[Archived] John Williams Leaves

[Veevs]

Got too say the timing of this was telling, not sure what happened but wasnt JW always key in negiotiating new players..

We managed too get the player we wanted in the last minute after Kentaro and Co jumped on a flight out too Monaco and organised our purchase of Formica from under the noses of Monaco where the lad had agreed terms and even trainined with the Monaco team.

We know JW had issues with the sacking of Sam, we know he has family issues and we believe he had issues with Kean but there is an awful lot we dont know.. why did he not go too Pune with Kean, why was he not involved in transfers, did he put the effort in with regards too transfers that someone he apparently does not like?

The whole setup has changed and with it comes changes.

The trust saw the club as a legacy and didnt want any involvement as such JW will of had allot of control, Venkys have this is a business and as such as direct investers/owners they will want too keep closer tabs on things and be involved in important decisions, so you can expect them too want their own people keeping an eye on finances and advisors on the business matter in hand (football).

I just cant help get the feeling that there is allot more too this.

Dont get me wrong, I am still worried about the situation as a whole and a fan of most of what JW has done, he proved himself a great ambassador for the club and did a fantastic job on a shoestring. But we do have too look at the situation as a whole, Venkys are investors and will want closer involvement and as such JW was no longer going too have as much control as in the past.

[King Kenny's Magic]

I just think that his chips were severely ###### on. He probably spat his dummy out and buggered off,i don't blame him. Bad boy Jerome! But the club aint going to crumble because one man leaves. BRFC is bigger than everybody!

[deftangel]

Please explain why Sam's and JW's departures have been conducted in the wrong manner.

New owners have come in, want a change in the direction on the pitch. Sam gets a swift and honourable pay off. In fact an overgenerous one. 12 month pay off for the six months remaining on his contract.

The change in ownership means JW's responsibilities are reduced. He probably isn't happy with that nor with Sam's departure. Probably thinks it is the right time to go. Again AGREES a swift and honourable settlement with the owners.

If it had been handled in the wrong way both would would have left the Club unilaterally and would now be planning legal proceedings with us refusing to pay them because they walked out.

Honestly, do people expect new owners to commit up to a total of 54m for the Club and then not be able to run it as they see fit, but rather be dictated to by a couple of their employees?

I'm on your side on this generally speaking but JW's departure has not been handled gracefully, particularly the aftermath. I will venture JW chose to agree a settlement because he felt he couldn't commit himself to Venky's plans going forward nor their approach in implementing it. Fair enough, it happens. He would have realised that digging his heels in and fighting it would only be detrimental to the club in the long term and perhaps his time was better spent dealing with matters reportedly closer to home. In that light however, the "lost interest" line in the LET is both petty and disrespectful and they've undone some of the good work garnered by largely keeping their gobs shut the last two weeks in my eyes.

The club has to move forward as one and I see no reason to believe JW would not have realised that and exited gracefully. Perhaps after the January window and contract negotiations were largely concluded the natural timing of the end was now but the LET interview just struck me as another bungled PR attempt to gloss over what was clearly a difficult working relationship and they would've been better off not doing it.

[modes98]

Some members on here have been dead against Venky's right from the word go. Nothing is going to change theirs minds and they will do everything they can to 'bad mouth' and criticize the clubs new owners at every possible opportunity.

and others are the other way round. It is what makes it such an interesting debate.

I can understand Venky's wanting to put their own stamp on things but they shouldn't have agreed to the terms of sale if they didn't want to keep JW, Big Sam, etc. By breaking the promises they agreed to abide by it shows them in a poor light. Lets hope results stay/get positive and it can be forgotten.

[Exiled in Toronto]

and others are the other way round. It is what makes it such an interesting debate.

I can understand Venky's wanting to put their own stamp on things but they shouldn't have agreed to the terms of sale if they didn't want to keep JW, Big Sam, etc. By breaking the promises they agreed to abide by it shows them in a poor light. Lets hope results stay/get positive and it can be forgotten.

Keeping them in their roles wasn't in the terms of sale. If memory serves, the only things the Trust put in, and hence really cared about, were it staying a football club, Jack's statue and the name of the Jack Walker stand. i.e., Jack's memory as opposed to his legacy. The rest was just stuff they said, unwisely no doubt, but not unlike Kraft saying they would keep the old Fry factory open.

[67splitscreen]

Keeping them in their roles wasn't in the terms of sale. If memory serves, the only things the Trust put in, and hence really cared about, were it staying a football club, Jack's statue and the name of the Jack Walker stand. i.e., Jack's memory as opposed to his legacy. The rest was just stuff they said, unwisely no doubt, but not unlike Kraft saying they would keep the old Fry factory open.

Outside of the contractual stuff that you mention the rest was an undertaking, staff Etc. The offer to the shareholders were it is all detailed is till on the official in the download PDF

[deftangel]

Outside of the contractual stuff that you mention the rest was an undertaking, staff Etc. The offer to the shareholders were it is all detailed is till on the official in the download PDF

Yup and I imagine the usual "forward looking statements" disclaimer gives them the appropriate wiggle room. It could well be that they intended to keep the existing management structure in place and changed their minds where it became apparent the ideas of both parties were not compatible. It's not clear on that point because there is a lot of ambiguity (largely created by themselves) as to when exactly they were talking to Maradona (and for what).

I think most people acknowledge an end of the season transition would have been preferable for all concerned.

One thing that strikes me in that document actually which I didn't notice before. Williams explicitly mentions the UEFA Financial Fair play initiative. What I know about it is limited but I think I'm right in thinking it would have hit us particularly hard in terms of supposedly "living within our means", turnover etc. Whilst the sanctions only apply in the 2013/14 season, the financial data taken into account starts from next season...which is a possible reason for the haste in needing to sell to someone and/or some of the decisions taken since it's completion. Tenuous, I know.

[67splitscreen]

Yup and I imagine the usual "forward looking statements" disclaimer gives them the appropriate wiggle room. It could well be that they intended to keep the existing management structure in place and changed their minds where it became apparent the ideas of both parties were not compatible. It's not clear on that point because there is a lot of ambiguity (largely created by themselves) as to when exactly they were talking to Maradona (and for what).

I think most people acknowledge an end of the season transition would have been preferable for all concerned.

One thing that strikes me in that document actually which I didn't notice before. Williams explicitly mentions the UEFA Financial Fair play initiative. What I know about it is limited but I think I'm right in thinking it would have hit us particularly hard in terms of supposedly "living within our means", turnover etc. Whilst the sanctions only apply in the 2013/14 season, the financial data taken into account starts from next season...which is a possible reason for the haste in needing to sell to someone and/or some of the decisions taken since it's completion. Tenuous, I know.

The UEFA ruling is a strange one, Ms Desai stated in her last interview she was targeting the Uefa places 5-7th in the next few seasons, which is when the rules kick in. yet as we know the current wage structure is likely to his us hard unless revenue is dramatically increased.

Time will tell if their advisor's have made them fully aware of the fact, there again maybe another reason that JW was axed (IMO ) wages spiralling again.

[brfcjon]

A little less conversation a little more action please.

What does that even mean.

I think if you read through these pages you will see it is what he did and how he did it that is being appreciated. The number of times Arte et Labore is mentioned or referred to says it all in my view. In my view he acted like a Rover (ST prices just to pick one) and that is why most on here appreciates him to the extend that is shown in this thread.

[tony gale's mic]

Firstly I would like to place on record my appreciation of the work undertaken by Mr Williams, for which he was richly rewarded.

But more importantly I would like to place on record my utter amazement at the bare faced hipocrasy of some of the posters on here.

One minute we cannot wait for new owners, due to the absolute disgracefull stewardship of the Walkers Trust.

Run at their behest, by Mr William.

Next minute we lionise him and idolise him as the saviour of BRFC.

Please let us all steer a course conservatism with a little c!

A little less conversation a little more action please.

John Williams didn't "run" the Walker Trust.

He had absolutely no control over the amount of money the Walkers gave to Rovers.

He was responsible for making the best business plan from the various revenue streams available to Rovers, which included our paltry support from our owners and our paltry amount collected on the gate (in comparison with our competitors).

It beggars belief how some of our fans can be so stupid...

[imy9]

John Williams didn't "run" the Walker Trust.

He had absolutely no control over the amount of money the Walkers gave to Rovers.

He was responsible for making the best business plan from the various revenue streams available to Rovers, which included our paltry support from our owners and our paltry amount collected on the gate (in comparison with our competitors).

It beggars belief how some of our fans can be so stupid...

Who hired Ince, gambled our future by giving him more money to spend than Hughes and co. Got our wage level upto 90% at one point etc etc, the man was a good chairman but he was not a messiah, regardless of what some think.

Am I allowed to have this opinion without being refered to as stupid?

[tony gale's mic]

Who hired Ince, gambled our future by giving him more money to spend than Hughes and co. Got our wage level upto 90% at one point etc etc, the man was a good chairman but he was not a messiah, regardless of what some think.

Am I allowed to have this opinion without being refered to as stupid?

You're stupid if you think John Williams ran the Walker Trust, onsidering the Walker Trust was made up of the Walker Family and their representatives, and John Williams was affiliated with Blackburn Rovers. But you haven't expressed that as far as I know..

And yes, hiring Ince was a bad decision, one that I was against from the very start.

But the reason Ince got more money to spend than Hughes etc was because we sold Bentley and Friedel and even with the sell on fee to Arsenal we got around £10 million from those transfers.

And the reason why wages got to upto 90% of turnover wasn't because Williams allowed wages to get so high, it's not like we were like West Ham offering Dyer 80,000 a week. It's because our turnover is so low compared to other Premier League clubs; if you compare us with some of the clubs we compete with (Sunderland, Newcastle), 15,000-20,000 extra fans a week who probably pay more for their ticket adds up to many millions each season. And clubs with similar attendances to us (Bolton, Wigan etc) are in a hell of a lot more debt than we are, apart from Stoke who are financially supported by Peter Coates a lot better than the Trust supported us.

So yes, although your opinion isn't stupid, it's severely misinformed.

[imy9]

You said best business plan, If we ever got relegated, that 90% would have ruined us and we would be looking at a Leeds united situation, a massive gamble, that's a fact rather than a misinformed opinion. RSC was on about 65k a week at Rovers, Zurab a squad player on 30k, not far off West ham were we? How does holding this viewpoint make you a stupid fan?

Purchasing players over the age of 28 who were injury prone/ lower league players with the biggest sum of money spent in one go by any individual manager in Ince was a massive blunder.

[cn174]

If we ever got relegated, that 90% would have ruined us and we would be looking at a Leeds united situation, a massive gamble, that's a fact rather than a misinformed opinion. RSC was on about 65k a week at Rovers, Zurab a squad player on 30k, not far off West ham were we?

Purchasing players over the age of 28 who were injury prone/ lower league players with the biggest sum of money spent in one go by any individual manager in Ince was a massive blunder.

Firstly, how do you know they were on that much?

Secondly, you are allowed to like the Venkys without all the JW bashing you know. I can't of a time before the Venkys when you'd have said things like John Williams made a blunder, could've ruined us bla bla. But now when someone says something negative you're all over it in some way of trying to prove the Venkys are brilliant.

btw JW knew just how bad it could've been for Rovers had we got relegated, which is why we've done everything in our power for the past 10 years not to be relegated - including buying players over the age of 28 such as Andy Cole!!!

(anyway this should be moved to the other thread)

[tony gale's mic]

You said best business plan, If we ever got relegated, that 90% would have ruined us and we would be looking at a Leeds united situation, a massive gamble, that's a fact rather than a misinformed opinion. RSC was on about 65k a week at Rovers, Zurab a squad player on 30k, not far off West ham were we? How does holding this viewpoint make you a stupid fan?

Purchasing players over the age of 28 who were injury prone/ lower league players with the biggest sum of money spent in one go by any individual manager in Ince was a massive blunder.

I said thinking Williams ran the Walker Trust made you come across as a stupid fan, although you're running that title extremely close...

Comparing us to Leeds United is utterly ridiculous. We likely wouldn't have faced a Leeds United situation although we would've struggled to come back up granted. For one our players were on clauses which would've dropped their wages if we got relegated, we would've almost certainly sold some of our players and the parachute payments exist to cover some of that discrepancy too.

Leeds United paid their players some of the highest wages in the country and gambled their future on finishing in the Champions League EVERY season. That was a ridiculous business plan and so their wages were FAR too high. WE on the other hand were paying players the going rate for the Premier League.

Zurab on 30k was on a bit too much in hindsight but then 30k is a pretty average wage for a Premier League side so it's hardly like we were paying him a huge amount. He also signed for us on the back of a successful loan spell where he was a first team player so signing him on wages befitting a first teamer was entirely reasonable, it's just other players dislodged him from the side. He did a decent enough job when called upon.

Why even use RSC as an example?! Are you SERIOUSLY comparing RSC who in his first spell with us was an inspired signing and well worth the wages we paid him (though I'm not overly enthused about his return) with Kieron Dyer who was on 20k a week more and a total failure at West Ham? Seriously?

And ultimately the purchasing of the players was done by Ince. A chairman HAS to back his manager unless under extreme circumstances. I was uneasy about Grella when we signed him but at the same time from JW's non footballing point of view Grella had played 140 games in the previous 4 seasons before joining Rovers so how on earth could you have expected him to gone against Ince's footballing decision to sign him?

[Kelbo]

I said thinking Williams ran the Walker Trust made you come across as a stupid fan, although you're running that title extremely close...

Comparing us to Leeds United is utterly ridiculous. We likely wouldn't have faced a Leeds United situation although we would've struggled to come back up granted. For one our players were on clauses which would've dropped their wages if we got relegated, we would've almost certainly sold some of our players and the parachute payments exist to cover some of that discrepancy too.

Leeds United paid their players some of the highest wages in the country and gambled their future on finishing in the Champions League EVERY season. That was a ridiculous business plan and so their wages were FAR too high. WE on the other hand were paying players the going rate for the Premier League.

Zurab on 30k was on a bit too much in hindsight but then 30k is a pretty average wage for a Premier League side so it's hardly like we were paying him a huge amount. He also signed for us on the back of a successful loan spell where he was a first team player so signing him on wages befitting a first teamer was entirely reasonable, it's just other players dislodged him from the side. He did a decent enough job when called upon.

Why even use RSC as an example?! Are you SERIOUSLY comparing RSC who in his first spell with us was an inspired signing and well worth the wages we paid him (though I'm not overly enthused about his return) with Kieron Dyer who was on 20k a week more and a total failure at West Ham? Seriously?

And ultimately the purchasing of the players was done by Ince. A chairman HAS to back his manager unless under extreme circumstances. I was uneasy about Grella when we signed him but at the same time from JW's non footballing point of view Grella had played 140 games in the previous 4 seasons before joining Rovers so how on earth could you have expected him to gone against Ince's footballing decision to sign him?

That I feel is a top post and quite correct too, compared to other clubs we did ever so well with what we had at the time and retained our Premier League status.

[John]

imy9, I sort of see where you are coming from (just!) however you are well off the mark.

You seem to presume running a football club, and sustaining PL status, with meagre resources is easy?

Plus, you assume, that no one ever makes mistakes, especially when they have been at a club for so long?

Unlike our current owners, and like most successful English clubs, previously we used to let the manager manage.

[Iceman]

Williams left, because he had no say in matters, and decisions which should have come from him. The owners, had involved themselves too much with transfers.

Its their money yes, but that doesn't mean they need to mess in areas, that they shouldn't be involved in.

JW was excluded from virtually everything, so what will the new chairman be doing? Maybe bring a few new ideas in? Its going to be a yes man, because the owners are being a bit too much involved, in the day to day running of the club.

Leave the transfers to the management team, leave the other things to the chairman. The owners, should react when things are moving off track. There is a plan in place, there will be a structure in place, when the new chairman takes over. If things don't go too well, then they should ask questions where the problem areas are and try and resolve it.

I'm giving Venkys my backing, but they got to understand their role, and the roles of every other department. This includes the fans, management, chairman etc. At the moment, its strange decisions, at strange times of the season. We could do with no more disruptions.

[imy9]

The point I was making and has been lost on people is that it is ok to have an opinion without certain righteous authorities on here calling you stupid for it- as the poster before me was called. I think JW was a quality chairmen but he made mistakes have Venkys, as have I...

IF we had been relegated we would have faced ruin. 60 million wage bill in the Championship would have meant major asset stripping with none of the income coming in, thats my opinion and we would have been similar to Leeds.

I mention RSC because a club our size with the income coming should not be paying that money for any player (whilst the trust were in charge), again my opinion.

In my opinion Wolves and West Brom have the perfect business model in that they spend within their means and if they are relegated they are fuly prepared to get back up.

[Iceman]

What is the amount Imy, that we are paying for RSC wages?

[imy9]

It was about 65k a week when he was last here, Nicko mentioned it I think.

[Mattyblue]

Under JW we continued to be competitive in the wages we paid, yes, that meant wage to turnover levels were too high, however Williams believed keeping wages high could attract and keep on the whole better players and committing them to long term contracts (sell ons for big fees, if necessary) was the model to keep us up.

He admitted it was a gamble but it worked. He made mistakes, Ince being the biggest, but any ire should be aimed at the Trust and them alone.

[broadsword]

I'd have thought that the Board of Directors would also have been involved in selecting Ince. I have no real idea as to the machinations of a football club, but for a Chief Exec to have the power to hire for the most important position in the club, it doesn't sound right to me.

[Kelbo]

As a Chairman of any organisation, he can make his point felt, he can say anything in favour or against any argument, however, he cannot vote!!

He can only have a casting vote should there not be a majority one way or the other.

So in the event of sacking or hiring Ince, it will have been an Interview and the board will have made their decision, if JW was responsible for any casting vote, there were other board members who will have voted for Ince.

Likewise, even if JW didnt want to sack Ince, if the board had a majority to do that, then JW would have to accept the fact.

[den]

As a Chairman of any organisation, he can make his point felt, he can say anything in favour or against any argument, however, he cannot vote!!

He can only have a casting vote should there not be a majority one way or the other.

So in the event of sacking or hiring Ince, it will have been an Interview and the board will have made their decision, if JW was responsible for any casting vote, there were other board members who will have voted for Ince.

Likewise, even if JW didnt want to sack Ince, if the board had a majority to do that, then JW would have to accept the fact.

I don't think it worked like that at Ewood Kelbo. I always had the impression that JW and TF were pretty much running the show and making the big decisions, with the other board members playing supporting roles..