpose. In other words, what we're seeing just now is not truly reflective of Bruce the manager: he knows he has more work to get through.
A key issue, also, is that a football club is not quite like any other kind of business, particularly in that its main employees (the players) have developed a certain power since the 1990s and can directly influence the way the club operates. The players no longer connect so much with the club they play for, except perhaps those that came through the club's own youth process. Part of the club's (and Bruce's) job is to get the old Villa Way into their skulls, and it can't be done overnight.
Re-formulating a successful system or method at a football club is, of course, not an issue that has affected just Aston Villa. A similar problem has occurred at clubs at all levels up and down the country when a take-over has been necessitated.
One such club was Plymouth Argyle, where the new chairman Paul Stapleton declared (in 2009): "There's a mindset that we used to have in the football club, and we've got to get it back again." For me, he hit the key issue - that the capability of success in the club can only come about from the kind of thinking that exists, and is a rule that is common in all organisations.
For Villa, it's a case of how well and how quickly all its new components and people come together and re-find that 'Villa mindset' of old; particularly the players. The owner is determined it should not take too long; he has set a target of promotion as being no further away than another 12 months, and, being a Chinese businessman of (apparently) some repute, he will do all he has in his power to ensure that target is achieved, with or without flair. And with or without Bruce (if it all starts to go awry), I'm sure.
Yes, 'how' promotion is achieved will be the secondary issue after arriving at the necessary mindset. After all, when the team is 3-1 down you expect them to get off their seats and drive forward in at least an effort to retrieve a point, but we're not seeing that just now, partly because the squad still has some square pegs for round holes. I feel sure the Doc will ensure that the main drive to get that mindset - and promotion - will begin this summer.
No comments:
Post a Comment