Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: TimTheVillain on July 22, 2010, 02:51:55 PM
-
Be honest, what would you prefer ?
A slow burn or a quick, let's spend spend spend...and spend some more way like Man Citeh ?
-
I’d rather do it Randy’s way with trillions of pounds to spend.
Just because you're rich, doesn't mean you have to act like a cock.
-
I'd rather some direction rather than just throwing money at anybody and everybody. It would be exciting though. I dont blame City fans for being excited.
But I'd be a hypocrite. In truth, and for Football's sake, I want less money in the game, not more.
-
One will last, one will not.
I'd rather have Gabby and Nathan coming into the first team than robinho.
Why would we want the hatred that they have either?
-
Randy's way, you can't put a price on pride in your football team.
Or to put it another way, having Acorns as your sponsors or renaming your reserve team the "Elite Squad"?
-
Remember what Ken Bates said last year.
There's more to it than money. If you dont have pride and honour you have nothing.
-
I'd sickly say City's trillions unfortunately only because debt and money is no object. The question on how to compete is how do you make infinite amounts of money a problem to them.
Sadly I dont think we will ever get higher under Randy's tenure due to various constraining factors. One being unfashionable Birmingham, two being that its not longer a level playing field and another being as smart/clever manager you are, money now overpowers this.
The romance of football has been battling with the cancerious sums for a couple of decades and I think its funeral is around the corner.
-
City are totally classless, and repugnant. And thus far, where has it got them? 5th place. Woopty doo.
Okay, that may change soon, but I'd hate to think of this club as being a representation of one of the worst parts about football: flaunting money. Granted we've done our share of cash spunking, and have been lucky compared to many Prem clubs, but what City are doing goes even beyond what Chelsea did. At least as much as Chelsea has been a plaything for Roman, he's always been very passionate about the club. Plus Ancellotti is trying to bring through the youth far more now. I don't see Chelsea going back to the way they were when Roman first stomped in.
It would be nice to win a title most definitely, but to win it by having almost limitless cash and playing fantasy football? No, I'd rather stay as we are to be honest. If we win something, we'll have done it the old fashioned way, through, graft, hard work, luck, and beating the odds. How many of City's squad are there for a better reason than money first? Not many. When clubs such as ourselves, Everton say, sign a player, on the whole, they want to come play for us, or Martin O Neill. Robinho ffs! Absolute joke!
Too many more clubs like Man City, and the Premiership will be in dire straits in a few years. Especially when these owners get bored and fuck off.
-
We have an owner who oozes class.
Let's keep it this way.
-
City are totally classless, and repugnant.
Nothing else to say!
-
One will last, one will not.
I'd rather have Gabby and Nathan coming into the first team than robinho.
Why would we want the hatred that they have either?
They said that about Chelsea, though.
The inflow of money into football is absurd, the game is going to be ruined.
Randy hasn't put a foot wrong since being here, but if the only way we could compete was by a massive injection of cash, I'd go for that.
I wouldnt want us to act like Man City do, mind.
-
City are totally classless, and repugnant. And thus far, where has it got them? 5th place. Woopty doo.
They've only been there one whole season under the Arabs, though.
I take your classless point, but they've got 5th place, which is more than we've managed, so that doesn't strike me as a fair criticism of them.
They're classless and unpleasant, and I don't like them, but although it won't work instantly, eventually, if they buy enough very good players, it is going to bring them some success.
-
-
Sadly I dont think we will ever get higher under Randy's tenure due to various constraining factors. One being unfashionable Birmingham, two being that its not longer a level playing field and another being as smart/clever manager you are, money now overpowers this.
That's a bit of a cop-out. Manchester is hardly Barcelona.
-
Something I’ve always found strange is that if you’re an oil rich Arab, with limitless funds and you’re seeking to buy an English football club from Manchester to give you some reflective glory, why on Earth do you buy Man City and not Man United?
-
I'm not even sure what Randy's way is. Has he got a plan?
-
Sadly I dont think we will ever get higher under Randy's tenure due to various constraining factors. One being unfashionable Birmingham, two being that its not longer a level playing field and another being as smart/clever manager you are, money now overpowers this.
That's a bit of a cop-out. Manchester is hardly Barcelona.
No its not but Manchester seems to have ambition that Birmingham badly lacks. As a city we seem to do everything else on a smaller less exciting scale. It historically has alot to sell, but name them, theres alot of orginality but instead we focus on putting hollywood stars on Broad street and trying to have yellow cabs. Name something we've been sucessful in bidding for. But much of this is beyond the scope of the topic.
-
Manchester is hardly Barcelona.
Unless you're from Manchester, and are therefore under the illusion that it's better than Barcelona, New York, Paris, London and Rome put together.
I'd rather do it our way. If I want to play Football Manager and use cheat codes so I get unlimited funds, I'll do it on here.
-
Something I’ve always found strange is that if you’re an oil rich Arab, with limitless funds and you’re seeking to buy an English football club from Manchester to give you some reflective glory, why on Earth do you buy Man City and not Man United?
Man Utd have won all the silverwear. Man City have won the dirty pots and pans. Perhaps they want to win more than the aparent "greatest ever football club".
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHo2pXO_XAI
"the only language they understand is money"
not a truer word spoken for those Manshitty classless knob-jockeys.
UTV
-
Lowry put Manchester where it is, bo doubt about it.
Seriously, ManUre really helped to get Manchester where it is - and it is a good indication of what can happen to an area such as Cheshire with all the footballer wealth coming in.
Hanley-in-Arden could be the new Wilmsow, Dorridge the new Alderley Edge, but not without success like wot MaUre have on their CV.
-
Something I’ve always found strange is that if you’re an oil rich Arab, with limitless funds and you’re seeking to buy an English football club from Manchester to give you some reflective glory, why on Earth do you buy Man City and not Man United?
Man Utd have won all the silverwear. Man City have won the dirty pots and pans. Perhaps they want to win more than the aparent "greatest ever football club".
They don’t have enough money to do that and something tells me that they’re not going to wait around twenty to twenty five years to find out if they could.
If it were me, I’d have spunked 900 million on buying United, given Fergie sixty million to spend and watched the titles and European cups tumble in, as they have been, while coining in some of the profit they make.
-
Sadly I dont think we will ever get higher under Randy's tenure due to various constraining factors. One being unfashionable Birmingham, two being that its not longer a level playing field and another being as smart/clever manager you are, money now overpowers this.
That's a bit of a cop-out. Manchester is hardly Barcelona.
No its not but Manchester seems to have ambition that Birmingham badly lacks. As a city we seem to do everything else on a smaller less exciting scale. It historically has alot to sell, but name them, theres alot of orginality but instead we focus on putting hollywood stars on Broad street and trying to have yellow cabs. Name something we've been sucessful in bidding for. But much of this is beyond the scope of the topic.
It is hardly surprising it may seem that way when its own residents are so happy to talk it down.
Better shopping than Manchester, better restaurants than Manchester, and - at worst - you're in London in a little over an hour, or less if you live between here and London.
-
Sadly I dont think we will ever get higher under Randy's tenure due to various constraining factors. One being unfashionable Birmingham, two being that its not longer a level playing field and another being as smart/clever manager you are, money now overpowers this.
That's a bit of a cop-out. Manchester is hardly Barcelona.
No its not but Manchester seems to have ambition that Birmingham badly lacks. As a city we seem to do everything else on a smaller less exciting scale. It historically has alot to sell, but name them, theres alot of orginality but instead we focus on putting hollywood stars on Broad street and trying to have yellow cabs. Name something we've been sucessful in bidding for. But much of this is beyond the scope of the topic.
Yes if only Birmingham had the ambition to build the NIA, ICC and Symphony Hall. If only we could build a state of the art shopping ventre in the heart of the city centre and top it off with an iconic building like Selfridges.
Birmingham is as ambitious as any city in the country the difference is we get on and do it for ourselves rather than just talking about how good we are.
-
Yes if only Birmingham had the ambition to build the NIA, ICC and Symphony Hall. If only we could build a state of the art shopping ventre in the heart of the city centre and top it off with an iconic building like Selfridges.
Birmingham is as ambitious as any city in the country the difference is we get on and do it for ourselves rather than just talking about how good we are.
*throws flowers*
bravo.
-
It is hardly surprising it may seem that way when its own residents are so happy to talk it down.
Better shopping than Manchester, better restaurants than Manchester, and - at worst - you're in London in a little over an hour, or less if you live between here and London.
The three things you mentioned are all clutching at straws especially as one of them involves leaving the city. You cant shop and go to a resturatnt every weekend, it becomes boring and monotomus.
It should be about things to remain her or attract an outsider here. As I said, it has potential, yet is so outward facing it forgets what it has (Eg. leaving Cadburys off one of the city promotional videos).
Its not the best of cities, but granted, its certainly not the worst.
-
Slow, steady, sensible investment for me.
The likes of Chelsea and now Man City turn my stomach.
-
Depends on whether you ever want Villa to win much of note or you'd prefer to follow a club that still has class and principles.
As much as I have been predicting for years that football at the highest levels will destroy itself through greed it seems that there is still an endless stream of multi-billionaires out there, we either get one of our own or we play second fiddle to those who have already got one or will be the next in line.
Between a rock and a hard place really.
-
I'm not even sure what Randy's way is. Has he got a plan?
I thought it was to invest in promising young players and turn them into great Villa players. It wasn't what I expected when our new billionaire owner turned up but I accepted it was a good way to do things.
If you then bend over and take it from Man City as soon as the first of those young players establishes himself as an international, you have to look at the plan again.
I know people are concerned we might lose Milner on a Bosman eventually but he hasn't even reached half-way through his first ever Villa contract.
-
There must be a balance somewhere.
That balance can be created in the form of making it compulsary to play a maximum of only 4 foreign born players in each first team game for instance.
This model will a) help England's national team and b) help to maintain a more equal playing field in the EPL ...one where the EPL is not too predicable as it is these days.
-
I know people are concerned we might lose Milner on a Bosman eventually but he hasn't even reached half-way through his first ever Villa contract.
And that sums up how fucked-up, immoral and depressing football is these days.
-
I agree that they are a bunch of repugnant, cocks who are destroying our game but I'm sorry we just cannot compete with their spending and as such no matter what Randy does we will not compete. We are not even aiming for the same things any more unless it goes wrong there next season.
Also I have to say whilst we cannot compete with Man City in the Football Largesse Premiership we have far from shy splashing the cash. What must supporters of Bolton, Blackburn and so on think of us? We may not be a bunch of morally repugnant cocks like them. We at least are gentlemanly when we try to poach their players but the fact remains we spend more than these clubs can damaging their ability to compete and I've noticed an arrogance amongst some of our support (I might even be guilty of it myself) towards the likes of Bolton and Blackburn.
-
The thing about what City are doing is that it's only viable aslong as the Arab money keeps flowing and they stay interested. Are they putting any money into the club's infrastructure, as Randy has?
If you imagine how each club would be if the respective owners walked away tomorrow, that is the difference and why I'm more confident our club is in better hands.
-
I'm not even sure what Randy's way is. Has he got a plan?
I thought it was to invest in promising young players and turn them into great Villa players. It wasn't what I expected when our new billionaire owner turned up but I accepted it was a good way to do things.
If you then bend over and take it from Man City as soon as the first of those young players establishes himself as an international, you have to look at the plan again.
I know people are concerned we might lose Milner on a Bosman eventually but he hasn't even reached half-way through his first ever Villa contract.
spot on.
-
It is hardly surprising it may seem that way when its own residents are so happy to talk it down.
Better shopping than Manchester, better restaurants than Manchester, and - at worst - you're in London in a little over an hour, or less if you live between here and London.
The three things you mentioned are all clutching at straws especially as one of them involves leaving the city. You cant shop and go to a resturatnt every weekend, it becomes boring and monotomus.
It should be about things to remain her or attract an outsider here. As I said, it has potential, yet is so outward facing it forgets what it has (Eg. leaving Cadburys off one of the city promotional videos).
Its not the best of cities, but granted, its certainly not the worst.
Eh? What else is there in Manchester beyond restaurants and shopping centres? Is a lot of rain an attraction these days?
-
The thing about what City are doing is that it's only viable aslong as the Arab money keeps floating and they stay interested. Are they putting any money into the club's infrastructure, as Randy has?
If you imagine how each club would be if the respective owners walked away tomorrow, that is the difference and why I'm more confident our club is in better hands.
The thing is, though, it is all relative.
What Man City look like to everyone else, we looked like to Newcastle when we took Milner off them two years ago, which is what we probably look like to Everton.
They'd be fucked if their sugar daddy walked away, yes, but then again so would we.
Less fucked, but still fucked.
-
Manchester City took him off us, took him off Newcastle, took him off Leeds. I'm sure the other two clubs will be looking at any Albion-style "It's not FAIR!!!!!" histronics on our part with a wry smile.
-
When Villa use American £millions to try and buy success, it's our right and the most natural thing in the world.
When City use (even more) Middle East £millions to try and buy them success, it's now an unfair playing field and football has somehow gone crazy.
I just don't get it. Albeit on a smaller scale, English football has probably been like this for the last 100 years.
Until there is watertight limits on how much a club can spend as a proportion of turnover and TV revenue is distributed more evenly, the "Man City scenario" will happen again.
-
We have an owner who oozes class.
Let's keep it this way.
I like RL's approach thus far.
I have a few doubts about him, and I always have TBH.
His track record in sports management with the Browns isn't all that hot, lets face it. And he inherited his wealth, rather than building it from nowt. The latter has plusses and minuses. The minus being that he might not be the guy to bring us to the next level re global impact and sustainability. The plus being that he might have more of an artistic eye towards us, as he does with other historical English items. A labour of love, as it were. Rather than judging the project purely with the bottom line in mind (though that is of course crucial).
I say stick with him no question. He gets the club and I like his approach to the role to-date. But the sad fact is we don't look like being in the hunt for major trophies anytime soon - a scenario not unlike the latter part of the Ellis years. Whereas players will be joining Citeh with thoughts of titles, trophies and glory. It might not pan out that way of course, but they are in a far better position to achieve it than we are.
And who would have said that back in Sep 2006?
-
And who would have said that back in Sep 2006?
If ever there was a wrong time for a mere billionaire to buy your club.
-
Do it the Man City Way?
You want the type of scumbags like Gary Cook getting involved in the club ? The scumbag who came out with the statement "China and India are gagging for football content to watch and we’re going to tell them that City is their content. We need a superstar to get through that door. Richard Dunne doesn’t roll off the tongue in Beijing".
No thanks.
-
The thing about what City are doing is that it's only viable aslong as the Arab money keeps floating and they stay interested. Are they putting any money into the club's infrastructure, as Randy has?
If you imagine how each club would be if the respective owners walked away tomorrow, that is the difference and why I'm more confident our club is in better hands.
The thing is, though, it is all relative.
What Man City look like to everyone else, we looked like to Newcastle when we took Milner off them two years ago, which is what we probably look like to Everton.
They'd be fucked if their sugar daddy walked away, yes, but then again so would we.
Less fucked, but still fucked.
I'm not so sure. Our wagebill is high in relation to our turnover, but not unsustainable in so far as selling 1 top earner wouldn't have a significant impact towards bringing it back into line. We've also just got a good sponsorship deal, so even if it stayed as it was it would fall in relation to turnover. I also think that Randy's thinking in the whole 'buy to sell' philosophy is as much to do with long term stability as it is immediate freeing of wages for this summer's arrivals.
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
-
I'm not so sure. Our wagebill is high in relation to our turnover, but not unsustainable in so far as selling 1 top earner wouldn't have a significant impact towards bringing it back into line. We've also just got a good sponsorship deal, so even if it stayed as it was it would fall in relation to turnover. I also think that Randy's thinking in the whole 'buy to sell' philosophy is as much to do with long term stability as it is immediate freeing of wages for this summer's arrivals.
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
It isn't only about wage bills. You specifically mentioned if the owners walked away.
We're in debt to Randy by a large amount of money. He's pumped lots and lots of money into the club in the last four years, for which we're grateful, but that doesn't change the fact that he's put the money in, and it will need to be repaid at some point.
We're not as much at risk as Man City would be, not at all, but we'd still be in big, big trouble.
-
I would much rather have a club to support in years to come, than be in the position of the pompey fans who face championship / league 1 oblivion at best. Who knows what will happen when when these rich arabs have had enough. Randy's way for me.
-
I just don't get it. Albeit on a smaller scale, English football has probably been like this for the last 100 years.
Not sure about that deej.
You had the Bank of England Sunderland side in the earlier part of the century. And we were hardly short of a bob or two either. Later in the century there was of course Walker's Blackburn and -to a certain extent- Hayward's Wolves. Though his impact was limited to those divisions outside the topflight.
But football was generally more organic, with available finance being dictated by success on the pitch or revenue at the gate.
The Forest team of the 80's for example were in a position to break the British transfer record and sign Shilton - but only on the back of what they'd already achieved.
Personally I hope pop gorges itself and the arse falls out of the Sky phenomenon. It will take something like subscriptions to be down for that to occur -not entirely unthinkable in the PC age where games can be watched for a fraction of the price online (and in most cases free).
The repercussions could be serious -for most clubs. But it might just take something drastic for the game to get it's house in order.
-
I'm not so sure. Our wagebill is high in relation to our turnover, but not unsustainable in so far as selling 1 top earner wouldn't have a significant impact towards bringing it back into line. We've also just got a good sponsorship deal, so even if it stayed as it was it would fall in relation to turnover. I also think that Randy's thinking in the whole 'buy to sell' philosophy is as much to do with long term stability as it is immediate freeing of wages for this summer's arrivals.
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
It isn't only about wage bills. You specifically mentioned if the owners walked away.
We're in debt to Randy by a large amount of money. He's pumped lots and lots of money into the club in the last four years, for which we're grateful, but that doesn't change the fact that he's put the money in, and it will need to be repaid at some point.
We're not as much at risk as Man City would be, not at all, but we'd still be in big, big trouble.
This talk of owners wlaking away confuses me. How can they from something they own? They'd have to find somebody to buy it off them, at which point what they've put in gets repaid. I reckon Randy will find it easier to find somebody richer than him to sell to than Man City's owners will.
-
I'm not so sure. Our wagebill is high in relation to our turnover, but not unsustainable in so far as selling 1 top earner wouldn't have a significant impact towards bringing it back into line. We've also just got a good sponsorship deal, so even if it stayed as it was it would fall in relation to turnover. I also think that Randy's thinking in the whole 'buy to sell' philosophy is as much to do with long term stability as it is immediate freeing of wages for this summer's arrivals.
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
It isn't only about wage bills. You specifically mentioned if the owners walked away.
We're in debt to Randy by a large amount of money. He's pumped lots and lots of money into the club in the last four years, for which we're grateful, but that doesn't change the fact that he's put the money in, and it will need to be repaid at some point.
We're not as much at risk as Man City would be, not at all, but we'd still be in big, big trouble.
Very true, but the debt is interest free at the moment, isn't it? And as I was arguing in the 'How much are we worth' thread, it would be taken into account by any new owners when valuing the club. I suppose it would be a matter of how any deal was structured, but I don't think Randy would have sanctioned it were it not sustainable for the club.
-
Personally I hope pop gorges itself and the arse falls out of the Sky phenomenon. It will take something like subscriptions to be down for that to occur -not entirely unthinkable in the PC age where games can be watched for a fraction of the price online (and in most cases free).
The repercussions could be serious -for most clubs. But it might just take something drastic for the game to get it's house in order.
We thought that about ITV digital. What really happened was that the big clubs hardly blinked and it was the small ones which suffered. I have a horrible feeling that if Sky did similar the really big clubs would be fine and the Villa-sized ones would be in trouble.
-
Spend, spend spend!
-
Let the premiership go bankrupt, get rid of sky, introduce salary caps, and legal action against players who break contracts.
Invest in British players, academys, limit foreign players.
-
Invest in British players, academys, limit foreign players.
I love it, but EU employment law would scupper the last bit.
-
Personally I hope pop gorges itself and the arse falls out of the Sky phenomenon. It will take something like subscriptions to be down for that to occur -not entirely unthinkable in the PC age where games can be watched for a fraction of the price online (and in most cases free).
The repercussions could be serious -for most clubs. But it might just take something drastic for the game to get it's house in order.
We thought that about ITV digital. What really happened was that the big clubs hardly blinked and it was the small ones which suffered. I have a horrible feeling that if Sky did similar the really big clubs would be fine and the Villa-sized ones would be in trouble.
I think all every club suffered, except for those in the PL and those recently out of it, who were still benefiting financially from being in it? So if the scenario were to happen, what PL club could absorb such a big chunk of their income disappearing? Even CL money is relatively small in comparison to the Sky TV deal, so only those with ridiculous rich owners, so Chelsea and Man City, would not feel the pinch.
-
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
Don't kid yourself John, we're a billionaire's plaything, he just doesn't have that much free cash to throw at us.
-
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
Don't kid yourself John, we're a billionaire's plaything, he just doesn't have that much free cash to throw at us.
I fundementally disagree with that.
-
I would rather do it the randy way man city are just buying success which is ok but they are walking over everybody in the process which is'nt.
-
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
Don't kid yourself John, we're a billionaire's plaything, he just doesn't have that much free cash to throw at us.
I fundementally disagree with that.
You'd be fundamentally wrong then. The fact is that Randy has had to pump in over £200m to fund our spending, and we're making huge losses.
-
Randy's way. We retain our heritage and our dignity without becoming a souless shell of a once proud club.
-
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
Don't kid yourself John, we're a billionaire's plaything, he just doesn't have that much free cash to throw at us.
I fundementally disagree with that.
You'd be fundamentally wrong then. The fact is that Randy has had to pump in over £200m to fund our spending, and we're making huge losses.
Not arguing about the financials of what he's done, but I think it's completely wrong to say he treats us or views us a 'plaything'.
-
I'm not so sure. Our wagebill is high in relation to our turnover, but not unsustainable in so far as selling 1 top earner wouldn't have a significant impact towards bringing it back into line. We've also just got a good sponsorship deal, so even if it stayed as it was it would fall in relation to turnover. I also think that Randy's thinking in the whole 'buy to sell' philosophy is as much to do with long term stability as it is immediate freeing of wages for this summer's arrivals.
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
It isn't only about wage bills. You specifically mentioned if the owners walked away.
We're in debt to Randy by a large amount of money. He's pumped lots and lots of money into the club in the last four years, for which we're grateful, but that doesn't change the fact that he's put the money in, and it will need to be repaid at some point.
We're not as much at risk as Man City would be, not at all, but we'd still be in big, big trouble.
This talk of owners wlaking away confuses me. How can they from something they own? They'd have to find somebody to buy it off them, at which point what they've put in gets repaid. I reckon Randy will find it easier to find somebody richer than him to sell to than Man City's owners will.
What happened when Portsmouth's owner decided he'd had enough and couldn't / wouldn't fund it any more?
I also agree, it would be easier for Randy to find a buyer than the Man City arabs, but the fact still remains - they're a club funded by a billionaire, which is exactly what we are.
-
Invest in British players, academys, limit foreign players.
I love it, but EU employment law would scupper the last bit.
And last but not least come out the EU.
-
I think all every club suffered, except for those in the PL and those recently out of it, who were still benefiting financially from being in it?
The clubs who suffered most were the likes of Sheffield Wednesday, Coventry and Forest, who had just left the Premier League.
-
Randy's way. We retain our heritage and our dignity without becoming a souless shell of a once proud club.
There is that.
But then there is also the distinct possibility/ probability of building on our already impressive trophy haul.
We're already the fourth most successful club side in English football, so it's not as if we could be accused of having no history. Big sides talk about what they are going to do. They don't seek solace in the past.
Would I trade all Randy's class for a few FA Cups and League titles, as per Roman's classy lot over the last decade? Hell would I play ball for one FA Cup win, to see a Villa captain lift that trophy just once in my lifetime?
Get back to me.
-
Citehs trillions. I want Villa to be successful, have the best players and win things!!
-
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
Don't kid yourself John, we're a billionaire's plaything, he just doesn't have that much free cash to throw at us.
I fundementally disagree with that.
You'd be fundamentally wrong then. The fact is that Randy has had to pump in over £200m to fund our spending, and we're making huge losses.
He purchased an under resourced football club business with the intention of taking it through an investment cycle. He isn't overspending or pouring money down the drain. It's perfectly acceptable and normal to post losses during an investment cycle of this type.
-
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
Don't kid yourself John, we're a billionaire's plaything, he just doesn't have that much free cash to throw at us.
I fundementally disagree with that.
You'd be fundamentally wrong then. The fact is that Randy has had to pump in over £200m to fund our spending, and we're making huge losses.
He purchased an under resourced football club business with the intention of taking it through an investment cycle. He isn't overspending or pouring money down the drain. It's perfectly acceptable and normal to post losses during an investment cycle of this type.
I didn't say he was pouring money down the drain. But the only way he's ever going to make a return, is to either achieve the top 4 for a good few seasons, or sell the club for more than he's spent, which would be difficult in the present economic conditions.
And investment cycle? Davies, NRC, Sidwell, Harewood and the other overpriced under performing transfers from O'Neill have taken vast sums of money out of the club for very little progress after the first year. We're getting to the position where we're going to make losses on some of those "investments".
-
I think people are being a bit disingenious, i havent met a citeh or chels fan that regrets thier new found riches.
its pretty easy to stand the morale high ground when you dont have a choice.
-
We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.
Don't kid yourself John, we're a billionaire's plaything, he just doesn't have that much free cash to throw at us.
I fundementally disagree with that.
You'd be fundamentally wrong then. The fact is that Randy has had to pump in over £200m to fund our spending, and we're making huge losses.
He purchased an under resourced football club business with the intention of taking it through an investment cycle. He isn't overspending or pouring money down the drain. It's perfectly acceptable and normal to post losses during an investment cycle of this type.
I didn't say he was pouring money down the drain. But the only way he's ever going to make a return, is to either achieve the top 4 for a good few seasons, or sell the club for more than he's spent, which would be difficult in the present economic conditions.
And investment cycle? Davies, NRC, Sidwell, Harewood and the other overpriced under performing transfers from O'Neill have taken vast sums of money out of the club for very little progress after the first year. We're getting to the position where we're going to make losses on some of those "investments".
What do you think Randy's plan is?
-
I think people are being a bit disingenious, i havent met a citeh or chels fan that regrets thier new found riches.
its pretty easy to stand the morale high ground when you dont have a choice.
This much is very true.
-
Champiosn League inside 5 years wasn't it?
-
He purchased an under resourced football club business with the intention of taking it through an investment cycle. He isn't overspending or pouring money down the drain. It's perfectly acceptable and normal to post losses during an investment cycle of this type.
Of what type? How many other billionaires have bought football clubs and earned out of them?
-
Champiosn League inside 5 years wasn't it?
I don't know if it was that, but whatever it is, I hope it isn't much better than we've managed already because 6th, 6th, 6th with a gain of two points every year doesn't suggest we're rapidly approaching anything.
-
I think people are being a bit disingenious, i havent met a citeh or chels fan that regrets thier new found riches.
its pretty easy to stand the morale high ground when you dont have a choice.
Exactly right. If we were in their position we wouldn't be saying 'Oh look we have become a repugnant bunch of cocks' we'd all be pondering whether or not we should sign Torres and whether we'd rather win the CL or the Premiership.
Anyone who disagrees is lying.
-
Champiosn League inside 5 years wasn't it?
I don't know if it was that, but whatever it is, I hope it isn't much better than we've managed already because 6th, 6th, 6th with a gain of two points every year doesn't suggest we're rapidly approaching anything.
I remember that Sheffield United game when we were given free scarves and it was initimated that we were heading for the big time and that it would happen soon.
Three years on we're still waiting.
-
Citeh's millions but our way, seeing youngsters come through, i really am becoming disillusioned though with football, when Chelsea started this i was well Pi$$ed with them and now Citeh. Personally i want all the other teams now to beat Manchester City, i am hating them more than United, now that is something!!!
-
Champiosn League inside 5 years wasn't it?
I don't know if it was that, but whatever it is, I hope it isn't much better than we've managed already because 6th, 6th, 6th with a gain of two points every year doesn't suggest we're rapidly approaching anything.
I remember that Sheffield United game when we were given free scarves and it was initimated that we were heading for the big time and that it would happen soon.
Three years on we're still waiting.
I do hope the free coaches to Chelsea and free scarves weren't just sweeteners to win us over as Randy would have known they were so what we would never have had under the previous occupancy.
-
Citeh's millions but our way, seeing youngsters come through, i really am becoming disillusioned though with football, when Chelsea started this i was well Pi$$ed with them and now Citeh. Personally i want all the other teams now to beat Manchester City, i am hating them more than United, now that is something!!!
I'm the same,i did like City as they always had a good crowd,and they were under achievers like ourselves,but hearing some City fans on the radio recently with their smugness about money and buying the league leaves me with no time for them.
I'm sure these same fans were moaning like the rest of us when Chelsea became Chelski. Hypocrisy is King.
-
August 4 2008
General Krulak here:
1. pauliewalnuts: "Tattoo"...Gee, I am very sorry that this "example" does not pass your "real fan" test. I simply forgot that to be a "real fan" one would have to have gone to Villa Park for 20+ years...that no one else qualifies...to include the owner. You asked a question of me...re. Randy's depth of interests and goals for the Club. I answered your question and mentioned the tattoo as an indication that he was in it for the long haul. You come back with a sarcastic answer...well done lad. Really makes me want to rush to the pauliewalnut post to answer his questions.
2. Champions League football and Barry: Sooooo? If you believe he has a point, you should be happy for him if he leaves. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that one of the goals of the 5 year plan was CL football. Let me see if I understand...you don't think we will make it???? OK. Good on you. That means I won't have to hear your moaning because you have already made up your mind.
3. hookeysmith: "gross negligence". OK, thank you for your appraisal of the performance of the Manager. I'd say that your summation of his performance is a wee bit harsh. We did move from lower mid table to 11th to 6th under this grossly negligent Manager. We did pick up Sidwell, Friedl and Guzman todate...and will obviously bring in more....again, a clear indication of MON's "gross negligence." I sincerely appreciate your insights into Martin's performance.
4. Mazrim: Nicely done. I totally understand what you are getting at and I can ASSURE you that SO DOES MON and Randy.
5. If I sound a tad peeved, it is because I am. I spend hours writing comments to your questions...trying to give each of you an insight into the Club, what we are trying to do and why. I attempt to answer each question as honestly as I can and if I can't answer, I say it. Yes, I may miss some but that is due mainly to the volume. So what do I get? People who either a) don't read what I have written...because I spend a great deal of time repeating myself, b) people who don't like my answer so they just ask the question again hoping to get an answer they like or c) make some snide or disparaging remark out of frustration. NONE of these helps anyone. They just add to the fustration. You ask me a question...I try to answer as honestly as I can...what more do you want? Getting mad, ignoring my answers or taking swipes at people is not the way to make headway. For the 1000th time...we hear you!! We know, BETTER THAN YOU, what is needed. We are NOT sitting on our bums!!
-
Citeh's millions but our way, seeing youngsters come through,
You can't have both.
Man City will go the way of Chelsea and home grown players will find it harder to get a look in.
-
Citeh's millions but our way, seeing youngsters come through,
You can't have both.
Man City will go the way of Chelsea and home grown players will find it harder to get a look in.
? and win cups and the league then.
It's so true, and we can moan about our national team as long as we like, but without someone stepping up to the plate and saying 'enough is enough', we're doomed. doomed to mid / slightly upper table, hope we get a decent cup drawland.
5 year plan looking rather optmiistic ( that's easy to defend, optimism), but we are maybe going through a period of adjustment of our status.
We aren't a very big club, but we are still a big club.
-
Sadly I dont think we will ever get higher under Randy's tenure due to various constraining factors. One being unfashionable Birmingham, two being that its not longer a level playing field and another being as smart/clever manager you are, money now overpowers this.
That's a bit of a cop-out. Manchester is hardly Barcelona.
No its not but Manchester seems to have ambition that Birmingham badly lacks. As a city we seem to do everything else on a smaller less exciting scale. It historically has alot to sell, but name them, theres alot of orginality but instead we focus on putting hollywood stars on Broad street and trying to have yellow cabs. Name something we've been sucessful in bidding for. But much of this is beyond the scope of the topic.
It is hardly surprising it may seem that way when its own residents are so happy to talk it down.
Better shopping than Manchester, better restaurants than Manchester, and - at worst - you're in London in a little over an hour, or less if you live between here and London.
I agree with that totally, Manchester is a fucking shithole
-
We aren't a very big club, but we are still a big club.
As Trevor Fisher said in H&V a few years ago - a cruiserweight club in a heavyweight division.
-
The best way, the only way, is the one that achieves regular top 4 status and European Cup trophies.
One will achieve that the other 6th if we are lucky, although a better manager might help our cause.
Anyone who thinks different or says different is either delusional or if they believe it lying to themselves, or has no ambition for the club.
-
He purchased an under resourced football club business with the intention of taking it through an investment cycle. He isn't overspending or pouring money down the drain. It's perfectly acceptable and normal to post losses during an investment cycle of this type.
Of what type? How many other billionaires have bought football clubs and earned out of them?
Of the type that businesses make when they're investing to take advantage of a market where the overall industry revenues are increasing exponentially. The first Sky tv deal was worth £60m, the latest one was worth £1.8bn, not including the 100% increased value overseas rights payments which kick in next season.
I don't have an answer to your question regarding billionaires who have cashed in, have any of them sold out on their own terms yet?
The point I was making is that there is nothing to suggest that Randy is losing money on his investment.
-
He purchased an under resourced football club business with the intention of taking it through an investment cycle. He isn't overspending or pouring money down the drain. It's perfectly acceptable and normal to post losses during an investment cycle of this type.
Of what type? How many other billionaires have bought football clubs and earned out of them?
Of the type that businesses make when they're investing to take advantage of a market where the overall industry revenues are increasing exponentially. The first Sky tv deal was worth £60m, the latest one was worth £1.8bn, not including the 100% increased value overseas rights payments which kick in next season.
I don't have an answer to your question regarding billionaires who have cashed in, have any of them sold out on their own terms yet?
The point I was making is that there is nothing to suggest that Randy is losing money on his investment.
So you agree it's a business investment then.
-
We aren't a very big club, but we are still a big club.
As Trevor Fisher said in H&V a few years ago - a cruiserweight club in a heavyweight division.
He's probably right but what would he have said about Man City at the time? Or Chelsea 15 years ago?
I don't like it when Manu nick our best players but grudgingly accept it due to their size but the Viv Nicholson approach of these clubs sticks in the craw because natural justice says they just haven't earned it. I know that's just the way the game is but I don't like it.
I know people will point to our own rich owner but I don't think he's taken us to a level of player beyond that which a club of our size would expect.
-
I know people will point to our own rich owner but I don't think he's taken us to a level of player beyond that which a club of our size would expect.
From my reading of the General's oft quoted comments, that has never been their expectation. Has it?
-
I know people will point to our own rich owner but I don't think he's taken us to a level of player beyond that which a club of our size would expect.
I'd agree with that.
My issue is that, thus far, the regime (NB I'm not talking about Randy alone here) hasn't taken us to a level of player we couldn't feasibly have signed in the years pre-Randy.
We've just got more of them.
-
Citeh's millions but our way, seeing youngsters come through,
You can't have both.
Man City will go the way of Chelsea and home grown players will find it harder to get a look in.
I don't want both. I want one or the other and for Villa to have a chance to compete at the highest level. What I don't want is for us to say we are going to be a club that develops young players and then roll over when we get a big offer for the first young player that has seemingly made the breakthrough and is less than halfway through his first contract with us.
If Randy's plan was to develop young talent, he must have considered the possibility that he would receive big offers for those young players as they made the breakthrough.
The really big spending clubs take the risk that their investment in a player might not work out, why are we not willing to take the risk that ultimately we might end up getting less for Milner next season?
-
He purchased an under resourced football club business with the intention of taking it through an investment cycle. He isn't overspending or pouring money down the drain. It's perfectly acceptable and normal to post losses during an investment cycle of this type.
Of what type? How many other billionaires have bought football clubs and earned out of them?
Of the type that businesses make when they're investing to take advantage of a market where the overall industry revenues are increasing exponentially. The first Sky tv deal was worth £60m, the latest one was worth £1.8bn, not including the 100% increased value overseas rights payments which kick in next season.
I don't have an answer to your question regarding billionaires who have cashed in, have any of them sold out on their own terms yet?
The point I was making is that there is nothing to suggest that Randy is losing money on his investment.
So you agree it's a business investment then.
Yes.
-
Our way, the proper and honest way. We don't need to copy the models of Chavski and the New York Yankees, doing it our own way would make success sweeter rather than just spending money at anyone available without any real effort or hard work put in. I do wish the Premier League would impose a salary cap then Man City would go back to being a nothing club again.
-
Man City's way seems quite exciting. Randy's way has gone a bit stale in my opinion. We struggled to get players in during Doug's time. I'm beginning to get the same feeling under Lerner's regime now.
-
I guess the next question is, would Villa fans like Randy to sell out to a multiiiiiiiiii billionaire to make a tidy little profit for himself and remove the burden of financing and refinancing a football club to the point of financial ruin for himself (!), whilst remaining on the board with a minority stake ?
Let's face it, we wouldn't mind, well I wouldn't.
-
I know people will point to our own rich owner but I don't think he's taken us to a level of player beyond that which a club of our size would expect.
I'd agree with that.
My issue is that, thus far, the regime (NB I'm not talking about Randy alone here) hasn't taken us to a level of player we couldn't feasibly have signed in the years pre-Randy.
We've just got more of them.
And getting £25+ for Milner will see us with even more of them next season and a hope that we can push on from here. Perhaps it's just an age thing but the patient approach doesn't bother me and am quite enjoying seeing how the Randy/MON method plays out. We might not make it but if I wanted guaranteed success I wouldn't be a Villa fan.
-
I wouldn't want Villa to be on TV all the time saying I want this player I want that player and generally trying to unsettle all these players.
I would however like to be able to offer Milner more money and say hey don't worry Jim were getting XYZ and then he can say "Hey where do I sign"
-
Citeh's millions but our way, seeing youngsters come through,
You can't have both.
Man City will go the way of Chelsea and home grown players will find it harder to get a look in.
I don't want both. I want one or the other and for Villa to have a chance to compete at the highest level. What I don't want is for us to say we are going to be a club that develops young players and then roll over when we get a big offer for the first young player that has seemingly made the breakthrough and is less than halfway through his first contract with us.
If Randy's plan was to develop young talent, he must have considered the possibility that he would receive big offers for those young players as they made the breakthrough.
The really big spending clubs take the risk that their investment in a player might not work out, why are we not willing to take the risk that ultimately we might end up getting less for Milner next season?
I think the 3 or 4 players we can get with the Milner money will make us stronger next season.
-
I think the 3 or 4 players we can get with the Milner money will make us stronger next season.
Really, like we did with Barry's money?
If its been posted sorry, here's the words from Mon's lips,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm
enjoy.
Selling Milner is one thing, but that attitude is depressing, I actually feel sorry for the bloke.
-
Our way, the proper and honest way. We don't need to copy the models of Chavski and the New York Yankees, doing it our own way would make success sweeter rather than just spending money at anyone available without any real effort or hard work put in. I do wish the Premier League would impose a salary cap then Man City would go back to being a nothing club again.
Man City are a medium sized club, they get similar attendances to us, probably charge around the same ticket prices and have similar revenue streams.
If Man City became a nothing club then so would we. Indeed a salary cap would only serve to propagate a kind of 'natural order' where the very biggest clubs like Liverpool, Man united and Arsenal would be enabled to dominate and the very smallest clubs in the league would be disadvantaged.
I agree that something needs to be done but a salary cap is not the way.
-
I think the 3 or 4 players we can get with the Milner money will make us stronger next season.
Really, like we did with Barry's money?
If its been posted sorry, here's the words from Mon's lips,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm
enjoy.
Selling Milner is one thing, but that attitude is depressing
We got £12m for Barry so It's not the same situation at all.
-
Man City's way seems quite exciting.
Exciting if you are a fan of a club that can just chuck money at the project, fucking depressing if you would like to see football as a competition of realtive equals rather than a "Who's got the biggest dick" contest.
-
And getting £25+ for Milner will see us with even more of them next season and a hope that we can push on from here.
Getting £25million for Milner will see one of our main rivals getting one of our better players, which they will be parading alongside a whole load of other players we can't afford, while we have to hope that MON can pull an Ashley type rabbit out of the hat to replace him.
-
I think the 3 or 4 players we can get with the Milner money will make us stronger next season.
Really, like we did with Barry's money?
If its been posted sorry, here's the words from Mon's lips,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm
enjoy.
Selling Milner is one thing, but that attitude is depressing, I actually feel sorry for the bloke.
This was pathetic. MON needs to stop whinging about how hard life is and set about improving the team (and, concurrently, not wasting money on the wages of players that never sniff the pitch). If there were a sell-to-buy policy (which there is not), then he would only have himself to blame for the exorbitant wages spent on horrible players. The top wage earner at the club is Emile Heskey. Whose fault is that, I wonder? He has had plenty of money at his disposal and used it on a fair amount of garbage (not in total, of course, but his record in this is only so-so). He is fickle in his player selection and then, when he settles on a side, he runs it into the ground. Further, he has proved himself incapable of identifying talent outside of the country and thus is force to pay these higher wages; again, his fault. This whole moan would be laughable if it were not so infuriating.
-
that horrid little clubs way is extremely boring and is just adding to the predictability of the game these days...
formula one with boots...
-
Just to throw a question out there.
Do we now as supporters have accept that the aspirations of 2006 when the takeover occurred are now out of the window and that ultimately we cannot afford to compete with four clubs in the country? This meaning that 6th is the plateau we have reached and we cannot go any further with the current financial situation at the club, where we do not generate enough finance nor have an owner with enough capital in order to compete.
Are we effectively in a stasis until a time when richer owners could be found, if ever, to help us breach the highest echelon?
-
Sadly I dont think we will ever get higher under Randy's tenure due to various constraining factors. One being unfashionable Birmingham, two being that its not longer a level playing field and another being as smart/clever manager you are, money now overpowers this.
That's a bit of a cop-out. Manchester is hardly Barcelona.
You are right, pauliewalnuts. But Manchester always has, and I'm sure still does, consider itself to the the Second City. Delusional, I know.
-
Considering itself and being are two different things.
I think our Jimmy is in for a bit of a shock at Citeh, he won't make automatic team selection for one and if he isn't playing regular football he's the type of player who goes to seed.
He seems to be the type of player who needs to be playing week in week out to deliver, and I am not certian that Citeh can offer him what Villa can in this respect.
Perhaps an extra £40k plus a week is just too tempting these days.
£40k a year extra would tempt me !
-
I think the 3 or 4 players we can get with the Milner money will make us stronger next season.
Really, like we did with Barry's money?
If its been posted sorry, here's the words from Mon's lips,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm
enjoy.
Selling Milner is one thing, but that attitude is depressing, I actually feel sorry for the bloke.
This was pathetic. MON needs to stop whinging about how hard life is and set about improving the team (and, concurrently, not wasting money on the wages of players that never sniff the pitch). If there were a sell-to-buy policy (which there is not), then he would only have himself to blame for the exorbitant wages spent on horrible players. The top wage earner at the club is Emile Heskey. Whose fault is that, I wonder? He has had plenty of money at his disposal and used it on a fair amount of garbage (not in total, of course, but his record in this is only so-so). He is arbitrary, capricious, changeable, cheating, coquettish, double-crossing, faithless, fitful, flighty, frivolous, inconstant, irresolute, lubricious, mercurial, mutable, quicksilver, sneaking, temperamental, ticklish, two-timing, unfaithful, unpredictable in his player selection and then, when he settles on a side, he runs it into the ground. Further, he has proved himself incapable of identifying talent outside of the country and thus is force to pay these higher wages; again, his fault. This whole moan would be laughable if it were not so infuriating.
That little rant would make a lot more sense if we had spent as much on our squad as our competitors have or if our wage bill was above average. You mention our highest earner but our competitors have players earning at least 3 times as much of his earnings.
The fact is we haven't invested enough to be able to compete at a higher level than we are now.
The message we were given from the board of directors was unequivically that our aim was to compete in the CL, did they really expect that to happen when our competiors for those places are spending at least double on their player wage bill and when we have to sell our best player to bring in new players?
-
The message we were given from the board of directors was unequivically that our aim was to compete in the CL, did they really expect that to happen when our competiors for those places are spending at least double on their player wage bill and when we have to sell our best player to bring in new players?
I know this is your new favourite (flawed) stat, VD, but that would make more sense if the club which did break the top four at the end of the last season, Tottenham, didn't actually have a lower wage bill than us.
Here's a thought - Beye and Shorey - combined wages, what, 80k a week?
How about if we'd not signed them and used that money to pay better wages to attract players at the better end of the scale?
And, regardless of what anyone else pays their players, nobody will convince me that giving a 31 year old Emile Heskey a 3.5 year contract on 60k a week is anything but fucking stupid.
-
Sounds like the cupboard's bare from that interview. ho hum.
-
Heskey is the highest paid player at the club? Oh dear, I feel a bit sick...
-
That interview was horrible! Thudding and banging of the mic all the way through.
One thing was clear though, we have to sell to buy
-
Heskey is the highest paid player at the club? Oh dear, I feel a bit sick...
I bet that's the feeling of most of the players! He should get paid for the amount of goals he scores
-
Sadly, not all of the words written in my post are my own and I am not sure what is going on. I can see why the post seemed more "rant-like" than it might otherwise have done. I did not write, "capricious, changeable, cheating, coquettish, double-crossing, faithless, fitful, flighty, frivolous, inconstant, irresolute, lubricious, mercurial, mutable, quicksilver, sneaking, temperamental, ticklish, two-timing, unfaithful, unpredictable" about MON, but I cannot say I do not agree with them; I wish I had used some of them! Nevertheless, I am concerned that someone, and I can only assume it is someone with the capability to edit posts, has added these words and would ask that you not do it again.
pauliewalnuts has it right, in my opinion.
-
That little rant would make a lot more sense if we had spent as much on our squad as our competitors have or if our wage bill was above average. You mention our highest earner but our competitors have players earning at least 3 times as much of his earnings.
For the purposes of comparison, which clubs do you consider as our competitors?
-
Sadly, not all of the words written in my post are my own and I am not sure what is going on. I can see why the post seemed more "rant-like" than it might otherwise have done. I did not write, "capricious, changeable, cheating, coquettish, double-crossing, faithless, fitful, flighty, frivolous, inconstant, irresolute, lubricious, mercurial, mutable, quicksilver, sneaking, temperamental, ticklish, two-timing, unfaithful, unpredictable" about MON, but I cannot say I do not agree with them; I wish I had used some of them! Nevertheless, I am concerned that someone, and I can only assume it is someone with the capability to edit posts, has added these words and would ask that you not do it again.
pauliewalnuts has it right, in my opinion.
It's the word filter. It changes the word fickle into that.
-
The message we were given from the board of directors was unequivically that our aim was to compete in the CL, did they really expect that to happen when our competiors for those places are spending at least double on their player wage bill and when we have to sell our best player to bring in new players?
I know this is your new favourite (flawed) stat, VD, but that would make more sense if the club which did break the top four at the end of the last season, Tottenham, didn't actually have a lower wage bill than us.
Here's a thought - Beye and Shorey - combined wages, what, 80k a week?
How about if we'd not signed them and used that money to pay better wages to attract players at the better end of the scale?
And, regardless of what anyone else pays their players, nobody will convince me that giving a 31 year old Emile Heskey a 3.5 year contract on 60k a week is anything but fucking stupid.
You keep mentioning the Spurs wage bill and I've grown bored of telling you it isn't the only way of spending money on players. What were the player amortisation costs at Spurs last season? Spurs overall player costs are higher than ours every year and have been for a very long time. What about Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, and Man City. Are we expected to compete with them or not?
Perhaps we can get the players to sign contracts that say if things don't work out or if Paulie doesn't think you're any good, we'll cut your wages to £500 a week. Do you reckon that will work?
You are living in cloud-cuckoo land if you can't accept that some players turn out to be not as good as you had hoped, it is the same at every single club in the world. If you're going to make a point regarding poor purchases then it should be balanced against the good purchases.
I'm sorry but we simply haven't spent enough to compete at CL level yet and if the investment in the squad has dried up, we'll have to accept that this is as good as it going to get.
-
Sadly, not all of the words written in my post are my own and I am not sure what is going on. I can see why the post seemed more "rant-like" than it might otherwise have done. I did not write, "capricious, changeable, cheating, coquettish, double-crossing, faithless, fitful, flighty, frivolous, inconstant, irresolute, lubricious, mercurial, mutable, quicksilver, sneaking, temperamental, ticklish, two-timing, unfaithful, unpredictable" about MON, but I cannot say I do not agree with them; I wish I had used some of them! Nevertheless, I am concerned that someone, and I can only assume it is someone with the capability to edit posts, has added these words and would ask that you not do it again.
pauliewalnuts has it right, in my opinion.
It's the word filter. It changes the word fickle into that.
Ah, ok. Sorry about that. Thanks for correcting me...
-
That little rant would make a lot more sense if we had spent as much on our squad as our competitors have or if our wage bill was above average. You mention our highest earner but our competitors have players earning at least 3 times as much of his earnings.
For the purposes of comparison, which clubs do you consider as our competitors?
For the purposes of this discussion, the clubs in the top 8. Our competitors for trophies and CL places that the board said we were intending to compete for.
-
I'm surprised about the Tottenham wage bill because it always seems they've got an entirely separate squad that never get near the first team and they also don't seem to sell many players.
-
Sadly, not all of the words written in my post are my own and I am not sure what is going on. I can see why the post seemed more "rant-like" than it might otherwise have done. I did not write, "capricious, changeable, cheating, coquettish, double-crossing, faithless, fitful, flighty, frivolous, inconstant, irresolute, lubricious, mercurial, mutable, quicksilver, sneaking, temperamental, ticklish, two-timing, unfaithful, unpredictable" about MON, but I cannot say I do not agree with them; I wish I had used some of them! Nevertheless, I am concerned that someone, and I can only assume it is someone with the capability to edit posts, has added these words and would ask that you not do it again.
pauliewalnuts has it right, in my opinion.
It's the word filter. It changes the word fickle into that.
Ah, ok. Sorry about that. Thanks for correcting me...
Try writing "Steve Hodge".
-
That little rant would make a lot more sense if we had spent as much on our squad as our competitors have or if our wage bill was above average. You mention our highest earner but our competitors have players earning at least 3 times as much of his earnings.
For the purposes of comparison, which clubs do you consider as our competitors?
For the purposes of this discussion, the clubs in the top 8. Our competitors for trophies and CL places that the board said we were intending to compete for.
In other words the clubs who are bigger than us, wealthier than us, and have better players than us. How about a fairer comparison - namely including as many clubs below us as above? Or would that mean having to find another New Favourite Statistic to play with?
-
The message we were given from the board of directors was unequivically that our aim was to compete in the CL, did they really expect that to happen when our competiors for those places are spending at least double on their player wage bill and when we have to sell our best player to bring in new players?
I know this is your new favourite (flawed) stat, VD, but that would make more sense if the club which did break the top four at the end of the last season, Tottenham, didn't actually have a lower wage bill than us.
Here's a thought - Beye and Shorey - combined wages, what, 80k a week?
How about if we'd not signed them and used that money to pay better wages to attract players at the better end of the scale?
And, regardless of what anyone else pays their players, nobody will convince me that giving a 31 year old Emile Heskey a 3.5 year contract on 60k a week is anything but fucking stupid.
You keep mentioning the Spurs wage bill and I've grown bored of telling you it isn't the only way of spending money on players. What were the player amortisation costs at Spurs last season? Spurs overall player costs are higher than ours every year and have been for a very long time. What about Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, and Man City. Are we expected to compete with them or not?
Perhaps we can get the players to sign contracts that say if things don't work out or if Paulie doesn't think you're any good, we'll cut your wages to £500 a week. Do you reckon that will work?.
Talk about desperate clutching at straws.
We hear for months and months: "Spurs pay much bigger money than we do" then we see from the audited accounts of both clubs that, actually, they don't, it is the opposite, and now you've found another way of implying it isn't the case?
Why? Just just just ... just because? Because you don't want it to be true.
Spurs were paying Luka Modric 25k until recently. We are paying Emile Heskey 60k. Go figure.
And as for the last bit, you're being a bit silly now.
My point was that if we're going to pay Habib Beye or Shorey 40k a week, then we might as well use them every now and then?
I also didn't say anything about players never not working out, but the fact is - and the General appears to have confirmed it on his thread - we have quite a few players who cost us a lot of money and contribute nothing.
-
I think the 3 or 4 players we can get with the Milner money will make us stronger next season.
Really, like we did with Barry's money?
If its been posted sorry, here's the words from Mon's lips,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm
enjoy.
Selling Milner is one thing, but that attitude is depressing, I actually feel sorry for the bloke.
This was pathetic. MON needs to stop whinging about how hard life is and set about improving the team (and, concurrently, not wasting money on the wages of players that never sniff the pitch). If there were a sell-to-buy policy (which there is not), then he would only have himself to blame for the exorbitant wages spent on horrible players. The top wage earner at the club is Emile Heskey. Whose fault is that, I wonder? He has had plenty of money at his disposal and used it on a fair amount of garbage (not in total, of course, but his record in this is only so-so). He is arbitrary, capricious, changeable, cheating, coquettish, double-crossing, faithless, fitful, flighty, frivolous, inconstant, irresolute, lubricious, mercurial, mutable, quicksilver, sneaking, temperamental, ticklish, two-timing, unfaithful, unpredictable in his player selection and then, when he settles on a side, he runs it into the ground. Further, he has proved himself incapable of identifying talent outside of the country and thus is force to pay these higher wages; again, his fault. This whole moan would be laughable if it were not so infuriating.
Pretty much sums up my feelings.
-
Sadly, not all of the words written in my post are my own and I am not sure what is going on. I can see why the post seemed more "rant-like" than it might otherwise have done. I did not write, "capricious, changeable, cheating, coquettish, double-crossing, faithless, fitful, flighty, frivolous, inconstant, irresolute, lubricious, mercurial, mutable, quicksilver, sneaking, temperamental, ticklish, two-timing, unfaithful, unpredictable" about MON, but I cannot say I do not agree with them; I wish I had used some of them! Nevertheless, I am concerned that someone, and I can only assume it is someone with the capability to edit posts, has added these words and would ask that you not do it again.
pauliewalnuts has it right, in my opinion.
It's the word filter. It changes the word fickle into that.
Aye.
I imagine it can seem odd at first.
One struggling ex manager used that term once to hide his own shortcomings, others liked the sound of it so much they parroted it to the point of exhaustion and and the word had lost all meaning. Hence the more detailed description.
-
Sadly, not all of the words written in my post are my own and I am not sure what is going on. I can see why the post seemed more "rant-like" than it might otherwise have done. I did not write, "capricious, changeable, cheating, coquettish, double-crossing, faithless, fitful, flighty, frivolous, inconstant, irresolute, lubricious, mercurial, mutable, quicksilver, sneaking, temperamental, ticklish, two-timing, unfaithful, unpredictable" about MON, but I cannot say I do not agree with them; I wish I had used some of them! Nevertheless, I am concerned that someone, and I can only assume it is someone with the capability to edit posts, has added these words and would ask that you not do it again.
pauliewalnuts has it right, in my opinion.
Sorry, we sort of banned the word "f.i.c.k.l.e" replacing it with the above, it was getting on our nerves.
-
That little rant would make a lot more sense if we had spent as much on our squad as our competitors have or if our wage bill was above average. You mention our highest earner but our competitors have players earning at least 3 times as much of his earnings.
For the purposes of comparison, which clubs do you consider as our competitors?
For the purposes of this discussion, the clubs in the top 8. Our competitors for trophies and CL places that the board said we were intending to compete for.
In other words the clubs who are bigger than us, wealthier than us, and have better players than us. How about a fairer comparison - namely including as many clubs below us as above? Or would that mean having to find another New Favourite Statistic to play with?
I thought the plan was to win trophies and compete for the CL places with the teams at the top. I thought that not winning trophies and qualifying for the CL was the complaint people have against the manager.
If the plan is to be better than the clubs who don't have a billionaire owner who declares we're in this to compete, then we're doing just fine by finishing 6th and reaching cup finals/semis aren't we?
-
Top post from Pelty.
It's about time people started to realise that MON is not the genius he was made out to be.
-
You keep mentioning the Spurs wage bill and I've grown bored of telling you it isn't the only way of spending money on players. What were the player amortisation costs at Spurs last season?
Amortisation doesn't involve spending any money, as I'm sure you know. Also it can be a very misleading item in a set of accounts. The amortisation cost for James Milner in the accounts would have been about £3m last year (assuming £12m cost over a 4 year contract). In reality, his value will have increased by £12m if the reports floating about are correct. We of course only realise that when we sell him.
But anyway, a top, top post by Pelty that summarises O'Neill's weaknesses perfectly.
-
The emperor has no clothes!
-
Here's something else worth thinking about.
Emile Heskey is our highest earner. We signed him from Wigan Athletic.
Wigan are nothing like big wage payers, yet two years after signing for Wigan, he's able to come to Villa at the age of 31 and become our highest earner?
Either Wigan were paying him superstar wages, or we've dropped a very large bollock.
Anyone who doesn't find that a bit disturbing must have balls of steel
-
I thought the plan was to win trophies and compete for the CL places with the teams at the top. I thought that not winning trophies and qualifying for the CL was the complaint people have against the manager.
If the plan is to be better than the clubs who don't have a billionaire owner who declares we're in this to compete, then we're doing just fine by finishing 6th and reaching cup finals/semis aren't we?
I'm sure many clubs share those ambitions - you can't draw up a definitive list of our 'competitors' just to suit you. If you include Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal then based on league places you would also have to include Everton, Blues, Blackburn and Stoke. If you want to do it on points (which I understand is now in many quarters the accepted barometer of success/progress) then Fulham, Sunderland and possibly Bolton come into the reckoning.
We finished sixth. Did we have the sixth-highest wage bill? The sixth-highest net spend? I don't have the figures to hand but I would guess we were in the top six both times.
-
The message we were given from the board of directors was unequivically that our aim was to compete in the CL, did they really expect that to happen when our competiors for those places are spending at least double on their player wage bill and when we have to sell our best player to bring in new players?
I know this is your new favourite (flawed) stat, VD, but that would make more sense if the club which did break the top four at the end of the last season, Tottenham, didn't actually have a lower wage bill than us.
Here's a thought - Beye and Shorey - combined wages, what, 80k a week?
How about if we'd not signed them and used that money to pay better wages to attract players at the better end of the scale?
And, regardless of what anyone else pays their players, nobody will convince me that giving a 31 year old Emile Heskey a 3.5 year contract on 60k a week is anything but fucking stupid.
You keep mentioning the Spurs wage bill and I've grown bored of telling you it isn't the only way of spending money on players. What were the player amortisation costs at Spurs last season? Spurs overall player costs are higher than ours every year and have been for a very long time. What about Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, and Man City. Are we expected to compete with them or not?
Perhaps we can get the players to sign contracts that say if things don't work out or if Paulie doesn't think you're any good, we'll cut your wages to £500 a week. Do you reckon that will work?.
Talk about desperate clutching at straws.
We hear for months and months: "Spurs pay much bigger money than we do" then we see from the audited accounts of both clubs that, actually, they don't, it is the opposite, and now you've found another way of implying it isn't the case?
Why? Just just just ... just because? Because you don't want it to be true.
Spurs were paying Luka Modric 25k until recently. We are paying Emile Heskey 60k. Go figure.
And as for the last bit, you're being a bit silly now.
My point was that if we're going to pay Habib Beye or Shorey 40k a week, then we might as well use them every now and then?
I also didn't say anything about players never not working out, but the fact is - and the General appears to have confirmed it on his thread - we have quite a few players who cost us a lot of money and contribute nothing.
As I said I'm bored of saying it and you don't understand how to interpret the accounts. It is a fact, Spurs player costs are higher than Villa. You have latched onto the fact that the figure marked wages is lower in the Spurs accounts, when that isn't the only relevant figure.
Why compare Modric's old contract wages (reported) with Heskey? Why not include the extra £13m he cost in transfer fee? Why not compare the cost of Bentley?
Beye and Shorey didn't play becuase Warnock, Dunne, collins and Cuellar didn't get injured. Had Warnock and Cuellar been injured they would have played more. Perhaps the general would prefer that our first choice players were injured more often so that we get value for money from their stand-ins?
-
Here's something else worth thinking about.
Emile Heskey is our highest earner. We signed him from Wigan Athletic.
Wigan are nothing like big wage payers, yet two years after signing for Wigan, he's able to come to Villa at the age of 31 and become our highest earner?
Either Wigan were paying him superstar wages, or we've dropped a very large bollock.
Anyone who doesn't find that a bit disturbing must have balls of steel
It's fcuking lunacy of the highest order.
-
I am only just digseting ( with the aid of copious amounts of Gaviscon) the fact that Ivanhoe is our highest paid player.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez a huge bollock dropped.
-
As I said I'm bored of saying it and you don't understand how to interpret the accounts. It is a fact, Spurs player costs are higher than Villa. You have latched onto the fact that the figure marked wages is lower in the Spurs accounts, when that isn't the only relevant figure.
You referred to wage bills. Our wage bill is lower than Spurs. The General has just posted some stats about our recent spending. You might want to check them out.
Risso's also just put your right on your "you don't understand how to interpret the accounts" nonsense.
Beye and Shorey didn't play becuase Warnock, Dunne, collins and Cuellar didn't get injured. Had Warnock and Cuellar been injured they would have played more. Perhaps the general would prefer that our first choice players were injured more often so that we get value for money from their stand-ins?
Shorey didn't play because MON signed him then almost immediately decided he didn't rate him.
Habib Beye was a few weeks short of 32 years old when we signed him - on a three year contract, incidentally.
If we wanted a back up right back, how about not spaffing big money on a long contract for one, and then not using him?
Luke Young - we get a decent right back then opt to run the squad into the ground and not use him (perhaps he gave Martin a funny look one day at BMH) and now we're supposedly punting him off to Fulham for bugger all.
I don't see how you can simultaneously whinge that we haven't spent enough on players and wages to break the top four and also defend wasteful signings like those above.
-
Didn't Luke voice his disagreement with our surrender in the Uefa Cup? And that was the end of him.
-
That latest interview to me sounds like a man who is losing the passion for the job he is doing, it sounds as if he is going through the motions and coming out with same tired sound bites year after year.
He comes across as negative a lot of the time, but this time feels different. If you look at the way Benitez was acting last season with the interviews from Yossi Benayoun, freezing players out, acting erractically etc. It appears from the outside looking in that Martin is doing the same. I feel as if he is reaching the end of his tenure with us and he knows it. He left Celtic with loads of older players on high wages and long contracts, I fear he is doing the same with us.
The question I have is if Heskey, Shorey, Sidwell etc are on the stupidly high wages suggested recently, then who signed off on these deals, because they appear to be madness!
-
Didn't Luke voice his disagreement with our surrender in the Uefa Cup? And that was the end of him.
If it is about that, the flip side of that is to say "well, he should have kept his mouth shut. who can blame the manager", which is the same thing you could say about Shorey's strop at Craven Cottage.
But ultimately, it is expensive to hold grudges like that.
-
Didn't Luke voice his disagreement with our surrender in the Uefa Cup? And that was the end of him.
For a bloke who used to get booed playing for his country because of his religion, O'Neill is shockingly thin-skinned.
-
Here's something else worth thinking about.
Emile Heskey is our highest earner. We signed him from Wigan Athletic.
Wigan are nothing like big wage payers, yet two years after signing for Wigan, he's able to come to Villa at the age of 31 and become our highest earner?
Either Wigan were paying him superstar wages, or we've dropped a very large bollock.
Anyone who doesn't find that a bit disturbing must have balls of steel
I'd dearly love to know how much Carlos gets paid. He was on about £10K a week at Rangers and if we're paying him vast sums it will show something is awry with how our contracts are being negotiated.
Same with Shorey. Surely Reading weren't paying him anything like £43K a week.
Now let me get this straight amortisation is like depreciation right? So if I give someone a 4 year contract and pay £12million for him he will lose £3million Per Annam in amortisation? Therefore isn't a bit meaningless as the value of most of Spurs players will have increased due to their successful season?
-
I am only just digseting ( with the aid of copious amounts of Gaviscon) the fact that Ivanhoe is our highest paid player.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez a huge bollock dropped.
I've known for a while.
Not insider knowledge, as such. Just cobbling together various reports soon after his arrival that put his wages at £60-£62k.
A few months previous Ash had a new contract reported in various quarters to be anywhere between £50-55k.
No one -except perhaps Barry if he'd opted to stay- could have realistically commanded more than that.
We apparently did see off interest from Liverpool for Ivanhoe's signature -bizarre as that seems. And he was a few months away from quitting Wigan on a free.
But we stole a march on the competition, as we needed the type of surge only the Tumbling Bear could bring to the final part of our 08/09 campaign. That went well.
-
Can hardly moan about having no money to spend when he's wasted millions himself, I was beginning to doubt randy's commitment after hearing mon but the general has assured us randy is still up for it, which is good to know!
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
-
Didn't Luke voice his disagreement with our surrender in the Uefa Cup? And that was the end of him.
you mean this ? (http://www.football.co.uk/aston_villa/cautious_martin_oneill_leaves_eight_at_home_as_villa_head_for_cska_moscow_rss65583.shtml)
It seems even his own players can not see the logic. Speaking after Saturday's defeat, Luke Young said: "I'm not sure how the manager views it, but I think the lads feel it is a waste of time putting all the effort in on Wednesday if we are not going to go over there and try and finish the job."
-
That would be it.
-
Luke Young also spoke out about being played at left back.
-
I am starting to think I wouldn't mind a crack at doing it Citys way.
It must be fairly exciting I reckon. On here, we're getting all worked up about possibly signing Keane, whilst they are trawling the world trying to throw money at whoever is worth over 20m.
-
I am only just digseting ( with the aid of copious amounts of Gaviscon) the fact that Ivanhoe is our highest paid player.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez a huge bollock dropped.
I've often defended MON (No honestly, I have) but I'm still reeling from this bombshell. I'm not sure if I want him sacked or shot for it.
-
I thought it was after luke expressed his displeasure at playing left back that things went downhill between them- o neill doesn't seem to like players speaking out of turn.
-
Is anybody (well, those who have previously argued that O'Neill deserves more time) thinking that maybe a clean break all round would be best for all concerned?
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
Here's the good news - Heskey's only got two years left on his contract.
I said at the time we signed him, the contract length was pure madness. I wonder what length of contact is on the table for 30 year old Robbie Keane. 4 years?
-
Is anybody (well, those who have previously argued that O'Neill deserves more time) thinking that maybe a clean break all round would be best for all concerned?
I'm not one of his worshippers, but I think his number was up at the arse end of last season as he ran the same players into the ground.
He's had 4 seasons and pissed a massive amount of money up the wall.
The Heskey transfer with mega wages alone should get him strung up.
Time to go.
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
Here's the good news - Heskey's only got two years left on his contract.
I said at the time we signed him, the contract length was pure madness. I wonder what length of contact is on the table for 30 year old Robbie Keane. 4 years?
I don't think he'll make the end of that contract. Randy will want him gone before that with some cash coming back in. If he doesn't move this season, this will be his last - thank goodness.
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
Here's the good news - Heskey's only got two years left on his contract.
I said at the time we signed him, the contract length was pure madness. I wonder what length of contact is on the table for 30 year old Robbie Keane. 4 years?
nnnnnnnnnnngggggggg. Don't want to think about it Mark.
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
Here's the good news - Heskey's only got two years left on his contract.
I said at the time we signed him, the contract length was pure madness. I wonder what length of contact is on the table for 30 year old Robbie Keane. 4 years?
I don't think he'll make the end of that contract. Randy will want him gone before that with some cash coming back in. If he doesn't move this season, this will be his last - thank goodness.
Not his last season, he's got two left
Not that simple with shifting him, either.
Manager: I want to sell you, West Brom are interested
Emile: I'll talk to them.
*later*
Emile: They're offering me 2 years at 20k a week. I've got 2 years left here at 60k a week. I'll stay here.
-
Is anybody (well, those who have previously argued that O'Neill deserves more time) thinking that maybe a clean break all round would be best for all concerned?
I am starting to think that way, especially after finding out about Heskey. I'd still give him a little bit more time though, he has this transfer window to prove us all wrong.
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
Here's the good news - Heskey's only got two years left on his contract.
I said at the time we signed him, the contract length was pure madness. I wonder what length of contact is on the table for 30 year old Robbie Keane. 4 years?
When we signed Heskey I was actually quite happy with the transfer as I thought he'd been signed as a squad player. Clearly the wages offered seem to indicate something quite different.
I'm presuming MON isn't actually in charge of negotiating wages so it is slightly simplistic to hold him solely responsible for the state of our wage bill even if he is responsible for signing these players.
-
I have to be honest I'm pretty disillusioned right now, not by Randy but by the management of the club. If M'ON is going to stay, he needs to make amends for his massive wastes of money and get rid of a lot of deadwood and bring in some good value players.
-
The Randy way. Otherwise my dwindling faith in modern football will be all but extinguished.
-
That news that Heskey is our highest earner (and must therefore make him the club's best paid player ever) turns him from a slight embarassment of a player who hasn't quite worked out, to the biggest transfer disaster ever.
No wonder Liverpool plumped for Hodgson instead of going for O'Neill.
-
That news that Heskey is our highest earner (and must therefore make him the club's best paid player ever) turns him from a slight embarassment of a player who hasn't quite worked out, to the biggest transfer disaster ever.
No wonder Liverpool plumped for Hodgson instead of going for O'Neill.
It's all relative though Risso. Had he ended up at Liverpool as it had been rumoured then he wouldn't have been close to being the highest earner. It is sad that he is ours mind you, but he's not the biggest transfer disaster ever. That's a bit of a stretch.
-
That news that Heskey is our highest earner (and must therefore make him the club's best paid player ever) turns him from a slight embarassment of a player who hasn't quite worked out, to the biggest transfer disaster ever.
No wonder Liverpool plumped for Hodgson instead of going for O'Neill.
Heskey's not been a good signing at all but when you factor in transfer fees then Balaban and Collymore could easily be bigger disasters.
-
Is anybody (well, those who have previously argued that O'Neill deserves more time) thinking that maybe a clean break all round would be best for all concerned?
My position remains the same as it was from about March this year.
Would prefer him to see out the five years at least -if for no other reason than to say we've done all we can from a continuity/ backing perspective. But wouldn't be at all distraught if he himself decides to depart.
He's a funny fcuker though.
The start of last season continued like the back end of 2008/09, and yet by Christmas we were 3rd and beating Manure away at Old Trafford. He responds best when his back is to the wall and people doubt him.
-
Is anybody (well, those who have previously argued that O'Neill deserves more time) thinking that maybe a clean break all round would be best for all concerned?
My position remains the same as it was from about March this year.
Would prefer him to see out the five years at least -if for no other reason than to say we've done all we can from a continuity/ backing perspective. But wouldn't be at all distraught if he himself decides to depart.
He's a funny fcuker though.
The start of last season continued like the back end of 2008/09, and yet by Christmas we were 3rd and beating Manure away at Old Trafford. He responds best when his back is to the wall and people doubt him.
I disagree Kev. Odd games like Man U aside, every time we've needed a really big effot (like in the cup final and the chases for 4th place) he's failed miserably.
-
Is anybody (well, those who have previously argued that O'Neill deserves more time) thinking that maybe a clean break all round would be best for all concerned?
My position remains the same as it was from about March this year.
Would prefer him to see out the five years at least -if for no other reason than to say we've done all we can from a continuity/ backing perspective. But wouldn't be at all distraught if he himself decides to depart.
He's a funny fcuker though.
The start of last season continued like the back end of 2008/09, and yet by Christmas we were 3rd and beating Manure away at Old Trafford. He responds best when his back is to the wall and people doubt him.
I disagree Kev. Odd games like Man U aside, every time we've needed a really big effot (like in the cup final and the chases for 4th place) he's failed miserably.
I think it would be more accurate to say that he responds best when he is angry at people.
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
Here's the good news - Heskey's only got two years left on his contract.
I said at the time we signed him, the contract length was pure madness. I wonder what length of contact is on the table for 30 year old Robbie Keane. 4 years?
I don't think he'll make the end of that contract. Randy will want him gone before that with some cash coming back in. If he doesn't move this season, this will be his last - thank goodness.
Not his last season, he's got two left
Not that simple with shifting him, either.
Manager: I want to sell you, West Brom are interested
Emile: I'll talk to them.
*later*
Emile: They're offering me 2 years at 20k a week. I've got 2 years left here at 60k a week. I'll stay here.
Or we make up the difference.
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
Here's the good news - Heskey's only got two years left on his contract.
I said at the time we signed him, the contract length was pure madness. I wonder what length of contact is on the table for 30 year old Robbie Keane. 4 years?
I don't think he'll make the end of that contract. Randy will want him gone before that with some cash coming back in. If he doesn't move this season, this will be his last - thank goodness.
Not his last season, he's got two left
Not that simple with shifting him, either.
Manager: I want to sell you, West Brom are interested
Emile: I'll talk to them.
*later*
Emile: They're offering me 2 years at 20k a week. I've got 2 years left here at 60k a week. I'll stay here.
I understand he has two left. I think this will be his last season because the club will want to sell him before his contract expires.
There's also way worse players in football than Heskey. Let's not get carried away with his averageness. He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
-
He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
True. I read the other a day a club, I forget which, were willing to pay £60k a week to 30 year old Robbie Keane.
-
If Ivanhoe's our top earner forget selling him. He's here till he retires as there's not a club on earth who will take him on those wages, unless Capello takes over at Citeh. :o}
Here's the good news - Heskey's only got two years left on his contract.
I said at the time we signed him, the contract length was pure madness. I wonder what length of contact is on the table for 30 year old Robbie Keane. 4 years?
I don't think he'll make the end of that contract. Randy will want him gone before that with some cash coming back in. If he doesn't move this season, this will be his last - thank goodness.
Not his last season, he's got two left
Not that simple with shifting him, either.
Manager: I want to sell you, West Brom are interested
Emile: I'll talk to them.
*later*
Emile: They're offering me 2 years at 20k a week. I've got 2 years left here at 60k a week. I'll stay here.
I understand he has two left. I think this will be his last season because the club will want to sell him before his contract expires.
There's also way worse players in football than Heskey. Let's not get carried away with his averageness. He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
Really....Who ?
-
There's also way worse players in football than Heskey. Let's not get carried away with his averageness. He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
I'm in no way defending Heskey, MON or the breathtaking short-sightedness of the deal but if you put the signing in perspective, at the time we were buying Heskey his stock in British football had hardly been higher. To sign the player from under the noses of Liverpool and whoever else was believed to be interested would have taken a very attractive deal, which this certainly was.
It's really only in hindsight that he's turned out to be as useful as a Venus de Milo on a pair of roller skates.
-
There's also way worse players in football than Heskey. Let's not get carried away with his averageness. He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
I'm in no way defending Heskey, MON or the breathtaking short-sightedness of the deal but if you put the signing in perspective, at the time we were buying Heskey his stock in British football had hardly been higher. To sign the player from under the noses of Liverpool and whoever else was believed to be interested would have taken a very attractive deal, which this certainly was.
It's really only in hindsight that he's turned out to be as useful as a Venus de Milo on a pair of roller skates.
A Liverpool supporting buddy of mine was travelling over to see Pool V Wigan a few seasons ago. I wound the shit outta him that he would be able to see their next signing at close hand. As it happened,Heskey missed the game...and signed for us....He was a waste of space then, as he is now. Surely the most useless fucker to ever sign for us
-
There's also way worse players in football than Heskey. Let's not get carried away with his averageness. He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
I'm in no way defending Heskey, MON or the breathtaking short-sightedness of the deal but if you put the signing in perspective, at the time we were buying Heskey his stock in British football had hardly been higher. To sign the player from under the noses of Liverpool and whoever else was believed to be interested would have taken a very attractive deal, which this certainly was.
It's really only in hindsight that he's turned out to be as useful as a Venus de Milo on a pair of roller skates.
A Liverpool supporting buddy of mine was travelling over to see Pool V Wigan a few seasons ago. I wound the shit outta him that he would be able to see their next signing at close hand. As it happened,Heskey missed the game...and signed for us....He was a waste of space then, as he is now. Surely the most useless fucker to ever sign for us
Don't get me wrong, I expected him to revert to type as soon as he signed for us.
-
There's also way worse players in football than Heskey. Let's not get carried away with his averageness. He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
I'm in no way defending Heskey, MON or the breathtaking short-sightedness of the deal but if you put the signing in perspective, at the time we were buying Heskey his stock in British football had hardly been higher. To sign the player from under the noses of Liverpool and whoever else was believed to be interested would have taken a very attractive deal, which this certainly was.
It's really only in hindsight that he's turned out to be as useful as a Venus de Milo on a pair of roller skates.
A Liverpool supporting buddy of mine was travelling over to see Pool V Wigan a few seasons ago. I wound the shit outta him that he would be able to see their next signing at close hand. As it happened,Heskey missed the game...and signed for us....He was a waste of space then, as he is now. Surely the most useless fucker to ever sign for us
Don't get me wrong, I expected him to revert to type as soon as he signed for us.
But thats just it, he was always crap so why did MON sign him. At least Fash the Bash has the decency to retire through injury shortly after signing for us.
-
He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
True. I read the other a day a club, I forget which, were willing to pay a week to 30 year old Robbie Keane.
Hey, if you believe the papers, then Man City want to pay £20 mil and give a 32 year old Drogba £150,000 a week or something stupid. Fucking madness.
-
He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
True. I read the other a day a club, I forget which, were willing to pay a week to 30 year old Robbie Keane.
Hey, if you believe the papers, then Man City want to pay £20 mil and give a 32 year old Drogba £150,000 a week or something stupid. Fucking madness.
If we're using Man City as a yardstick by which to measure the appropriateness of transfer deals, then we're on to a loser, mind.
-
Wouldn't surprise me if drogba and torres both go there to be honest- at least their reserves should piss their league.
-
He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
True. I read the other a day a club, I forget which, were willing to pay a week to 30 year old Robbie Keane.
Hey, if you believe the papers, then Man City want to pay £20 mil and give a 32 year old Drogba £150,000 a week or something stupid. Fucking madness.
If we're using Man City as a yardstick by which to measure the appropriateness of transfer deals, then we're on to a loser, mind.
Kind of like using North Korea as a model of international diplomacy.
-
I'm in no way defending Heskey, MON or the breathtaking short-sightedness of the deal but if you put the signing in perspective, at the time we were buying Heskey his stock in British football had hardly been higher. To sign the player from under the noses of Liverpool and whoever else was believed to be interested would have taken a very attractive deal, which this certainly was.
Not sure I buy that, to be honest. Benitez was rumoured to want him, that's about as far as it went, isnt it?
Benitez was also rumoured to want the (much better, much younger) Milner at the time we signed him, but we ended up offering Heskey much more.
It's not so much an attractive deal as a mental one (in my opinion). That kind of money and that length of contract for any footballer at age 31 is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, but for Emile Heskey?
-
He might not get the full amount, but I'm sure he can do a job for someone while getting paid pretty good money for player in his 30's.
True. I read the other a day a club, I forget which, were willing to pay a week to 30 year old Robbie Keane.
Hey, if you believe the papers, then Man City want to pay £20 mil and give a 32 year old Drogba £150,000 a week or something stupid. Fucking madness.
If we're using Man City as a yardstick by which to measure the appropriateness of transfer deals, then we're on to a loser, mind.
Yeh, fair enough. They've lost the plot to a new level, but I think football has generally anyway. I'm quite sure that there are examples around all clubs where people just scratch their heads at what some of these less than average players are getting paid.
-
I'm in no way defending Heskey, MON or the breathtaking short-sightedness of the deal but if you put the signing in perspective, at the time we were buying Heskey his stock in British football had hardly been higher. To sign the player from under the noses of Liverpool and whoever else was believed to be interested would have taken a very attractive deal, which this certainly was.
Not sure I buy that, to be honest. Benitez was rumoured to want him, that's about as far as it went, isnt it?
Benitez was also rumoured to want the (much better, much younger) Milner at the time we signed him, but we ended up offering Heskey much more.
It's not so much an attractive deal as a mental one (in my opinion). That kind of money and that length of contract for any footballer is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, but for Emile Heskey?
It was probably like Peter Ridsdale entering negotiations with Seth Johnson.
-
It was probably like Peter Ridsdale entering negotiations with Seth Johnson.
Mythical?
-
It was probably like Peter Ridsdale entering negotiations with Seth Johnson.
Mythical?
At these figures, yeah!
-
It was probably like Peter Ridsdale entering negotiations with Seth Johnson.
Mythical?
At these figures, yeah!
That Ridsdale/Johnson story was untrue. They never met before the deal was signed.
-
I know. Just a joke, mon ami.
-
Quite apart from Randy's way just feeling more right, with Platini's new rules coming in I wouldn't like to be saddled with City's turnover/wages ratio.
-
Edit.
-
Be honest, what would you prefer ?
A slow burn or a quick, let's spend spend spend...and spend some more way like Man Citeh ?
Take the money every time.
-
I'd feel uncomfortable at the speed of change with man City's money, and it would feel all slightly unreal and plastic. But I'd still pay to watch us, and I'd still go to Wembley. and I'd still be happier to see us in the CL this season looking at who we could buy rather than worry about Milner, luke young, buy to sell, etc etc etc
-
Maybe a little off topic but just watching SSN.....
Was a little annoying to see Garry Cooke spreading the word of MCFC in Harlem, NYC. Why aren't we doing the same in the US?
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
-
Pretty much, yeah.
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
Nah.
If he wanted stars he'd have to give us a lot more money. I think their policy has been very deliberate.
Accoring to the General Randy and MON are still working very closely. I'll take that over anything Pelty has to say.
-
The Randy way for too many reasons to lists.
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
Nah.
If he wanted stars he'd have to give us a lot more money. I think their policy has been very deliberate.
Accoring to the General Randy and MON are still working very closely. I'll take that over anything Pelty has to say.
Where has Pelty said they're not? All he did was give his honest opinion, which is one that an increasing number of people seem to be agreeing with.
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
Nah.
If he wanted stars he'd have to give us a lot more money. I think their policy has been very deliberate.
Accoring to the General Randy and MON are still working very closely. I'll take that over anything Pelty has to say.
Where has Pelty said they're not? All he did was give his honest opinion, which is one that an increasing number of people seem to be agreeing with.
My point is that there is no evidence that Randy Lerner agrees with him, which is not surprising as I don't think Pelty has a fucking clue if I'm honest.
-
My point is that there is no evidence that Randy Lerner agrees with him, which is not surprising as I don't think Pelty has a fucking clue if I'm honest.
I'm sure he'll be distraught to hear your opinion of him Chris.
-
So, Pelty makes the point that the manager has got a lot of players who barely ever get a run out, on big wages, then subsequently - as in half an hour later - General Krulak returns for the first time in two months, and posts something about how we need to make sure the right money is going to the right people etc etc
That, to me, suggests that he has got a clue.
Pelty also said there's no "sell to buy" policy. I imagine you believe that bit, though, Chris.
-
My point is that there is no evidence that Randy Lerner agrees with him, which is not surprising as I don't think Pelty has a fucking clue if I'm honest.
I'm sure he'll be distraught to hear your opinion of him Chris.
He'll get over it.
I'm sure he's a lovely bloke and all that but every summer he has a rant against the manager. I guess he thinks he's doing his bit to back his family and friends but if there is a problem with the wages paid then they're all in it together.
-
City's trillions all day. My man city mate has had several multiple orgasms !!!!! (nothing to do with his wife ) ....
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
Nah.
If he wanted stars he'd have to give us a lot more money. I think their policy has been very deliberate.
Accoring to the General Randy and MON are still working very closely. I'll take that over anything Pelty has to say.
Who is Pelty and what did he say?
-
Citys. I want exciting signings and trophies as soon as possible.
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
Nah.
If he wanted stars he'd have to give us a lot more money. I think their policy has been very deliberate.
Accoring to the General Randy and MON are still working very closely. I'll take that over anything Pelty has to say.
Where has Pelty said they're not? All he did was give his honest opinion, which is one that an increasing number of people seem to be agreeing with.
My point is that there is no evidence that Randy Lerner agrees with him, which is not surprising as I don't think Pelty has a fucking clue if I'm honest.
Don't you think he might have more of a clue than you do?
-
I think pelty has far more of a clue considering who he is, and I've always found his opinions very worthwhile to read.
-
City's trillions all day. My man city mate has had several multiple orgasms !!!!! (nothing to do with his wife ) ....
Think you're on the wrong website mate. *winky*
-
Invest in British players, academys, limit foreign players.
I love it, but EU employment law would scupper the last bit.
Teams could employ as many EU players as the like but could only play, say 4. May be wrong but I do not think that goes against EU labour laws.
If this was the case, clubs would soon cut down on the number of foreign players they buy. The trouble is that the PL do not want to go down this route as their saleable comodity would go down in value.
Cutting down players from outside EU could come from FA and Government, inside EU would have to come from the clubs themselves. Under PL rules I seem to think that it needs 75% of members (15 clubs) to agree on rule changes.
-
That latest interview to me sounds like a man who is losing the passion for the job he is doing, it sounds as if he is going through the motions and coming out with same tired sound bites year after year.
He comes across as negative a lot of the time, but this time feels different. If you look at the way Benitez was acting last season with the interviews from Yossi Benayoun, freezing players out, acting erractically etc. It appears from the outside looking in that Martin is doing the same. I feel as if he is reaching the end of his tenure with us and he knows it.
I get the similar feeling.
-
That latest interview to me sounds like a man who is losing the passion for the job he is doing, it sounds as if he is going through the motions and coming out with same tired sound bites year after year.
He comes across as negative a lot of the time, but this time feels different. If you look at the way Benitez was acting last season with the interviews from Yossi Benayoun, freezing players out, acting erractically etc. It appears from the outside looking in that Martin is doing the same. I feel as if he is reaching the end of his tenure with us and he knows it.
I get the similar feeling.
As Norm Crandles, a fellow Ulsterman once replied to somebody re MoN in a different context, you don't know the Irish very well then.
I think that once he realises he cannot maintain the steady, cautious approach, he will cut loose. Hold on to your seats.
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
Nah.
If he wanted stars he'd have to give us a lot more money. I think their policy has been very deliberate.
Accoring to the General Randy and MON are still working very closely. I'll take that over anything Pelty has to say.
Where has Pelty said they're not? All he did was give his honest opinion, which is one that an increasing number of people seem to be agreeing with.
My point is that there is no evidence that Randy Lerner agrees with him, which is not surprising as I don't think Pelty has a fucking clue if I'm honest.
Don't you think he might have more of a clue than you do?
I doubt whether that thought would ever occur to him
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
Nah.
If he wanted stars he'd have to give us a lot more money. I think their policy has been very deliberate.
Accoring to the General Randy and MON are still working very closely. I'll take that over anything Pelty has to say.
Where has Pelty said they're not? All he did was give his honest opinion, which is one that an increasing number of people seem to be agreeing with.
My point is that there is no evidence that Randy Lerner agrees with him, which is not surprising as I don't think Pelty has a fucking clue if I'm honest.
Don't you think he might have more of a clue than you do?
No, he's been a Villa fan for 5 minutes I don't think he understands the game. I read more good sense from posters on here every day than I have ever seen from him.
-
I read more good sense from posters on here every day than I have ever seen from him.
Roughly translated as:
"I read more stuff that agrees with MY point of view from posters on here than I have ever seen from him."
-
dunno about that coops , im not sure that many agree with chris do they?
-
dunno about that coops , im not sure that many agree with chris do they?
MON agrees with Chris and that's all that matters.
I agree with Nick.
-
I read more good sense from posters on here every day than I have ever seen from him.
Roughly translated as:
"I read more stuff that agrees with MY point of view from posters on here than I have ever seen from him."
<yawn>
Have you always been this unpleasant or have you had to work at it?
-
I read more good sense from posters on here every day than I have ever seen from him.
Roughly translated as:
"I read more stuff that agrees with MY point of view from posters on here than I have ever seen from him."
<yawn>
Have you always been this unpleasant or have you had to work at it?
It was done tongue in cheek, but still, it's fine when you lay into a poster but when the boots on the other foot....
-
I read more good sense from posters on here every day than I have ever seen from him.
Roughly translated as:
"I read more stuff that agrees with MY point of view from posters on here than I have ever seen from him."
<yawn>
Have you always been this unpleasant or have you had to work at it?
It was done tongue in cheek, but still, it's fine when you lay into a poster but when the boots on the other foot....
I've noticed that too.
-
I read more good sense from posters on here every day than I have ever seen from him.
Roughly translated as:
"I read more stuff that agrees with MY point of view from posters on here than I have ever seen from him."
<yawn>
Have you always been this unpleasant or have you had to work at it?
It was done tongue in cheek..l.
Fair enough, although that wasn't obvious given your recent behaviour.
-
Guys the reality is that the Man City way is not sustainable. What happens when the situation in Dubai deteriorates further and the Abu Dhabi Royal family decide they need to cut their investment in Man City to put more into propping up Dubai? Its going to happen.
I would never want an owner who does not run my club in a sustainable way as I dont want my club put at risk of extinction. If our current balance sheet means we can only compete at the level we are at so be it.
-
Fair enough, although that wasn't obvious given your recent behaviour.
Which is a bit rich considering its source.
-
Fair enough, although that wasn't obvious given your recent behaviour.
Which is a bit rich considering its source.
Hello Mr Kettle.
-
Fair enough, although that wasn't obvious given your recent behaviour.
Which is a bit rich considering its source.
Hello Mr Kettle.
Hey, that's funny. Cliched, untrue and predictable, but, fu... no, hang on, it's not funny.
It's always you against the cold, cruel world isn't it?
-
Fair enough, although that wasn't obvious given your recent behaviour.
Which is a bit rich considering its source.
Hello Mr Kettle.
Hey, that's funny. Cliched, untrue and predictable, but, fu... no, hang on, it's not funny.
It's always you against the cold, cruel world isn't it?
No, it was Dave against me and all over and done with until you weighed in.
-
We might disagree with Chris and attempt to give him an enjoyable cyber kicking now and again, but it has to be said that he knows his football and is a lot more knowledgeable about it than many.
Now if he could just cut down on the Prozac.......
-
Guys the reality is that the Man City way is not sustainable. What happens when the situation in Dubai deteriorates further and the Abu Dhabi Royal family decide they need to cut their investment in Man City to put more into propping up Dubai? Its going to happen.
Whilst I agree with you, it will be a bad situation for city if they walk away, you are effectively waiting for an incredibly rich oil state to go tits up for that to happen, which isn't very likely.
I would never want an owner who does not run my club in a sustainable way as I dont want my club put at risk of extinction. If our current balance sheet means we can only compete at the level we are at so be it.
Our current balance sheet doesn't even allow us to compete at the level we are - we're propped up by Randy's money already.
-
We might disagree with Chris and attempt to give him an enjoyable cyber kicking now and again
Is the 'We' the 'clique' that regularly round on Chris. Some of his views are a bit extreme at times but some should look at their own comments occasionally.
but it has to be said that he knows his football and is a lot more knowledgeable about it than many.
If you moderate some of his comments, the 'vein' of his views would support this. As you said, more knowledgeable than many that turn to ridicule to try and make a point.
-
We might disagree with Chris and attempt to give him an enjoyable cyber kicking now and again, but it has to be said that he knows his football and is a lot more knowledgeable about it than many.
Now if he could just cut down on the Prozac.......
To be fair to Chris, it's probably Red Bull !
-
As much as the British press seem to enjoy wringing their hands at Dubai's imminent implosion, there's absolutely no chance of it 'collapsing into the sand' or disappearing into thin air, as much as some people would love to see that. In fact, Britain is in a far, far worse state financially than Dubai has ever been (since oil).
Emirates airline just ordered $3billion worth of planes, and before that they slapped in an $11billion order for a bunch of A380 superjumbo jets. That doesn't look like the act of an emirate that's on its way out.
Now try to imagine Abu Dhabi. They are incredibly, unfathomably rich. Their sovereign wealth fund alone is estimated to be in the region of $500billion. This is just their spending money. Their vast oil reserves will last for another 100 years at least, and that's with production doubling over the next few years.
They are not going to go bust in our lifetime. Get used to it.
-
It was probably like Peter Ridsdale entering negotiations with Seth Johnson.
Mythical?
At these figures, yeah!
That Ridsdale/Johnson story was untrue. They never met before the deal was signed.
What Risdale/Johnson story?
I'd forgotten all about Seth Johnson until he was mentioned here - I'm sure when he was at Derby(?) before Leeds he looked like a shit hot midfielder. Him and Hopkin (another blast from the past) from Palace.
-
Americans are only interested in "stars" and O'Neill is scared to sign them.
Nah.
If he wanted stars he'd have to give us a lot more money. I think their policy has been very deliberate.
Accoring to the General Randy and MON are still working very closely. I'll take that over anything Pelty has to say.
Where has Pelty said they're not? All he did was give his honest opinion, which is one that an increasing number of people seem to be agreeing with.
My point is that there is no evidence that Randy Lerner agrees with him, which is not surprising as I don't think Pelty has a fucking clue if I'm honest.
Don't you think he might have more of a clue than you do?
No, he's been a Villa fan for 5 minutes I don't think he understands the game. I read more good sense from posters on here every day than I have ever seen from him.
I'm on about some of the information within his post such as Heskey being our biggest earner.
I believe that other things such as the comments posted regarding the manager are his opinion. And in that I agree with you that I'd value his opinion but not more than that of other posters on here.
-
I'm not even sure what Randy's way is. Has he got a plan?
Randy seems to have picked up that the most successful clubs either have continuity of the manager, a settled squad, or both. Manchester United and Chelsea have barely changed the core of their teams since 2006. The former have had the same manager for 25 years. Arsenal deals somewhat more in the transfer market, but has kept the same manager since 1996.
Man City's habit of signing seven or eight players (with big egos) every season and changing manager whenever there is a sign of adversity may not help them.
However, whether O'Neill buys into the idea that continuity is ideal is an open question. Certainly, his habit of alienating players is not helpful. If we have to sell Sidwell, Reo-Coker, Luke Young, Shorey, Beye and Davies, we will have to sign six or seven players if our squad is not to be wafer-thin the coming season.
Unfortunately, in this respect, I don't think the comparisons between Benitez and O'Neill are completely misguided. Benitez is a better tactician, more knowledgeable and analytical, but MON is perhaps better at developing players. However, if Liverpool had managed to keep Alonso, Arbeloa, Riise and Keane, they would perhaps have been in a different position now.
In other words, a manager's ability to keep players happy, and only sell them if he knows that he can get someone better in, may be more important than we think.
-
I'm not even sure what Randy's way is. Has he got a plan?
Randy seems to have picked up that the most successful clubs either have continuity of the manager, a settled squad, or both. Manchester United and Chelsea have barely changed the core of their teams since 2006. The former have had the same manager for 25 years.
Man City's habit of signing seven or eight players (with big egos) every season and changing manager whenever there is a sign of adversity may not help them.
I see what you are saying; however, Chelsea had to through the same stage Man city are going through now to get where they are.
Chelsea have signed more players with big ego's as you put it than any other team in recent history.