During half-time in the TV coverage of the Frankfurt game, a particular text message was featured. I can’t remember the exact words, but the gist was – ‘Milner is a great player. Freddie Shepherd would be foolish to sell him’.

On reflection afterwards, it seemed odd that the chairman, rather than the manager, should be the one cited as making the decision. There’s no suggestion that Villa are planning the kind of inflated bid that would force the hand of a reluctant Board, as with Spurs and Carrick. And yet at the time, both the studio pundits and I didn’t immediately register the text as unusual. We all seem to have accepted that our chairman has a far bigger say in football matters than is customary at a football club.

In a recent edition of Jimmy Hill’s football discussion programme, the journalists talked about Shepherd’s tendency to get over-involved in the football side as though it was established knowledge. They all seemed confident of the truth of this idea, including one who was basically supportive of Shepherd continuing in his role.

This charge of interference is a serious one, and would go some way to explaining our recent decline. It’s a charge that has become so constant that Shepherd has seen fit to issue a denial, albeit a rather limited one. So how did this idea get round, and should we accept it as valid?

The chief source is Robson’s autobiography. He paints a picture of a secretive chairman who was reluctant to involve him in the nitty-gritty of transfers and contracts. Among other things, he states that the chairman did not inform him of a bid for Alan Shearer, or of attempts to sell Bowyer and Speed. When you consider that, as with all such books, there were probably other episodes that didn’t meet the approval of a libel lawyer, it’s a worrying picture.

Souness has kept silent – I suspect that a confidentiality clause was part of his contract, or part of his severance agreement. And yet, to say the least, there was plenty of evidence of a lack of co-ordination between manager and chairman on the transfer front.

For me, the first sign of this was a rather strange public statement from Souness, to the effect that he wanted Anelka, the player wanted to join the club, but he didn’t know what was happening. A few days later, a bid was apparently lodged, and rejected by Fenerbahce as derisory. The story went round that Shepherd had simply found out from Man City how much the Turkish club had paid (£3 million), and then offered the same amount.

This is hardly the behaviour of a chairman that is keen to land his man. Overall, it seemed that Souness had become frustrated at Shepherd’s reluctance to follow his wishes and make a bid, and had forced his hand by going public. Shepherd had responded, but had put in a bid that was bound to be rejected.

Such manipulation is rather inevitable given the way that the chairman and manager apparently work together over transfers. It seems that they agree on a list of players, and then it is up to the chairman what bids are made, and who is brought in. Clearly, Shepherd can exercise a major influence on the outcome by either over-bidding or under-bidding, depending on who he decides he does or doesn’t want.

A similar pattern seems to have been followed with Boa Morte. Souness apparently wanted the player, the player wanted to come, but Fulham regarded the eventual bid as laughable.

As everyone knows, we ended up with Luque and Owen instead at the last minute, for roughly twice the amount that Anelka and Boa Morte would have cost. I wouldn’t suggest that Souness actually rejected Owen and Luque and was over-ruled. However, he was desperate for a left sided player and a striker, and the choice at that late stage was Luque and Owen or no-one. With Owen, Souness seemed to be a spectator as Shepherd and Shearer together engineered the highly expensive transfer coup.

Souness was an admirer of Owen, but his general strategy up to that point seemed to be building a team around Dyer, in a 4-3-3 / 4-5-1 style. He stated that he didn’t want orthodox wingers, and whilst Luque could fit into 4-3-3, Owen is very much a 4-4-2 man. I also suspect that Souness would have preferred the Owen fee to be spread around on at least two players, rather than one, and to be spent earlier. At the last minute, a huge amount of money was invested in a star name, who was reluctant to sign, and whose style didn’t fit into the desired pattern. Good planning or what?

At the end of what seemed a fairly fraught summer, Shepherd then publicly declared that ‘the Board’ (ie himself) had done its bit, and there was no excuse for failure. It seemed odd for a chairman to put his manager under pressure right at the start of the season, and it was the first open sign of discord. It felt more like a rebuttal to an unspoken accusation on Souness’s part, that his wishes had not been followed in the way that a manager should expect.

With Roeder, we have only one transfer window in which to judge the state of affairs, but it would seem incredible if a manager who is in a weaker position than either of his predecessors, should not be subject to the same style of regime.

We ended up again with a last minute transfer scramble, and an unsatisfactory result. It has been reported that there was a long impasse because Shepherd wanted to sign Woodgate, while Roeder wanted Huth. Perhaps inevitably, we ended up with neither, and in the end it was far too late to land the third choice target, Zat Knight.

I suspect that this pattern of interference began in the latter stages of Robson’s term, after costly errors had been made with Cort, Bassedas and Viana. I can imagine any chairman becoming exasperated, but there is always an element of chance in any transfer, the greatest have made their share of mistakes, and a chairman is not likely to be a better judge.

The indications are that, before arriving at a decision, Shepherd consults with a variety of contacts in the game, of whom his manager is only one. The agent Paul Stretford and Alan Shearer seem to be part of this informal group.

Shearer’s influence is hard to gauge, but recently, in describing his ‘ambassadorial’ role, Shepherd said that Shearer would be the first person that they would send in to try and persuade a player to sign. Is it conceivable that Shearer’s advice would not, at any stage, be sought in the selection of such a player?

It’s often said that Shepherd is in it for the money, but I don’t see him in that light. He seems determined for the club to succeed, and dedicated to his job. Indeed, that is probably the root of the problem. He has a passion for the role, but in the absence of the Halls providing any check to his powers, the club has become his personal fiefdom. He seems to have grown into the mistaken belief that he, and he alone, can deliver success.

The role of the Chairman must be a very difficult one. It often attracts the successful businessman, but a football chairman must hand most decisions over to his manager, who is the one with the football expertise. He must be determined to succeed, and yet be prepared to take a background role.

As a character, Shepherd seems to have difficulty with this. He seems an excitable, outspoken, thin-skinned and emotional character with the impulses of a fan. Far from providing calm leadership and a stabilising influence, he seems to crank up the hunger for success at a club that is already far too driven by emotion.

It is therefore no wonder that we often seem to lack a patient, long-term plan. We seem to be constantly shelling out money for success which is supposedly just around the corner, and end up having to deal with the consequences of a series of misguided, short-term fixes.

The worry is that, at the times when the manager’s post has been vacant, potentially good candidates may have been deterred by Shepherd’s reputation as a meddler. It cannot also help that Shepherd has made it so clear that he would like Alan Shearer to take over one day. Any newcomer would feel insecure if they knew that the chairman has his eye on the local hero, waiting in the wings. When Shepherd talks about Shearer, he often sounds more like a besotted fan than a level-headed leader who is seeing all aspects of a situation.

I also find it odd that Shepherd should say that he will leave once the club has landed a trophy. This statement seems egotistical and glory-seeking. If he was truly driven by a sense of duty to the club, he would step aside during a period of failure, and carry on the good work if he achieves success. Shepherd’s attitude seems to be the exact opposite.

Well, as must now be obvious, I think Shepherd should go. I don’t think he is the right sort of person for the job, and far from learning from his mistakes, he seems to be sinking into a mentality where he is more and more determined to do things his way.

Far from learning to delegate, he seems to be acting in a more hands-on manner than ever before. Every failure seems to make him more determined to prove his critics wrong. I do wonder whether Sir John Hall himself, in a recent statement about the possibility of appointing a Director of Football, has recognised the problem and wants to get Shepherd out of the manager’s hair.

It seems a shame to me that the overt explosion of feeling against the chairman took place in reaction to a defeat on the field, and has calmed down after some better results. Such reactions tend to point the finger at the team rather than the Board, even though this is not what was intended.

This is very much a long-term issue. We cannot carry on as a one-man band, particularly where the one man appears to be the wrong man.