Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: PaulTheVillan on July 11, 2011, 05:22:18 PM
-
O/S (http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10265~2390452,00.html)
We've coughed up to the shit.
-
settlement I doubt it will be the full amount
-
So we did tap AM up then. Oh well, we can't now complain when others do it to us.
-
Fine. Good.
So who's this Doctor McGuinness, then? Sounds like an advertising campaign....
-
I feel dirty just reading that. The figure will probably be in the accounts anyway next year, look forward to seeing what it cost us to get a manager of his calibre.
-
Glad this is sorted out. I believe we will begin our transfer plans now!
-
Ridiculous state of affairs.
-
Bloody marvellous.That's a players transfer fee worth pissed away between MO'N,GH and AM
-
Glad this is sorted out. I believe we will begin our transfer plans now!
Why would that make any difference?
-
I suppose it's a good thing if it means we can have a decent go at buying Dann or Foster.
-
Glad this is sorted out. I believe we will begin our transfer plans now!
Why would that make any difference?
I believe we may sign a player or two from them.
-
I assume Peter Grant is our assistant manager then?
-
Apparently there has been a report that Bodymoor Heath sent over 2 bins of dirty towels and a 19 inch Black and White telly.
-
I suppose it's a good thing if it means we can have a decent go at buying Dann or Foster.
AM already said at the fanforum that Dann would be too expensive
-
I assume Peter Grant is our assistant manager then?
I hope he has been unlucky. Otherwise, he seems to be something of a Jonah.
-
I suppose it's a good thing if it means we can have a decent go at buying Dann or Foster.
AM already said at the fanforum that Dann would be too expensive
We dont need anymore centre-halves anyway.............
-
Ridiculous state of affairs.
Your right,I am finding it hard to believe what the club is telling us at the moment.
The next time the General comes on here and tells us Randy will back the manager when the manager himself says something different he will get an Internet pistol whipping.
-
This whole fiasco would have been unthinkable just two months ago.
-
Aaaargh! Why does it always seem like Villa get taken for mugs?!
-
Disappointing but it's what I expected. It won't be anything close to what they wanted I'll bet. It avoids the issue being dragged on for ever and possibly to court where everything gets a lot more expensive.
-
I suppose it's a good thing if it means we can have a decent go at buying Dann or Foster.
AM already said at the fanforum that Dann would be too expensive
We dont need anymore centre-halves anyway.............
We do if Dunne and Collins play like they did last season!
-
Disappointing but it's what I expected. It won't be anything close to what they wanted I'll bet. It avoids the issue being dragged on for ever and possibly to court where everything gets a lot more expensive.
What grounds do you have for thinking they won't have gotten exactly what their contractual position entitled them to?
-
Folks may be annoyed at paying compo but this was always likely to happen for McLeish to get his backroom staff in. As someone has said at least this means we can start to think about pushing through transfers. Suprised the cheif scout didnt come aswell as he's supposed to be highly rated and well connected.
-
Villa rejected a manager prospect (probably Benitez) because he wanted to "hold the club to ransom". Apparently that's a job better left to Birmingham City. ::)
-
I am sure Alex will be able to sort out Dunne and Collins and get them performing under O'Neill era. It can't be that hard.
-
How much do we reckon the total is for:
Paying off MON
+
Paying off GH
+
Acquiring AM
+
Acquiring his backroom team?
I'm going to go for: 3 + 5 + 3 + 4 = 15m.
If only we had 15m pounds or so lying around somewhere to fill that hole.
Terms: please note this post does not contain anything presented as fact, it merely expresses the uninformed guess of the poster responsible.
-
4m for acquiring the backroom team? I find that VERY hard to believe.
-
Glad this is sorted out. I believe we will begin our transfer plans now!
Why would that make any difference?
It might in that the club now know the funds available for any transfers.
-
I presume we had to pay Sheff Weds and Leicester some kind of compensation for Big Ron and Brian so there's no reason why this should be any different.
I'm just glad it's over and done with now. Time to move forward and all that.
-
Fucking hell. We wanted his backroom staff - and maybe he wants to consider a couple of his former players - for those things to happen we HAD to end the rift with them.
We were never gonna get the guys McLeish wanted on his staff - or any players from them - if we didn't come to a total settlement. No way will we have paid any of the originally expected figures - we will have paid enough to get his staff and a bit more to shut them up about Eck.
-
This whole fiasco would have been unthinkable just two months ago.
It's symptomatic of the whole club i'm afraid.
Since O'Neill left they've barely put a foot right.
-
This whole fiasco would have been unthinkable just two months ago.
It's symptomatic of the whole club i'm afraid.
Since O'Neill left they've barely put a foot right.
It's not looking good, is it?
-
Don't Blues owe HSBC something like £3m in loan fees which haven't been paid? HSBC would have claim to the land and St Andrews if Blues default I am sure I have read that recently.
Wouldn;t surprise me if the total cost for it all is around that figure.
-
It's hard to imagine (well, I think it is!) that after all this bru-ha-ha, the club won't back McLeish in the transfer market. At least a bit, anyway.
-
This whole fiasco would have been unthinkable just two months ago.
It's symptomatic of the whole club i'm afraid.
Since O'Neill left they've barely put a foot right.
I'm wondering if the club are aware of the risks they are taking. When they appointed GH, did they think that he was a safe choice, given his experience, good reputation and knowledge of the Premiership? Or did they also consider his health problems, his absence from top management and record of falling out with players and conclude that he was worth the gamble? To the outsider, Sven -- or even Alan Curbishley -- would have seemed a safer, though perhaps less inspiring, choice.
Same goes for McLeish: did the board think of him as a manager used to working with meagre resources, well-liked among colleagues and should thus surely be able to keep a squad as talented as Villa's in the Premiership? Or massive gamble worth taking despite his recent dismal record and the fact that some fans can't wait to jump on his back?
There seems to be a discrepancy between the board's apparent stance on risk (prudent wages, reject managers who'll hold the club to ransom (Benitez) or who'll think they're bigger than the club (Hughes)) and their actions.
-
It's hard to imagine (well, I think it is!) that after all this bru-ha-ha, the club won't back McLeish in the transfer market. At least a bit, anyway.
Yes, but the club seems to be trying to break records in doing unimaginable things this summer.
-
It's hard to imagine (well, I think it is!) that after all this bru-ha-ha, the club won't back McLeish in the transfer market. At least a bit, anyway.
You'd hope. They've got to give the poor sod a chance.
I have to say that not even the fairest minded person could argue that the process of replacing GH has been anything other than a shambles. Now, they've got to make the best out of it.
-
The one decent coach they have we have not bloody poached FFS. Makes no sense at all, any of it this summer. So tired of it, all thoughts of trying to think positively are eeking from my very being. Someone, somewhere provide some light, and if it is shining off Stephen Irelands head they can feck off!
-
It's hard to imagine (well, I think it is!) that after all this bru-ha-ha, the club won't back McLeish in the transfer market. At least a bit, anyway.
It's seems unlikely Randy would appoint a manager as controversial and unpopular as McCleish and not back him properly in the transfer market, it would'nt make sense. I'm sure decent money will be spent if the right player is available.
-
It's hard to imagine (well, I think it is!) that after all this bru-ha-ha, the club won't back McLeish in the transfer market. At least a bit, anyway.
Yes, but the club seems to be trying to break records in doing unimaginable things this summer.
Ha! Well, quite.
If nothing else, they MUST be of the mind that this is a long term appointment and one that will therefore be supported at least in adding one or two players to the squad.
-
4 years then?
-
Just think we could have mark Hughes in place now and he would have been free and we would probably be in a similar position. We could have put that money towards parker. He better be fucking worth it. He looks wrong in the badge.
-
Disappointing but it's what I expected. It won't be anything close to what they wanted I'll bet. It avoids the issue being dragged on for ever and possibly to court where everything gets a lot more expensive.
What grounds do you have for thinking they won't have gotten exactly what their contractual position entitled them to?
I'm almost certain that both sides will have settled out of expediency for a compromise figure as it suits neither for this to drag on for 12 months.
-
Just think we could have mark Hughes in place now and he would have been free and we would probably be in a similar position. We could have put that money towards parker. He better be fucking worth it. He looks wrong in the badge.
In an updated Club Statement, they go on to say..
Whilst the Club could have held out until the 1st of July to appoint a different manager, the Club thought it was in the best interests of the fans and season ticket sales, to make the appointment of Alex McCleish, thus reducing the wait and probable implosion of impatient drama queens with our support.
-
Disappointing but it's what I expected. It won't be anything close to what they wanted I'll bet. It avoids the issue being dragged on for ever and possibly to court where everything gets a lot more expensive.
What grounds do you have for thinking they won't have gotten exactly what their contractual position entitled them to?
I'm almost certain that both sides will have settled out of expediency for a compromise figure as it suits neither for this to drag on for 12 months.
It's not unreasonable to assume that the one side who had most to lose by letting it go to the courts also had to make the biggest concessions.
-
Disappointing but it's what I expected. It won't be anything close to what they wanted I'll bet. It avoids the issue being dragged on for ever and possibly to court where everything gets a lot more expensive.
What grounds do you have for thinking they won't have gotten exactly what their contractual position entitled them to?
I'm almost certain that both sides will have settled out of expediency for a compromise figure as it suits neither for this to drag on for 12 months.
It's not unreasonable to assume that the one side who had most to lose by letting it go to the courts also had to make the biggest concessions.
Both clubs want to get on with planning for the new season and allow their new manager to organise his own back room staff so it was equally important to settle. We're lettting the rhetoric from when it first happened influence our views when in reality that soon passed and appears to have been dealt with in a more business like manner.
-
None of the decisions this board make these days surprise me !As someone said,we have'nt even poached their best coach to make it worse.
-
Whats the saying "rub salt in the wounds"
-
Settled at last which is a good thing, another step in the right direction to enable us to prepare for next season.
Lets now get on with adding some players, which I'm sure will start happening pretty quickly now.
-
How much more would we have had to pay for a successful manager?
-
The feeling I get is that we've paid for a manager that can be managed.
-
Disappointing but it's what I expected. It won't be anything close to what they wanted I'll bet. It avoids the issue being dragged on for ever and possibly to court where everything gets a lot more expensive.
What grounds do you have for thinking they won't have gotten exactly what their contractual position entitled them to?
I'm almost certain that both sides will have settled out of expediency for a compromise figure as it suits neither for this to drag on for 12 months.
It's not unreasonable to assume that the one side who had most to lose by letting it go to the courts also had to make the biggest concessions.
Both clubs want to get on with planning for the new season and allow their new manager to organise his own back room staff so it was equally important to settle. We're lettting the rhetoric from when it first happened influence our views when in reality that soon passed and appears to have been dealt with in a more business like manner.
And the business like manner in which these things are settled quickly is for the party at fault to settle the contractual requirements that were in place at the time. I don't have any more idea than anyone else about what the settlement is but I have no reason to believe that Villa will have gotten a "good deal" out of it.
-
Disappointing but it's what I expected. It won't be anything close to what they wanted I'll bet. It avoids the issue being dragged on for ever and possibly to court where everything gets a lot more expensive.
What grounds do you have for thinking they won't have gotten exactly what their contractual position entitled them to?
I'm almost certain that both sides will have settled out of expediency for a compromise figure as it suits neither for this to drag on for 12 months.
It's not unreasonable to assume that the one side who had most to lose by letting it go to the courts also had to make the biggest concessions.
Both clubs want to get on with planning for the new season and allow their new manager to organise his own back room staff so it was equally important to settle. We're lettting the rhetoric from when it first happened influence our views when in reality that soon passed and appears to have been dealt with in a more business like manner.
And the business like manner in which these things are settled quickly is for the party at fault to settle the contractual requirements that were in place at the time. I don't have any more idea than anyone else about what the settlement is but I have no reason to believe that Villa will have gotten a "good deal" out of it.
why does it have to be a good deal? Blues wanted the full payout, we said no, they met somewhere in the middle that alleviated the need for further distraction and cost. However you want to cut it, the end result is that it puts an end to this affair, and hopefully we can get on with preparing for the season.
Today's announcement doesn't change a thing in my eyes. We got a manager that most of us didn't endorse, but he's the manager and that's that. Had we got an employed manager like Moyes that was popular we'd have likely paid even more in compensation. All I know, at least from my persepective is that we now we have to get behind the club and hope that the decision made by the board is justified.
-
Disappointing but it's what I expected. It won't be anything close to what they wanted I'll bet. It avoids the issue being dragged on for ever and possibly to court where everything gets a lot more expensive.
What grounds do you have for thinking they won't have gotten exactly what their contractual position entitled them to?
I'm almost certain that both sides will have settled out of expediency for a compromise figure as it suits neither for this to drag on for 12 months.
It's not unreasonable to assume that the one side who had most to lose by letting it go to the courts also had to make the biggest concessions.
You're right. Blues could have been told that if things went to court, and it was revealed what complete wankers they were in their treatment of AM, supported in full by the LMA's evidence that they stood to lose a lot more by letting this drag on.
-
an embarrassment of epic proportions. Our board being owned by Peter Pannu.
I really want to give McLeish a chance but his appointment is wrong on so many levels.
-
so we did tap him up then
and MON was right to walk away
and the doctors were right about GH
-
so the money saved on the wage bill with player exits has all been pissed away on compensation for managers?
-
so the money saved on the wage bill with player exits has all been pissed away on compensation for managers?
In some way or the other, yeah.
-
I'm just glad it's been sorted out now we can look forward to the start of season.
-
So a have we also employed the highley rated scout as well? (sorry can't remember his name)
-
Our board being owned by Peter Pannu.
I love the way that these things are kept quiet, but people still think they know what happened.
As I see it, McLeish had plenty of justification for walking, otherwise why would he have initiated his constructive dismissal case? And as that's been dropped also, then doesn't that suggest some form of compromise was reached as both partied had a case?
It's over and done with, so lets get on with our summer business and see what type of manager our money, however much it was, has got us.
-
Our board being owned by Peter Pannu.
I love the way that these things are kept quiet, but people still think they know what happened.
As I see it, McLeish had plenty of justification for walking, otherwise why would he have initiated his constructive dismissal case? And as that's been dropped also, then doesn't that suggest some form of compromise was reached as both partied had a case?
It's over and done with, so lets get on with our summer business and see what type of manager our money, however much it was, has got us.
Appointing McLeish was bad enough in the first place. Having to pay another club anything more than a penny for his services is an insult.
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
-
Did we ever get compensation off the FA for Graham Taylor ?
-
So a have we also employed the highley rated scout as well? (sorry can't remember his name)
Paul Montgomery. He is expected to join Villa fairly soon according to the Sunday Express .............
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
A fucking disgrace.
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
A fucking disgrace.
And if true, the sign of a board who haven't got the first clue what they're doing.
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
A fucking disgrace.
And if true, the sign of a board who haven't got the first clue what they're doing.
Precisely.
The word incompetent springs to mind.
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
A fucking disgrace.
And if true, the sign of a board who haven't got the first clue what they're doing.
i'd say a sign of a board coming to a pragmatic compromise in order to get on with preparing for the season. If we hadn't settled this would have dragged on for as long as the MON thing did. I'm not happy with having to give them anything but does anyone seriously believe that we didn't tap him up?
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
A fucking disgrace.
And if true, the sign of a board who haven't got the first clue what they're doing.
i'd say a sign of a board coming to a pragmatic compromise in order to get on with preparing for the season. If we hadn't settled this would have dragged on for as long as the MON thing did. I'm not happy with having to give them anything but does anyone seriously believe that we didn't tap him up?
I think the more fundamental question is why did we tap him up in the first place? Out of all the managers we went for him.....and now have to pay the in-breds for the pleasure.
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
A fucking disgrace.
And if true, the sign of a board who haven't got the first clue what they're doing.
Precisely.
The word incompetent springs to mind.
Incompetent?
I don't see it as that. They've seen AM as the best person for the role as the manager and went about getting him. Their choice may prove to be the incorrect one but their actions are not those showing incompetency.
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
A fucking disgrace.
And if true, the sign of a board who haven't got the first clue what they're doing.
i'd say a sign of a board coming to a pragmatic compromise in order to get on with preparing for the season. If we hadn't settled this would have dragged on for as long as the MON thing did. I'm not happy with having to give them anything but does anyone seriously believe that we didn't tap him up?
The question remains as to why we spent so much time and expense on such a sub-standard Manager.
This on top of the Martinez/Whelan debacle.
-
Incompetent?
I don't see it as that. They've seen AM as the best person for the role as the manager and went about getting him. Their choice may prove to be the incorrect one but their actions are not those showing incompetency.
Bren.
We've been told time and time again by members of this site that 'we don't need to pay them anything' yet we've now shelled out £3m, despite the fact he walked citing contructive dismissal.
£3m is ludicrous, it's what I would expect us to shell out for a quality Manager under contract elsewhere.
-
I'm not happy with having to give them anything but does anyone seriously believe that we didn't tap him up?
No, but why him?
-
Incompetent?
I don't see it as that. They've seen AM as the best person for the role as the manager and went about getting him. Their choice may prove to be the incorrect one but their actions are not those showing incompetency.
Bren.
We've been told time and time again by members of this site that 'we don't need to pay them anything' yet we've now shelled out £3m, despite the fact he walked citing contructive dismissal.
£3m is ludicrous, it's what I would expect us to shell out for a quality Manager under contract elsewhere.
Two things:-
1. It's what one paper says, so unless they've been tapping phones the accuracy of £3m is debatable at best.
2. It was also for some of his staff, such as Peter Grant.
-
Incompetent?
I don't see it as that. They've seen AM as the best person for the role as the manager and went about getting him. Their choice may prove to be the incorrect one but their actions are not those showing incompetency.
Bren.
We've been told time and time again by members of this site that 'we don't need to pay them anything' yet we've now shelled out £3m, despite the fact he walked citing contructive dismissal.
£3m is ludicrous, it's what I would expect us to shell out for a quality Manager under contract elsewhere.
Two things:-
1. It's what one paper says, so unless they've been tapping phones the accuracy of £3m is debatable at best.
2. It was also for some of his staff, such as Peter Grant.
I don't care if it was Hugh Grant, Student Grant and the fucking ghost of Cary Grant.
£3m for the standard of McLeish and co. is madness and quite frankly indefensible.
We'll probably find out in time if the £3m figure is correct, but after throwing wads of cash at Houllier to get rid of him, it wouldn't surprise me.
-
This just gets better and better.
We could have just given Rafa Benitez an extra £3m (or whatever it was but let's assume it was anywhere between £1m and the £5m Blues were demanding) in salary.
-
Incompetent?
I don't see it as that. They've seen AM as the best person for the role as the manager and went about getting him. Their choice may prove to be the incorrect one but their actions are not those showing incompetency.
Bren.
We've been told time and time again by members of this site that 'we don't need to pay them anything' yet we've now shelled out £3m, despite the fact he walked citing contructive dismissal.
£3m is ludicrous, it's what I would expect us to shell out for a quality Manager under contract elsewhere.
Two things:-
1. It's what one paper says, so unless they've been tapping phones the accuracy of £3m is debatable at best.
2. It was also for some of his staff, such as Peter Grant.
Exactly, 'undisclosed amount' means negotiations took place to an extent that both parties were happy with the outcome.
AM now has his staff in place and we move on without the need for a potentially distracting court case.
-
This just gets better and better.
We could have just given Rafa Benitez an extra £3m (or whatever it was but let's assume it was anywhere between £1m and the £5m Blues were demanding) in salary.
The issue with Rafa was the amount of control he wanted and not the wages we would have paid him.
-
Exactly, 'undisclosed amount' means negotiations took place to an extent that both parties were happy with the outcome.
Does it? Or could it mean we paid them a lot of money and asked them not to reveal quite how much it was?
-
The issue with Rafa was the amount of control he wanted and not the wages we would have paid him.
Where's that info from? And I thought one of the things in Randy's favour was that he doesn't interfere with the work of the manager.
-
The issue with Rafa was the amount of control he wanted and not the wages we would have paid him.
Where's that info from? And I thought one of the things in Randy's favour was that he doesn't interfere with the work of the manager.
I think that is true but it was control in other areas that worried Randy et al.
-
The issue with Rafa was the amount of control he wanted and not the wages we would have paid him.
Where's that info from? And I thought one of the things in Randy's favour was that he doesn't interfere with the work of the manager.
I think that is true but it was control in other areas that worried Randy et al.
Yes, being a demanding bugger and winning the Champions League as a result must be a nightmare for an owner. Far better to appoint somebody much more manageable with two Premier League relegations to his name.
-
This just gets better and better.
We could have just given Rafa Benitez an extra £3m (or whatever it was but let's assume it was anywhere between £1m and the £5m Blues were demanding) in salary.
The issue with Rafa was the amount of control he wanted and not the wages we would have paid him.
Wasn't that sourced from a newspaper?
-
The issue with Rafa was the amount of control he wanted and not the wages we would have paid him.
Where's that info from? And I thought one of the things in Randy's favour was that he doesn't interfere with the work of the manager.
It was from a few 'ITKs', so in honesty it's accuracy is about as trustworthy as the Telegraph's £3m claim.
-
Exactly, 'undisclosed amount' means negotiations took place to an extent that both parties were happy with the outcome.
Does it? Or could it mean we paid them a lot of money and asked them not to reveal quite how much it was?
Or not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet?
They're in the same position of having a new manager who wants to bring in his own people but can't until this was resolved.
It's a pointless game trying to speculate when we have nothing to work with.
The alternative to not settling was to have this drag on for months. That would hamper McLeish in his job and I'm sure that whatever we think of the appointment we all want him to have the best possible chance of succeeding. Don't we?
-
Exactly, 'undisclosed amount' means negotiations took place to an extent that both parties were happy with the outcome.
Does it? Or could it mean we paid them a lot of money and asked them not to reveal quite how much it was?
You could be right, equally, it could be said that there's a case for constructive dismissal but without going down that road a compromise was made that allowed us to get the staff that AM required.
I'm against giving them anything but it appears we've started to behave like other clubs when we set out to get what we want. These actions come at a price.
-
Yes, being a demanding bugger and winning the Champions League as a result must be a nightmare for an owner. Far better to appoint somebody much more manageable with two Premier League relegations to his name.
I know you'll take the anti-board line on most things right now, but in truth he wasn't about to win the CL with us. My own reading of the situation is that we wanted too much cash for players and control on how and where it was spent. And haven't we said that the board were complacent for allowing MON to do similar with deals like Harewood and Beye?
It would've all ended in tears, IMO.
-
The issue with Rafa was the amount of control he wanted and not the wages we would have paid him.
Where's that info from? And I thought one of the things in Randy's favour was that he doesn't interfere with the work of the manager.
It's brand new exclusive info, introduced into the arena of discussion today.
Actually, my guess would be an element of this with Rafa was true - more along the lines of: 'your budget will be X... (Rafa's face drops).... and we'll be selling Young and Downing sharpish...' At which point, Benitez declared himself out of the running.
-
The alternative to not settling was to have this drag on for months.
The alternative was not bothering with him, but that's been done to death I suppose.
-
We had to settle this quickly, so everyone can get on with their jobs.
Still doesn't make it the right decision... what a waste of cash. Even more so when he is most likely sacked sometime in the new year as we have a season of struggle and fan unrest.
Look at Gezza, how much/little support he got, let alone an unpopular manager. It's going to be a horrible, self-destructive season.
-
Or not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet?
Possibly but, as you said, we're the ones who did the tapping up so that strikes me as unlikely.
-
Yes, being a demanding bugger and winning the Champions League as a result must be a nightmare for an owner. Far better to appoint somebody much more manageable with two Premier League relegations to his name.
I know you'll take the anti-board line on most things right now, but in truth he wasn't about to win the CL with us. My own reading of the situation is that we wanted too much cash for players and control on how and where it was spent. And haven't we said that the board were complacent for allowing MON to do similar with deals like Harewood and Beye?
It would've all ended in tears, IMO.
They've appointed a manager that "ended in tears" is the most likely thing we'll be saying about him.
-
It would've all ended in tears, IMO.
As opposed to appointing McLeish, which has all started in tears.
-
Or not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet?
Possibly but, as you said, we're the ones who did the tapping up so that strikes me as unlikely.
As I also said, it was in their interests to settle too so the most likely outcome is a compromise figure that both sides are happy(ish) with.
-
Or not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet?
Possibly but, as you said, we're the ones who did the tapping up so that strikes me as unlikely.
As I also said, it was in their interests to settle too so the most likely outcome is a compromise figure that both sides are happy(ish) with.
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
-
...
why does it have to be a good deal? Blues wanted the full payout, we said no, they met somewhere in the middle that alleviated the need for further distraction and cost. However you want to cut it, the end result is that it puts an end to this affair, and hopefully we can get on with preparing for the season.
Today's announcement doesn't change a thing in my eyes. We got a manager that most of us didn't endorse, but he's the manager and that's that. Had we got an employed manager like Moyes that was popular we'd have likely paid even more in compensation. All I know, at least from my persepective is that we now we have to get behind the club and hope that the decision made by the board is justified.
What grounds do you have for insisting that we "met in the middle"? Why are you discounting the possibility that we have simply had to pay the costs stipulated in the original contracts i.e. "the full amount"? What reason do you have for saying we would have paid more compensation for Moyes?
I'm not claiming you are wrong, I'm asking what reason you have for insisting these statements are anything other than conjecture on your part?
-
If you'd have said a couple of months ago that we would be tapping up Alex McLeish and paying through the nose for the pleasure, you'd have been carted away by the whitecoats.
It defies belief.
-
Or not so much money and they asked us to keep quiet?
Possibly but, as you said, we're the ones who did the tapping up so that strikes me as unlikely.
As I also said, it was in their interests to settle too so the most likely outcome is a compromise figure that both sides are happy(ish) with.
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
Yes they did, Houghton wants to bring in Calderwood as first team coach so needed Grant out of the way but that couldn't happen without a settlement.
-
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
I agree. While a compromise figure may have been reached, I think that Blues will have got the better end of the deal.
-
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
I agree. While a compromise figure may have been reached, I think that Blues will have got the better end of the deal.
Any ammount would have been the better end of the deal, as they got rid of a manager they couldn't afford to sack.
-
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
Aprt from McLeish's constructive dismissal case, that is.
-
If you'd have said a couple of months ago that we would be tapping up Alex McLeish and paying through the nose for the pleasure, you'd have been carted away by the whitecoats.
It defies belief.
This
-
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
Aprt from McLeish's constructive dismissal case, that is.
I rather got the impression that was concocted to divert attention away from the tapping up.
-
It would've all ended in tears, IMO.
As opposed to appointing McLeish, which has all started in tears.
It's this sort of 'out of the box' thinking that will bring us the success we crave.
We always start off liking our managers and end up hating them. Wouldn't it be refresshing to see Fletch and Risso being roggered by AM for all their worth 3 years down the line?
-
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
Aprt from McLeish's constructive dismissal case, that is.
I rather got the impression that was concocted to divert attention away from the tapping up.
It had the full support of the LMA.
-
It's this sort of 'out of the box' thinking that will bring us the success we crave.
The kind of success we crave is unlikely to be brought by the kind of thinking that appoints managers of McLeish's calibre when managers of Benitez's calibre are available.
-
...
why does it have to be a good deal? Blues wanted the full payout, we said no, they met somewhere in the middle that alleviated the need for further distraction and cost. However you want to cut it, the end result is that it puts an end to this affair, and hopefully we can get on with preparing for the season.
Today's announcement doesn't change a thing in my eyes. We got a manager that most of us didn't endorse, but he's the manager and that's that. Had we got an employed manager like Moyes that was popular we'd have likely paid even more in compensation. All I know, at least from my persepective is that we now we have to get behind the club and hope that the decision made by the board is justified.
What grounds do you have for insisting that we "met in the middle"? Why are you discounting the possibility that we have simply had to pay the costs stipulated in the original contracts i.e. "the full amount"? What reason do you have for saying we would have paid more compensation for Moyes?
I'm not claiming you are wrong, I'm asking what reason you have for insisting these statements are anything other than conjecture on your part?
Because they asked for a full payout (widely reported at the time as being £5.4m prior to June 30) of McLeish's contract having claimed we tapped him up, and a settlement was reached which generally suggests some for of compromise. None of us will ever have the hard facts considering the sum paid is "undisclosed", but considering the compensation paid is also said to include two of his assistants then it is reasonable to believe that they came to an agreement that both parties could live with in order to move on. Had we paid the full amount I'm sure there would be reports by now from media who have an agenda against the club suggesting as much.
-
It had the full support of the LMA.
As you would expect; I'm not sure it has any bearing on the merits of the case any more than Blues' desire to refute it in the strongest possible terms. The timing is everything.
-
It's this sort of 'out of the box' thinking that will bring us the success we crave.
The kind of success we crave is unlikely to be brought by the kind of thinking that appoints managers of McLeish's calibre when managers of Benitez's calibre are available.
Let's wait and see. It is what it is now, we have to get on with it.
-
It had the full support of the LMA.
As you would expect; I'm not sure it has any bearing on the merits of the case any more than Blues' desire to refute it in the strongest possible terms. The timing is everything.
You can keep saying the same thing over and over again for as long as you like but all it will prove is that you need to have the last word.
The important point is that McLeish can now get on with his job.
-
It would've all ended in tears, IMO.
As opposed to appointing McLeish, which has all started in tears.
It's this sort of 'out of the box' thinking that will bring us the success we crave.
We always start off liking our managers and end up hating them. Wouldn't it be refresshing to see Fletch and Risso being roggered by AM for all their worth 3 years down the line?
I've a feeling that Risso and I will have egg free faces in 3 years time.
I'd be mightily surprised if McLeish is still here and the current owners too.
-
The important point is that McLeish can now get on with his job.
If you don't wish to participate in a discussion about the terms of the settlement and what they might imply, then there are any number of other threads for you to reduce to bickering.
-
The Blues had nothing to lose, we did. I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.
Aprt from McLeish's constructive dismissal case, that is.
I rather got the impression that was concocted to divert attention away from the tapping up.
So once again no actual basis in fact.
That's the thing about this thread - other than the simple and basic fact that a settlement has been reached, everything else, be it the amount or meaning behind it, is 100% conjecture.
Some will take these theories as fact if it portrays the board in line with their own perceptions, but that makes them no more valid, be they positive or negative.
-
The important point is that McLeish can now get on with his job.
If you don't wish to participate in a discussion about the terms of the settlement and what they might imply, then there are any number of other threads for you to reduce to bickering.
We don't know the terms of the settlement so how can we discuss the implications? As is your want you are putting it forward in the worst possible light for Aston Villa. I've suggested that it was more likely to be a compromise as it suited both parties. All that your discussion consists of is a repeating those positions in a slightly different way.
-
The fact we reached a settlement is one thing - it's actually a good thing, it's done, all concerned can move on. Fine with that.
It's the fact Villa have had to effectively pay a fee to hire a manager whose appointment was widely viewed as unpopular that causes reaction. And I can understand that.
-
We don't know the terms of the settlement so how can we discuss the implications? As is your want you are putting it forward in the worst possible light for Aston Villa. I've suggested that it was more likely to be a compromise as it suited both parties. All that your discussion consists of is a repeating those positions in a slightly different way.
As I said, if you don't feel able to discuss it, don't participate in it.
-
Our board being owned by Peter Pannu.
I love the way that these things are kept quiet, but people still think they know what happened.
As I see it, McLeish had plenty of justification for walking, otherwise why would he have initiated his constructive dismissal case? And as that's been dropped also, then doesn't that suggest some form of compromise was reached as both partied had a case?
It's over and done with, so lets get on with our summer business and see what type of manager our money, however much it was, has got us.
Appointing McLeish was bad enough in the first place. Having to pay another club anything more than a penny for his services is an insult.
I am in the office and getting funny looks because that one made me laugh a lot.
-
So once again no actual basis in fact.
In my defence, I didn't claim that was fact; simply the impression I got from the course of events.
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
A fucking disgrace.
And if true, the sign of a board who haven't got the first clue what they're doing.
i'd say a sign of a board coming to a pragmatic compromise in order to get on with preparing for the season. If we hadn't settled this would have dragged on for as long as the MON thing did. I'm not happy with having to give them anything but does anyone seriously believe that we didn't tap him up?
Of course, this is an admission of guilt - if we believed that were completely in the right, there is no way we would have paid it. This what makes the situation even more farcical
-
The question is
Are McLeish and his backroom staff worth £2m-£3m?
In my opinion, no.
The most i'd have coughed up is a hamper of training gear.
Or a lawnmower.
-
It would've all ended in tears, IMO.
As opposed to appointing McLeish, which has all started in tears.
It's this sort of 'out of the box' thinking that will bring us the success we crave.
We always start off liking our managers and end up hating them. Wouldn't it be refresshing to see Fletch and Risso being roggered by AM for all their worth 3 years down the line?
I've a feeling that Risso and I will have egg free faces in 3 years time.
I'd be mightily surprised if McLeish is still here and the current owners too.
I have a firm belief that he will be gone by Xmas. In fact, I'm gonna chuck some money on it
-
I have a firm belief that he will be gone by Xmas.
That wouldn't surprise me at all.
-
The big question must be, who decided to go down the road of sourcing a manager with a very suspect record where the premiership is concerned, a manager that would evoke all kinds of emotions form the fans a manager that has a mountain to climb even before kick of, a manager that will be judged and scrutinized every step of the way, a manager that we have actually paid for.
Who came up with this, because as far as I'm concerned they are clearly in the wrong job, that's nothing against McLiesh per say , its just raising the point as to why???and such a contentious appointment and one that could see Villa's season spiral into chaos within 90mins of the season starting and its cost us money, nobody with a sane sensible mind can say on one hand we need to cut our wage bill, or we shouldn't go after players with high wage demands when we have just performed 2 acts of madness in paying of 1 manager in MON and then tapping up another and getting smacked for that.
-
The big question must be, who decided to go down the road of sourcing a manager with a very suspect record where the premiership is concerned, a manager that would evoke all kinds of emotions form the fans a manager that has a mountain to climb even before kick of, a manager that will be judged and scrutinized every step of the way, a manager that we have actually paid for.
Who came up with this, because as far as I'm concerned they are clearly in the wrong job, that's nothing against McLiesh per say , its just raising the point as to why???and such a contentious appointment and one that could see Villa's season spiral into chaos within 90mins of the season starting and its cost us money, nobody with a sane sensible mind can say on one hand we need to cut our wage bill, or we shouldn't go after players with high wage demands when we have just performed 2 acts of madness in paying of 1 manager in MON and then tapping up another and getting smacked for that.
As said above , who would have thought this just a few months ago
-
Who came up with this, because as far as I'm concerned they are clearly in the wrong job, that's nothing against McLiesh per say
I think it's fair to say that the board got all breathless and giggly when Ferguson gave him a reference.
Ludicrous really as he's a friend of SirAlex and he's not exactly going to say
'Ohh no, he wouldn't be right for Villa.'
Whoever came up with his name, clearly came up with the name of serial crapster Martinez as well.
I dread to think what other names were considered that we don't know about.
-
A lot of questions in there that I'd love to hear answered by those who made the appointment. Somehow, I think they'll go unanswered.
The appointment didn't make a lot of sense at the time. The best way I've come up with understanding why we've done what we've done is that we wanted a manager happy to work with a very modest transfer budget, happy to accept losing players and cutting costs. McLeish accepted the conditions which came with the job. Okay, so huge speculation and conjecture on my part there, but it's my own (not exclusively my own) theory, and it's all I have to go on, as nothing has really been explained so far. At least not officially.
-
Nothing will be explained either.
-
The appointment didn't make a lot of sense at the time. The best way I've come up with understanding why we've done what we've done is that we wanted a manager happy to work with a very modest transfer budget, happy to accept losing players and cutting costs. McLeish accepted the conditions which came with the job. Okay, so huge speculation and conjecture on my part there, but it's my own (not exclusively my own) theory, and it's all I have to go on, as nothing has really been explained so far. At least not officially.
Seems a believable enough theory.
Even working to a tight budget, it won't be as bad as the finances at the Dog Shit.
And he's doubled his wages to boot.
-
Who came up with this, because as far as I'm concerned they are clearly in the wrong job, that's nothing against McLiesh per say
I think it's fair to say that the board got all breathless and giggly when Ferguson gave him a reference.
Ludicrous really as he's a friend of SirAlex and he's not exactly going to say
'Ohh no, he wouldn't be right for Villa.'
Whoever came up with his name, clearly came up with the name of serial crapster Martinez as well.
I dread to think what other names were considered that we don't know about.
Fergie is one wily fox, anything that will give Man U breathing space and one less fixture problem i reckon would suit Fergie down to the ground, its all brownie points for him, and IMO Villa are 1 less threat, i'd do precisely the same.
-
Nothing will be explained either.
Lee - Sometimes in football, as in life, TOUGH decisions have to made.
We KNOW that the fans will not always agree with the decisions that are made, but Randy makes them with the BEST INTERESTS of the club at heart. Randy is as commited today as the day he took over the club, he still has the Villa tattoo on his ankle and it upsets me when his commitment is questioned.
Let's rally round the club, YOUR CLUB and with the help of our footballing network and Southampton Council style cutbacks WE WILL come through the other side in a better shape than before.
I would urge our supporters to not give up at this crucial time, I would also urge them to use the Holte Pub...Please...The bar staff are bored rigid every day and they need something to do.
Now then, who wants a free scarf?
-
Who came up with this, because as far as I'm concerned they are clearly in the wrong job, that's nothing against McLiesh per say
I think it's fair to say that the board got all breathless and giggly when Ferguson gave him a reference.
Ludicrous really as he's a friend of SirAlex and he's not exactly going to say
'Ohh no, he wouldn't be right for Villa.'
Whoever came up with his name, clearly came up with the name of serial crapster Martinez as well.
I dread to think what other names were considered that we don't know about.
Fergie is one wily fox, anything that will give Man U breathing space and one less fixture problem i reckon would suit Fergie down to the ground, its all brownie points for him, and IMO Villa are 1 less threat, i'd do precisely the same.
His method is understandable, I don't blame him.
But why do we have to get suckered in by it?
-
Sadly I don't think we are even on Fergie's radar as a threat.
-
£3m to them, Jesus. We take a manager who got them relegated twice and finished 3rd in the Scottish League with Rangers and got Hibs relegated and keep Blues financially afloat in the meantime. Like Mr F said, two months ago, you would have been taken to a sanitorium. But then again, if you had said the Murdoch empire was going to collapse in the same timeframe, the same treatment would have been meted out.
-
Not now, no. Two seasons ago they edged us in the League Cup Final and at one stage we were pushing them close in the league - talk of being outside title contenders. But that was then.
I actually found it staggering we consulted/were influenced by the opinions of a current, active, Premier League manager.
-
They didn't just ask Fergie for fuck's sake.
They also did a magic 8 ball, read some tea leaves, palmistry, a Gypsy fortune teller and asked Paul Tait who the best man for Villa was.
-
Not now, no. Two seasons ago they edged us in the League Cup Final and at one stage we were pushing them close in the league - talk of being outside title contenders. But that was then.
I actually found it staggering we consulted/were influenced by the opinions of a current, active, Premier League manager.
Did the board actually consult Ferguson? I know there was a lot of talk about it and I read the quotes from him, but is this actually true?
-
Tey didnt just ask Fergie for fuck's sake.
Didn't the General cite Fergie's remarks as proof it was a good appointment?
-
Sadly I don't think we are even on Fergie's radar as a threat.
Not any more were not.
Remember looking at him after we had just beaten them with a superb Gabby goal, he was that wound up you couldn't understand a word the man said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8402301.stm
-
Tey didnt just ask Fergie for fuck's sake.
Didn't the General cite Fergie's remarks as proof it was a good appointment?
Yes. I was taking the piss.
-
The one thing I can't understand is, if the board asked the question, "right, so Houllier has to go. Who is going to replace him?" That if the answer was, "Alex McLeish," why they bothered getting rid of Houllier?
-
Sadly I don't think we are even on Fergie's radar as a threat.
Not any more were not.
Remember looking at him after we had just beaten them with a superb Gabby goal, he was that wound up you couldn't understand a word the man said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8402301.stm
I seem to remember Ferguson once saying that he loves our ground and facilities and loves bringing his team there.
At the time I thought, yes, I bet you do, you make us your bitches virtually every time.
-
The one thing I can't understand is, if the board asked the question, "right, so Houllier has to go. Who is going to replace him?" That if the answer was, "Alex McLeish," why they bothered getting rid of Houllier?
Problem is Mac, that for whatever reason, they went through a few names before his.
Thin Spanish waiter at Wigan being one of them.
-
The one thing I can't understand is, if the board asked the question, "right, so Houllier has to go. Who is going to replace him?" That if the answer was, "Alex McLeish," why they bothered getting rid of Houllier?
Obviously Houllier was a lot poorer health wise than we know, thing is, who sat there and said " OK lads who's next, I know lets go and tap up AM from the noses".
I mean what a dumb fessin dessin twat,
-
The one thing I can't understand is, if the board asked the question, "right, so Houllier has to go. Who is going to replace him?" That if the answer was, "Alex McLeish," why they bothered getting rid of Houllier?
That's exactly what I thought when it became more likely that McLeish was a candidate. Which I couldn't quite believe to put it mildly.
In fact I offered anybody 1000-1 odds and nobody took me up on it... phew!
-
for the cost of shay given, we brought in mcleish and peter (relegated with two clubs) grant.
Martin (rolling 12 month contract) O'Neill also gets a pay off somehow.
Firing Houllier, GMac etc also cost a fair whack.
Not sure this cost cutting is working out too well. No wonder we are seemingly waiting for Downing to be sold before signing a keeper.
Not too much to get enthused about despite his awful record, reckon McLeish will be a better manager for us than Houllier who imo was truly awful. (more that he cant be any worse) But when the first bad run happens, the pressure on McLeish and the board will be unreal.
Instead of spending millions hiring and paying off managers in 12 months, maybe the board might be better off seeking out someone like David Dein as CEO. How Lerner was seeking out the opinion of Fergie on his former captain beggars belief really. We need a Levy type of figure badly.
-
has it actually been confirmed that the compensation is for mcleish?. in the bit that actually talks about paying money, it says "to end disputes including the recruitment of peter grant and ian mcguiness". if the compo was also for McLeish surely he would have been specifically mentioned in this bit as well?
if there was any chance of us been found guilty of tapping him up and then employing him illegally, then surely we would have held off actually having him working for us until everything was sorted. blues would be pushing for a massive sum and ensuring it was all over the press, and we would have heard from the relevant authorities about how we were breaking the law. sounds like after pannus initial attention seeking outburst, blues realised Mcleish had a case for constructive dismisssal as the LMA said at the time, and he was within his rights to leave blues and join us. given the character of the blues board, i cant believe that if we actually had a case to answer and massive compo to pay regarding mcleish, it would have all been settled in the quietly negotiated and undisclosed manner it has. of course, where we do owe them is for the backroom staff. they hadnt quit and they hadnt been sacked. so as they were still employed by blues we had to pay to get them. we have negotiated the payment and they will now join us - hence the statement yesterday.
hopefully now everything is sorted we can get on and actually sign some players. this summer has been so depressing so far!
-
Nothing will be explained either.
Lee - Sometimes in football, as in life, TOUGH decisions have to made.
We KNOW that the fans will not always agree with the decisions that are made, but Randy makes them with the BEST INTERESTS of the club at heart. Randy is as commited today as the day he took over the club, he still has the Villa tattoo on his ankle and it upsets me when his commitment is questioned.
Let's rally round the club, YOUR CLUB and with the help of our footballing network and Southampton Council style cutbacks WE WILL come through the other side in a better shape than before.
I would urge our supporters to not give up at this crucial time, I would also urge them to use the Holte Pub...Please...The bar staff are bored rigid every day and they need something to do.
Now then, who wants a free scarf?
Many thanks for that General Bentfletch - my idiocy is something that I have to learn to live with.
-
I think that the board's stipulations in terms of what they wanted from the manager led to a number of better candidates either being ruled out or ruling themselves out. With time pressing and the field thinning, I think the board panicked, hence tapping up McLeish.
-
I know that they have made the appointment and we have to carry on for the greater good, but I would like just one, just one ditty of the logic that they used to even contemplate employing him in the first place.
As Spock would say "it's illogical captain"
-
The one thing I can't understand is, if the board asked the question, "right, so Houllier has to go. Who is going to replace him?" That if the answer was, "Alex McLeish," why they bothered getting rid of Houllier?
That's exactly what I thought when it became more likely that McLeish was a candidate. Which I couldn't quite believe to put it mildly.
In fact I offered anybody 1000-1 odds and nobody took me up on it... phew!
I did. Fortunately for you the only currency I had to hand was 1 Zimbabwean Dollar, so you owe me the grand sum of £1.66.
-
...
why does it have to be a good deal? Blues wanted the full payout, we said no, they met somewhere in the middle that alleviated the need for further distraction and cost. However you want to cut it, the end result is that it puts an end to this affair, and hopefully we can get on with preparing for the season.
Today's announcement doesn't change a thing in my eyes. We got a manager that most of us didn't endorse, but he's the manager and that's that. Had we got an employed manager like Moyes that was popular we'd have likely paid even more in compensation. All I know, at least from my persepective is that we now we have to get behind the club and hope that the decision made by the board is justified.
What grounds do you have for insisting that we "met in the middle"? Why are you discounting the possibility that we have simply had to pay the costs stipulated in the original contracts i.e. "the full amount"? What reason do you have for saying we would have paid more compensation for Moyes?
I'm not claiming you are wrong, I'm asking what reason you have for insisting these statements are anything other than conjecture on your part?
Because they asked for a full payout (widely reported at the time as being £5.4m prior to June 30) of McLeish's contract having claimed we tapped him up, and a settlement was reached which generally suggests some for of compromise. None of us will ever have the hard facts considering the sum paid is "undisclosed", but considering the compensation paid is also said to include two of his assistants then it is reasonable to believe that they came to an agreement that both parties could live with in order to move on. Had we paid the full amount I'm sure there would be reports by now from media who have an agenda against the club suggesting as much.
I would have thought that the speed of settlement is just as likely to suggest that it was a cut and dried case and the amounts of compensation involved were contractually enforceable.
Your point that a full settlement would be more likely to be reported in the media doesn't seem to make any sense. Our willingness to settle in full would be a great inducement for both sides to keep the matter private. At least until such time as BIH produces the relevant financial accounts on the HK stock market. It will come out in the end.
-
...
why does it have to be a good deal? Blues wanted the full payout, we said no, they met somewhere in the middle that alleviated the need for further distraction and cost. However you want to cut it, the end result is that it puts an end to this affair, and hopefully we can get on with preparing for the season.
Today's announcement doesn't change a thing in my eyes. We got a manager that most of us didn't endorse, but he's the manager and that's that. Had we got an employed manager like Moyes that was popular we'd have likely paid even more in compensation. All I know, at least from my persepective is that we now we have to get behind the club and hope that the decision made by the board is justified.
What grounds do you have for insisting that we "met in the middle"? Why are you discounting the possibility that we have simply had to pay the costs stipulated in the original contracts i.e. "the full amount"? What reason do you have for saying we would have paid more compensation for Moyes?
I'm not claiming you are wrong, I'm asking what reason you have for insisting these statements are anything other than conjecture on your part?
Because they asked for a full payout (widely reported at the time as being £5.4m prior to June 30) of McLeish's contract having claimed we tapped him up, and a settlement was reached which generally suggests some for of compromise. None of us will ever have the hard facts considering the sum paid is "undisclosed", but considering the compensation paid is also said to include two of his assistants then it is reasonable to believe that they came to an agreement that both parties could live with in order to move on. Had we paid the full amount I'm sure there would be reports by now from media who have an agenda against the club suggesting as much.
I would have thought that the speed of settlement is just as likely to suggest that it was a cut and dried case and the amounts of compensation involved were contractually enforceable.
Your point that a full settlement would be more likely to be reported in the media doesn't seem to make any sense. Our willingness to settle in full would be a great inducement for both sides to keep the matter private. At least until such time as BIH produces the relevant financial accounts on the HK stock market. It will come out in the end.
The speed of the settlement is most likely because McLeish wanted Grant and they want Calderwood but this was holding it up. It's pragamatism not conspiracy.
-
If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.
-
I know that they have made the appointment and we have to carry on for the greater good, but I would like just one, just one ditty of the logic that they used to even contemplate employing him in the first place.
As Spock would say "it's illogical captain"
Ferguson's comments on the appointment are the only logical explanation I have seen, albeit with obviously worrying implications for our ambition.
"At Rangers, for instance, by the time Alex took over, they weren't spending the kind of money which they had done previously, so Alex did a great job there. He managed to unite a unit there and do very well. In all his jobs he's had to deal with that kind of situation of making do with what you have and making the best of it and that's a quality that. He's got the experience now of doing all of these things and Aston Villa will represent the same type of challenge."
-
If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.
Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.
-
If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.
Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.
And if that's the case how did the Telegraph then find out it was £3m, which most people seem to be taking as gospel?
-
I know that they have made the appointment and we have to carry on for the greater good, but I would like just one, just one ditty of the logic that they used to even contemplate employing him in the first place.
As Spock would say "it's illogical captain"
Ferguson's comments on the appointment are the only logical explanation I have seen, albeit with obviously worrying implications for our ambition.
"At Rangers, for instance, by the time Alex took over, they weren't spending the kind of money which they had done previously, so Alex did a great job there. He managed to unite a unit there and do very well. In all his jobs he's had to deal with that kind of situation of making do with what you have and making the best of it and that's a quality that. He's got the experience now of doing all of these things and Aston Villa will represent the same type of challenge."
Blimey, hadn't seen that before. Makes grim reading.
-
And if that's the case how did the Telegraph then find out it was £3m, which most people seem to be taking as gospel?
Not sure why you're asking me that, I've not mentioned £3M or the Telegraph once.
-
If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.
Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.
But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.
Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.
-
If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.
Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.
But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.
Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.
They'll have to disclose the payments in their accounts, as will Bigtop.
-
And if that's the case how did the Telegraph then find out it was £3m, which most people seem to be taking as gospel?
Not sure why you're asking me that, I've not mentioned £3M or the Telegraph once.
Wasn't aimed at you in particular. Just point out the large contradictions in this thread.
"We hushed it up because we don't want anyone to know we paid up the full £5.4m they wanted - what a disgrace!"
"We paid £3m - what a disgrace!"
-
...
I would have thought that the speed of settlement is just as likely to suggest that it was a cut and dried case and the amounts of compensation involved were contractually enforceable.
Your point that a full settlement would be more likely to be reported in the media doesn't seem to make any sense. Our willingness to settle in full would be a great inducement for both sides to keep the matter private. At least until such time as BIH produces the relevant financial accounts on the HK stock market. It will come out in the end.
The speed of the settlement is most likely because McLeish wanted Grant and they want Calderwood but this was holding it up. It's pragamatism not conspiracy.
It isn't most likely to be for those reasons any more than any other reasons. You just don't know. I haven't said anything at all to suggest conspiracy.
-
But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.
Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.
The point is that in order to get what they wanted they may have had to accept conditions. "We [Villa] will give you what you want but only on the condition that you keep quiet about it" sort of thing. It would certainly make sense from our point of view. However, as you say, it's all speculation. In my view though, they held the better cards in the negotiations which ought to have led to them getting the better of the deal.
I also agree that we shouldn't have been in this position to start with.
-
If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.
Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.
But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.
Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.
because that was a condition for us agreeing to give them what they wanted without dispute? Regardless of the merits of the case, we could have made it a drawn out affair as we did with O'Neill.
-
We'll find out the true figure in time, don't worry. As I said before though, however much it is, is too much.
-
Wasn't aimed at you in particular. Just point out the large contradictions in this thread.
"We hushed it up because we don't want anyone to know we paid up the full £5.4m they wanted - what a disgrace!"
"We paid £3m - what a disgrace!"
Paying £XM wouldn't have been a disgrace if we'd tapped up somebody really good. To do it for McLeish is I think what has riled a lot of people.
-
I know that they have made the appointment and we have to carry on for the greater good, but I would like just one, just one ditty of the logic that they used to even contemplate employing him in the first place.
As Spock would say "it's illogical captain"
Ferguson's comments on the appointment are the only logical explanation I have seen, albeit with obviously worrying implications for our ambition.
"At Rangers, for instance, by the time Alex took over, they weren't spending the kind of money which they had done previously, so Alex did a great job there. He managed to unite a unit there and do very well. In all his jobs he's had to deal with that kind of situation of making do with what you have and making the best of it and that's a quality that. He's got the experience now of doing all of these things and Aston Villa will represent the same type of challenge."
Blimey, hadn't seen that before. Makes grim reading.
But it does at least provide a logical explanation to the question "why McLeish?".
-
Always remember the tweet from the Talksport correspondent the night before it happened. 'Good news for Villa fans if you like ginger Scotsmen'. How elated I was to find out we were getting Moyes. And it turned out to be McLeish. Even Strachan would have been better. Reminds of the time where we claimed to have agreed (on the OS) a fee for both Bellamy and Hughes and only ended up with one of them.
-
Wasn't aimed at you in particular. Just point out the large contradictions in this thread.
"We hushed it up because we don't want anyone to know we paid up the full £5.4m they wanted - what a disgrace!"
"We paid £3m - what a disgrace!"
Paying £XM wouldn't have been a disgrace if we'd tapped up somebody really good. To do it for McLeish is I think what has riled a lot of people.
Exactly.
£3m or 3 magic beans, it shouldn't have been anything for a Manager of his calibre.
-
If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.
Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.
But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.
Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.
because that was a condition for us agreeing to give them what they wanted without dispute? Regardless of the merits of the case, we could have made it a drawn out affair as we did with O'Neill.
Which suits neither cause. They wanted their new staff in as the new season approaches, likewise we do.
McLeish has claims against them and no doubt vice versa. They're in massive financial shit, so I reckon we offered them something, which is better than nothing, they accept and everybody gets on with it.
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
Compares with paying about £20 for a kebab
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
Compares with paying about £20 for a kebab
You've been to London then?
-
£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.
Compares with paying about £20 for a kebab
You've been to London then?
Having just come back from a weekend in Dublin, I find that quite cheap.
-
Gordan Strachan!! Weve got McLeish now get over it and get on with it.
-
True enough. Dublin is the biggest piss take city I have ever been to in terms of stinging foreign eejits.
-
True enough. Dublin is the biggest piss take city I have ever been to in terms of stinging foreign eejits.
I'm Irish, although with a quasi-thick Brumie accent, so it's not just the foreigners they're after!
-
True enough. Dublin is the biggest piss take city I have ever been to in terms of stinging foreign eejits.
I'm Irish, although with a quasi-thick Brumie accent, so it's not just the foreigners they're after!
I'm half Irish and they still took the full piss out of me.
-
Exit the era of paying in excess of substandard players.
Enter the era of paying in excess of substandard managers.
-
I think that the board's stipulations in terms of what they wanted from the manager led to a number of better candidates either being ruled out or ruling themselves out. With time pressing and the field thinning, I think the board panicked, hence tapping up McLeish.
I think this is quite close to the truth. From what I gather, we never made a serious attempt to get the likes of Ancelotti, Moyes or Benitez. Maybe we tried to contact them, had a brief chat with them or their agents, but at the slightest hint of difficulty we moved on to another target. Of course, we'd like to live in a fantasy world where the manager we want comes running when we call. In reality, decent managers would like to know what they are going to before they accept a job. So we ended up with someone who would come regardless.
-
Or...someone who wanted the job? Surely that is a big key driver and something overlooked. Some of the guys they contacted may have said no, or ok, until I find something better. McCleish must have Really Wanted this, and yet he gets little praise from our side for this. Its like an equivalent of Downing vs Agbonlahor. Downing is (apparently) using us to get what he deems is the best team to play for, Agbonlahor wants to play for us (apparently) regardless. I want to follow Villa. I want the team and manager to want to work for Villa. Anything else is not good enough, regardless of talent.
-
McCleish must have Really Wanted this, and yet he gets little praise from our side for this.
He's doubled his wages with us and will be managing a team infinitely better than the Blues.
I don't see what praise he should have.
-
Or...someone who wanted the job? Surely that is a big key driver and something overlooked. Some of the guys they contacted may have said no, or ok, until I find something better. McCleish must have Really Wanted this, and yet he gets little praise from our side for this. Its like an equivalent of Downing vs Agbonlahor. Downing is (apparently) using us to get what he deems is the best team to play for, Agbonlahor wants to play for us (apparently) regardless. I want to follow Villa. I want the team and manager to want to work for Villa. Anything else is not good enough, regardless of talent.
You could ask almost any Championship quality manager or player if they'd like to move to Villa, and they'd jump at the chance. I'd like to be FD of Natwest and earn millions of quid and have a tidy pension, but I don't think they'd factor my keenness for the job into whether or not to offer it to me.
-
Or...someone who wanted the job? Surely that is a big key driver and something overlooked. Some of the guys they contacted may have said no, or ok, until I find something better. McCleish must have Really Wanted this, and yet he gets little praise from our side for this. Its like an equivalent of Downing vs Agbonlahor. Downing is (apparently) using us to get what he deems is the best team to play for, Agbonlahor wants to play for us (apparently) regardless. I want to follow Villa. I want the team and manager to want to work for Villa. Anything else is not good enough, regardless of talent.
If you're suggesting that McLeish wants to work for Villa and only Villa then I think that's a bit naive. He was offered an immediate return to the Premier League, which must he must have found as astonishing as we did. I doubt he would have got a similar offer from any other Premier League club. Let's face it, he was in the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time, depending on your point of view).
I would say 99.9% of players and managers will move clubs when they get a better offer elsewhere, and if we're going to limit ourselves to managers and players who profess undying love for and commitment to Villa then we're only going to go one way.
-
Or...someone who wanted the job? Surely that is a big key driver and something overlooked. Some of the guys they contacted may have said no, or ok, until I find something better. McCleish must have Really Wanted this, and yet he gets little praise from our side for this. Its like an equivalent of Downing vs Agbonlahor. Downing is (apparently) using us to get what he deems is the best team to play for, Agbonlahor wants to play for us (apparently) regardless. I want to follow Villa. I want the team and manager to want to work for Villa. Anything else is not good enough, regardless of talent.
I want the manager to want to manage Villa and be good enough to do so. Wanting the job alone is not enough.
I'm sure other managers turned us down, but it makes you wonder what kind of job we were selling when, five years on from Randy's arrival, we got turned down by enough managers (one of whom was the manager of Wigan Athletic) to send up poaching the bloke who got Blues relegated twice.
Five years ago, we could attract Martin O'Neill. In 2011, we can't attract Roberto Martinez.
-
Or...someone who wanted the job? Surely that is a big key driver and something overlooked. Some of the guys they contacted may have said no, or ok, until I find something better. McCleish must have Really Wanted this, and yet he gets little praise from our side for this. Its like an equivalent of Downing vs Agbonlahor. Downing is (apparently) using us to get what he deems is the best team to play for, Agbonlahor wants to play for us (apparently) regardless. I want to follow Villa. I want the team and manager to want to work for Villa. Anything else is not good enough, regardless of talent.
Following this logic we shouldn't have signed Bent as he might want to move on if a big club make a serious offer for him.
-
The people who still insist of defending the board need to take a look at the mirror and wonder if if they like getting pissed on. If so, piss away.
Seriously, the board are shambolic. They need to resign now. This latest news and still no new purchases despite losing ALOT of players is unacceptable. The protest would be NOTHING. The chants directed at Houllier would be NOTHING. The chaos towards the board though would make them crumble big time if we don't see any first three games won. Yes, it's only gonna take THREE games thanks to how awful this appointment was and why we won't wait around accepting rubbish day in, day out.
-
What a load of complete and utter horse shit.
-
Sadly though we should indeed be getting behind the new manager, we cannot escape the fact that he's quite clearly 5th choice (I'm probably being generous there). For all the talk about McLeish being a great choice for the club, by those at the club. If he was so great, we'd have gone for him in the first place, as opposed to chasing, quite publically, several other candidates. Notably getting the upturned nose by Ancellotti, and more embarrassingly, Martinez.
The fact that we've had to stump up a load of cash for the privilege of getting someone half way down our wanted list, from our nearest, undearest and recently relegated rivals is highly embarrassing.
That's not to say I'm not willing to get behind Eck. And I have also been impressed by his handling of things thus far, since signing (the manner of him orchestrating his move here wasn't great, but probably aided by some bright spark at our club). I hope he proves most of us wrong, but with the state of the squad and his track record, I'm not confident. :(
-
Seriously, the board are shambolic. They need to resign now. This latest news and still no new purchases despite losing ALOT of players is unacceptable. The protest would be NOTHING. The chants directed at Houllier would be NOTHING. The chaos towards the board though would make them crumble big time if we don't see any first three games won. Yes, it's only gonna take THREE games thanks to how awful this appointment was and why we won't wait around accepting rubbish day in, day out.
So, the board all resign en masse, and then what? How does that change anything at all?
-
The people who still insist of defending the board need to take a look at the mirror and wonder if if they like getting pissed on. If so, piss away.
Seriously, the board are shambolic. They need to resign now. This latest news and still no new purchases despite losing ALOT of players is unacceptable. The protest would be NOTHING. The chants directed at Houllier would be NOTHING. The chaos towards the board though would make them crumble big time if we don't see any first three games won. Yes, it's only gonna take THREE games thanks to how awful this appointment was and why we won't wait around accepting rubbish day in, day out.
Everyone is a drama queen these days. You've watched Newcastle and Liverpool fans on Sky Sports News and instead of laughing at them like normal people you've decided that you what to be like them.
Anyway, Let me get this right, you're asking for the man who owns the club to resign from the board along with the rest of them. Then what happens, you and your mates will take over I suppose.
-
Have to agrre with the drama queen bit. Saying 'sack the board' is a popular thing to say but in reality it means zilch unless there is a generous benefactor waiting in the wings which there isn't. Pointing out problems is always easy, its the solutions that are the difficult part.
Saying that, you have to wonder at the current atmosphere pervading at the club. I dont think it would be an over-statement to say that a lot of fans aren't exactly feeling optimistic for the coming season. Three years ago we were all wondering how to break into the top four, now we are hoping we don't get into a relegation dogfight which half of me is expecting. The lack of signings is worrying but IF we can get the likes of N'Zogbia, Parker and a decent goalie I would be feeling a lot more optimistc than I am right now. Mid-table is the best i am personally expecting.
-
Everyone is a drama queen these days.
Speak for yourself, Smithers.
Are we ignoring that it's been widely reported that Randy Lerner has been a long time admirer of McLeish and maybe he was top of the list?
-
If I remember correctly, he was quietly respectful of us after the 5-1.
-
Everyone is a drama queen these days.
Speak for yourself, Smithers.
Are we ignoring that it's been widely reported that Randy Lerner has been a long time admirer of McLeish and maybe he was top of the list?
You believe that Mark? If so, would you like to buy some of my magic beans?
-
Everyone is a drama queen these days.
Speak for yourself, Smithers.
Are we ignoring that it's been widely reported that Randy Lerner has been a long time admirer of McLeish and maybe he was top of the list?
You believe that Mark? If so, would you like to buy some of my magic beans?
Sometimes the most obvious answer can be the right one.
To tell the truth, I really don't give a shit. McLeish is now our manager, we've had to bung the Rags a bone, big deal. Get over it. Sure, nerves are kicking in as we haven't signed anybody yet but now is not the time to start having a girly hissy fit. We've now got our backroom staff together, let's give them a couple of days to have a look at the lads before we start screaming. I'll reserve my judgement for a later date.
As for the beans, can you count them for me? (winky)
-
What a load of complete and utter horse shit.
I don't agree with it either, but i think we may be surprised at exactly how many people are not prepared to give AM a chance, or at least jump on him at the first sign of trouble. This is going to be one hell of a season, and if we thought support for MON or GH or DOL divided opinion, wait until the first defeat happens. Right now with the lack of transfer activity, i feel a lot of fans getting angrier by the day, how many season tickets do we have to sell to cover the compensation paid to Blose.
I don't doubt AM has done anything wrong so far, but he hasn't had anything to do except wave goodbye to Ash. A manager will always be judged on results. AM will not be any different.
However i do feel that the board have achieved their aim and appointed a puppet who will dance to their tune of cutting wage bills, selling players, and generally taking the flack from the fans regarding our ever diminishing levels of ambition.
We need some positivity and quick, and we need our luck to change. As far as i am concerned AM is the jammiest bastard around, let's hope it rubs off.
-
If you look again at the telegraph article, the £3 million figure only appears in the headline, meaning it was the sub editor rather than the journalist that decided to add the fee in. I doubt the sub editor would have conducted extensive research into that particular figure.
Twattum would have inflated any fee by a power of 3, so £1 million seems to be a reasonable amount.
-
What a load of complete and utter horse shit.
I don't agree with it either, but i think we may be surprised at exactly how many people are not prepared to give AM a chance, or at least jump on him at the first sign of trouble. This is going to be one hell of a season, and if we thought support for MON or GH or DOL divided opinion, wait until the first defeat happens.
I think some Villa fans are suffering from bluenoseitus, a mental disease that eats away at the brain, whereby you starting to hate your neighbours more than you love their own club. Why, I've no idea, as I've said on here many a time, the Rags are our neighbours, not our rivals, they never have been and never will be our rivals.
I'm starting to think some want McLeish to fail because he used to manage the Rags. How fucking stupid is that?
-
Extremely.
-
What a load of complete and utter horse shit.
I don't agree with it either, but i think we may be surprised at exactly how many people are not prepared to give AM a chance, or at least jump on him at the first sign of trouble. This is going to be one hell of a season, and if we thought support for MON or GH or DOL divided opinion, wait until the first defeat happens.
I think some Villa fans are suffering from bluenoseitus, a mental disease that eats away at the brain, whereby you starting to hate your neighbours more than you love their own club. Why, I've no idea, as I've said on here many a time, the Rags are our neighbours, not our rivals, they never have been and never will be our rivals.
I'm starting to think some want McLeish to fail because he used to manage the Rags. How fucking stupid is that?
They also want him to fail so that they can be right.
-
I think some Villa fans are suffering from bluenoseitus, a mental disease that eats away at the brain, whereby you starting to hate your neighbours more than you love their own club. Why, I've no idea, as I've said on here many a time, the Rags are our neighbours, not our rivals, they never have been and never will be our rivals.
I'm starting to think some want McLeish to fail because he used to manage the Rags. How fucking stupid is that?
What they are is local rivals, by dint of their proximity. And yes the occasional nutter on here does appear to get more out of hating SHA than they do out of supporting us. But I think it's missing the point to concentrate on those at that extreme.
There are plenty of (relatively) sane Villa fans who think appointing McLeish was a bad decision, not because of where he has come from but because of his PL record, because of who else was available, because he plays mostly shit football and because he represents an opportunity missed.
If he's under pressure from the word go that's down to Lerner for making such a bizarre appointment. They've taken a big risk on McLeish which just adds to the pressure. I'm sure the vast majority of Villa fans, including me, hope he succeeds but some, including me, won't be at all surprised if he doesn't.
-
I know that they have made the appointment and we have to carry on for the greater good, but I would like just one, just one ditty of the logic that they used to even contemplate employing him in the first place.
As Spock would say "it's illogical captain"
Ferguson's comments on the appointment are the only logical explanation I have seen, albeit with obviously worrying implications for our ambition.
"At Rangers, for instance, by the time Alex took over, they weren't spending the kind of money which they had done previously, so Alex did a great job there. He managed to unite a unit there and do very well. In all his jobs he's had to deal with that kind of situation of making do with what you have and making the best of it and that's a quality that. He's got the experience now of doing all of these things and Aston Villa will represent the same type of challenge."
Blimey, hadn't seen that before. Makes grim reading.
But it does at least provide a logical explanation to the question "why McLeish?".
Sorry have to disagree. What it does explain is that this is a very naive Board or at worst just plain stupid if THAT is their reason for getting him.
-
Gordan Strachan!! Weve got McLeish now get over it and get on with it.
... and the award for completely missing the point goes to ...
-
It's true that there is no alternative to backing McLeish and hoping that he'll do well. But while GH was a surprising, and perhaps odd, choice, you could argue that he was the best of a not very good bunch. So it was easier to get on with it and give him a chance. Watching the club appoint McLeish when there were lots of good (and supposedly attainable) managers available, makes it a bit harder to move on.
As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.
-
I think some Villa fans are suffering from bluenoseitus, a mental disease that eats away at the brain, whereby you starting to hate your neighbours more than you love their own club. Why, I've no idea, as I've said on here many a time, the Rags are our neighbours, not our rivals, they never have been and never will be our rivals.
I'm starting to think some want McLeish to fail because he used to manage the Rags. How fucking stupid is that?
What they are is local rivals, by dint of their proximity. And yes the occasional nutter on here does appear to get more out of hating SHA than they do out of supporting us. But I think it's missing the point to concentrate on those at that extreme.
There are plenty of (relatively) sane Villa fans who think appointing McLeish was a bad decision, not because of where he has come from but because of his PL record, because of who else was available, because he plays mostly shit football and because he represents an opportunity missed.
If he's under pressure from the word go that's down to Lerner for making such a bizarre appointment. They've taken a big risk on McLeish which just adds to the pressure. I'm sure the vast majority of Villa fans, including me, hope he succeeds but some, including me, won't be at all surprised if he doesn't.
If you want the full title, we are now 'bitter local rivals' which goes some way to explain the current mentality amongst some Villa fans. The Rags really are dragging some down to their level.
As for McLeish, if he is the wrong man, then the error is Lerner's. McLeish is the innocent party in all this. As for his shit football, most never complained with Martin O'Neill. I hope that at least Lerner gives him the same kind of financial support he's given previous managers.
-
I've got my own objections to AM - poor results, shit football - but I can't see why anyone would give a flying fuck that he had managed Small Heath.
Honestly, who cares? I'm more concerned about his too-frequent relegations. The fact it was Small Heath has no bearing on it at all.
If we had nicked their manager and said manager had been incredibly successful, it would surely be a bonus we had taken him from them, wouldn't it?
-
Spot on Paulie.
Our lack of any real intent in the transfer market fill me with more dread each day that the season approaches
-
Havent missed the point at all. People are being negative for the sake of it. Went out got a season ticket for me and my two kids and looking forward to the season. Would prefer us to spend 15mill on a player and 20mill on another realise it aint going to happen! Instead want to see Delph play want to see Gary Gardner coming through. If Bent gets injured bring on Weimann. Give Ireland and Warnock till January if they persist in being shit move them on!
-
The whole thing's embarrassing, paying the blose for a rather shit manager. Hopefully the manky catapillar that is AM will hatch into a SGT/RS butterfly and launch into the stratosphere, but its more likely he'll hatch out as a moth that got too near the light and will be brushed under the carpet come christmas.
-
Can't see the board sacking McLeish after half a season after all this trouble unless he proves to be a complete disaster. I doubt that he will.
-
It will be out of their hands. Thats what the board don't seem to have grasped in relation to british football managers in comparision to their area of expertise abroad.. If we're bouncing along the bottom of the premiership come November then the DOL shitstorm will seem like a slight disagreement. Most of us don't rate him, a large minority don't like him because of where he's from. He better get off to a flyer or he will be targeted bigtime and if the board ignore it, they will be targeted.
-
As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.
RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed. Then there would have been no complications. As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation. For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.
There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.
-
As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.
RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed. Then there would have been no complications. As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation. For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.
There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.
mebbe but i've yet to see any convincing arguement why Lerner would rate him. If there was, more people could get behind him even if they didn't want him because of his blose links. Thats the problem really, no-one can work out why he would be Lerner's first choice.
-
As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.
RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed. Then there would have been no complications. As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation. For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.
There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.
mebbe but i've yet to see any convincing arguement why Lerner would rate him. If there was, more people could get behind him even if they didn't want him because of his blose links. Thats the problem really, no-one can work out why he would be Lerner's first choice.
One theory which is rarely mentioned is perceived integrity. AM has this in abundance, and his conduct in his relations with our club in some very difficult circumstances has probably reinforced this in the minds of RL and the board. Compare and contrast with Rafa, whom I along with most other fans would have preferred.
-
I think some Villa fans are suffering from bluenoseitus,
It's a pity the chairman/board didn't get a dose...
-
As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.
RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed. Then there would have been no complications. As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation. For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.
There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.
mebbe but i've yet to see any convincing arguement why Lerner would rate him. If there was, more people could get behind him even if they didn't want him because of his blose links. Thats the problem really, no-one can work out why he would be Lerner's first choice.
One theory which is rarely mentioned is perceived integrity. AM has this in abundance, and his conduct in his relations with our club in some very difficult circumstances has probably reinforced this in the minds of RL and the board. Compare and contrast with Rafa, whom I along with most other fans would have preferred.
If our board are valuing "perceived integrity" over and above actual managerial ability, then they really are living in a different world. Anyway, McLeish broke his contract, whereas another available manager in Mark Hughes merely activated a mutually agreed break clause in his contract. I'd say Hughes acted with far more integrity than McLeish, who on taking Blues down jumped ship for a bigger club rather than honouring his contract and trying to get them back up again.
-
There are plenty of (relatively) sane Villa fans who think appointing McLeish was a bad decision, not because of where he has come from but because of his PL record, because of who else was available, because he plays mostly shit football and because he represents an opportunity missed.
If he's under pressure from the word go that's down to Lerner for making such a bizarre appointment. They've taken a big risk on McLeish which just adds to the pressure. I'm sure the vast majority of Villa fans, including me, hope he succeeds but some, including me, won't be at all surprised if he doesn't.
I'll be one of those fans then. Well said.
-
As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.
RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed. Then there would have been no complications. As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation. For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.
There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.
mebbe but i've yet to see any convincing arguement why Lerner would rate him. If there was, more people could get behind him even if they didn't want him because of his blose links. Thats the problem really, no-one can work out why he would be Lerner's first choice.
RL and Faulkner must have been in the company off/spoken to/ spent time with McLeash in some fashion over the last 3-4 years. They will know the man a lot better than any of us. They will also know the restraints he was working under, firstly, with Gold, Sullivan and Brady and then with Yeung and Co. He still did a job, kept his integrity never blamed anybody for his failings when in reality he had the club punching way above it's weight when you consider who was in charge. Yes, he got them relegated in the end by a whisker but still managed the club's first meaningful silverware in 135 years.
I'm not saying AM will get us to the Champions League in 3 years but I will expect steady progress and hopefully a cup or two on the way. I also think he will make us more solid. We will actually be able to see out games with just a goal advantage, that in itself will make a refreshing change.
-
Can I ask a question? And before I do just to reiterate my own position, I'm in the "I didn't want Mcleish, but will give him a chance" camp.
What would people's opinion of him have been if we had gone after him when Houllier first got ill? Around that point his PL record was much better with them as he had taken them to 9th, their highest ever league position, and won a trophy. The first relegation was largely deemed to be something he couldn't stop as opposed to something he caused. So, if we're honest and say that then he would have been a much better candidate, are we thinking that much has changed since? Relegation is always a big blemish on any manager's CV, but enough to label him with the Curbishley's and Dowie's of this world?
I can't see him being anything special for us and have my concerns over the defensive nature of his sides, but also can't see him being the total disaster others predict. Although it's hard to judge until the summer dealings are done, but I'd expect to be 7th or 8th under him. Not good enough for Villa in my own biased view, but there you go.
-
As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.
RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed. Then there would have been no complications. As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation. For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.
There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.
I just find it difficult to believe that AM was the first name on the list, as it was reported that we were considering the likes of Ancelotti, Rafa, McLaren and Martinez long before AM resigned. I don't know for certain, it just seems highly implausable.
-
Can I ask a question? And before I do just to reiterate my own position, I'm in the "I didn't want Mcleish, but will give him a chance" camp.
What would people's opinion of him have been if we had gone after him when Houllier first got ill? Around that point his PL record was much better with them as he had taken them to 9th, their highest ever league position, and won a trophy. The first relegation was largely deemed to be something he couldn't stop as opposed to something he caused. So, if we're honest and say that then he would have been a much better candidate, are we thinking that much has changed since? Relegation is always a big blemish on any manager's CV, but enough to label him with the Curbishley's and Dowie's of this world?
I can't see him being anything special for us and have my concerns over the defensive nature of his sides, but also can't see him being the total disaster others predict. Although it's hard to judge until the summer dealings are done, but I'd expect to be 7th or 8th under him. Not good enough for Villa in my own biased view, but there you go.
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
-
Can I ask a question? And before I do just to reiterate my own position, I'm in the "I didn't want Mcleish, but will give him a chance" camp.
What would people's opinion of him have been if we had gone after him when Houllier first got ill? Around that point his PL record was much better with them as he had taken them to 9th, their highest ever league position, and won a trophy. The first relegation was largely deemed to be something he couldn't stop as opposed to something he caused. So, if we're honest and say that then he would have been a much better candidate, are we thinking that much has changed since? Relegation is always a big blemish on any manager's CV, but enough to label him with the Curbishley's and Dowie's of this world?
I can't see him being anything special for us and have my concerns over the defensive nature of his sides, but also can't see him being the total disaster others predict. Although it's hard to judge until the summer dealings are done, but I'd expect to be 7th or 8th under him. Not good enough for Villa in my own biased view, but there you go.
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I think you're onto something. If you ignore his relegations and that he finished third in a two-team league, then his record is decent. Give him credit for his modest successes and blame his failings on other factors and you can justify his appointment. I think that's what the board have done.
-
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.
-
Can I ask a question? And before I do just to reiterate my own position, I'm in the "I didn't want Mcleish, but will give him a chance" camp.
What would people's opinion of him have been if we had gone after him when Houllier first got ill? Around that point his PL record was much better with them as he had taken them to 9th, their highest ever league position, and won a trophy. The first relegation was largely deemed to be something he couldn't stop as opposed to something he caused. So, if we're honest and say that then he would have been a much better candidate, are we thinking that much has changed since? Relegation is always a big blemish on any manager's CV, but enough to label him with the Curbishley's and Dowie's of this world?
I can't see him being anything special for us and have my concerns over the defensive nature of his sides, but also can't see him being the total disaster others predict. Although it's hard to judge until the summer dealings are done, but I'd expect to be 7th or 8th under him. Not good enough for Villa in my own biased view, but there you go.
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
It may have been November when he joined, but what was the strength of the squad he inherited and what did he have to spend in Jan? And it's not a matter of excuses, just pointing out that a relatively short time ago the perception of his appointment may have been different. He may have finsihed 3rd in a 2 horse race in Scotland, but he also finished 2nd in it managing one of the non-starters.
This isn't about defending him or his record, but about looking at it as objectively as possible.
-
McLeish broke his contract, whereas another available manager in Mark Hughes merely activated a mutually agreed break clause in his contract. I'd say Hughes acted with far more integrity than McLeish, who on taking Blues down jumped ship for a bigger club rather than honouring his contract and trying to get them back up again.
There's a chasm of difference between working for Al Fayed and Carson Yeung. I'm astonished he lasted so long, I'm also amazed he put up with all the shit that came his way under the previous regime.
Blues are nothing but a Championship side at best, it's always been the way. McLeash gave them their best moment in the club's history, what he achieved there we all thought impossible, he had success there we can't argue with that. Had the league campaign finished 3 minutes earlier than it did would have made him one of the managers of the season. It was that close, most would then have seen him as a good appointment.
-
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.
Piss poor excuse indeed.
We're staring to get into the territory of
'Well, if you ignore the two relegations, he's actually a very good Manager'
Selective ahoy.
-
McLeish broke his contract, whereas another available manager in Mark Hughes merely activated a mutually agreed break clause in his contract. I'd say Hughes acted with far more integrity than McLeish, who on taking Blues down jumped ship for a bigger club rather than honouring his contract and trying to get them back up again.
There's a chasm of difference between working for Al Fayed and Carson Yeung. I'm astonished he lasted so long, I'm also amazed he put up with all the shit that came his way under the previous regime.
Blues are nothing but a Championship side at best, it's always been the way. McLeash gave them their best moment in the club's history, what he achieved there we all thought impossible, he had success there we can't argue with that. Had the league campaign finished 3 minutes earlier than it did would have made him one of the managers of the season. It was that close, most would then have seen him as a good appointment.
Blues played THE most atrocious football in the division. Manager of the year my arse.
-
Blues played THE most atrocious football in the division. Manager of the year my arse.
My Blues mate said halfway during last season.
'I've been supporting Blues for over 40 years, the way we play now is comfortably the most boring and negative football i've ever seen.'
-
Selective ahoy.
And that is pretty much my point.
When his detractors comment, as they are entitled to do, it's always the two Blues relegations that are brought up. And rightly so as they are big black marks against him. However he has had some successes and these are all but forgotten. He's not an awful manager and neither is he a very good one - he's average. Yes, I want better than that, but now he has the job I'll give him the chance to prove he is better than that.
-
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.
Piss poor excuse indeed.
We're staring to get into the territory of
'Well, if you ignore the two relegations, he's actually a very good Manager'
Selective ahoy.
But isn't it equally selective to ignore his successes and focus on his relegations?
Judging from his recent record (getting 9th in 2009/10 by almost fielding the same eleven every match; winning the Carling Cup with no little help from luck; getting relegated when experiencing injury problems), my guess is that he's pretty good at keeping a ship steady and pretty lousy at stopping a free-fall.
-
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.
Piss poor excuse indeed.
We're staring to get into the territory of
'Well, if you ignore the two relegations, he's actually a very good Manager'
Selective ahoy.
Or if you ignore the trophies and promotions he's a shit manager.
His record is mixed and rather than assume that he'll be crap I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
-
McLeish broke his contract, whereas another available manager in Mark Hughes merely activated a mutually agreed break clause in his contract. I'd say Hughes acted with far more integrity than McLeish, who on taking Blues down jumped ship for a bigger club rather than honouring his contract and trying to get them back up again.
There's a chasm of difference between working for Al Fayed and Carson Yeung. I'm astonished he lasted so long, I'm also amazed he put up with all the shit that came his way under the previous regime.
Blues are nothing but a Championship side at best, it's always been the way. McLeash gave them their best moment in the club's history, what he achieved there we all thought impossible, he had success there we can't argue with that. Had the league campaign finished 3 minutes earlier than it did would have made him one of the managers of the season. It was that close, most would then have seen him as a good appointment.
Blues played THE most atrocious football in the division. Manager of the year my arse.
Yes, the standard of football Blues played in the division was awful but they weren't as bad a footballing side as West ham or Blackburn when the came to VP. They won the league cup against Arsenal too by being the better overall team on the day.
I haven't a clue how McLeash will set his stall out with our lot but I expect it will be far more fluid than what he dished up at Blues, but it should be, we have a better squad.
Answer me this, is AM a better option than MON?
-
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.
Piss poor excuse indeed.
We're staring to get into the territory of
'Well, if you ignore the two relegations, he's actually a very good Manager'
Selective ahoy.
But isn't it equally selective to ignore his successes and focus on his relegations?
Judging from his recent record (getting 9th in 2009/10 by almost fielding the same eleven every match; winning the Carling Cup with no little help from luck; getting relegated when experiencing injury problems), my guess is that he's pretty good at keeping a ship steady and pretty lousy at stopping a free-fall.
I'm happy to acknowledge the Carling Cup was a very good achievement (although it was at the expense of their Premier League place)
9th was good going for them as well.
Bollocks to any tinpot Scootish honours though - Meaningless.
Looking at his overall record, I still think 'average' is a flattering way to describe him.
He's still a 'sub-standard' appointment for a club of our magnitude.
-
Or if you ignore the trophies and promotions he's a shit manager.
His record is mixed and rather than assume that he'll be crap I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
His record in England is indeed mixed - you're right, it is a mixture of a promotion and a league cup and two relegations, carried out with dire football. The two relegations carry more weight than the good things, though, that's the important bit.
Not assuming he'll be crap is one thing, but ignoring his at best mediocre overall record is another entirely.
-
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.
Piss poor excuse indeed.
We're staring to get into the territory of
'Well, if you ignore the two relegations, he's actually a very good Manager'
Selective ahoy.
Or if you ignore the trophies and promotions he's a shit manager.
One trophy - League cup. You were less impressed with the FA cup win of 'Arry Redknapp when it was pointed out to you.
Promotion - Well done, who relegated them in the first place?
It's more bad than good i'm afraid.
-
Or if you ignore the trophies and promotions he's a shit manager.
His record is mixed and rather than assume that he'll be crap I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
His record in England is indeed mixed - you're right, it is a mixture of a promotion and a league cup and two relegations, carried out with dire football. The two relegations carry more weight than the good things, though, that's the important bit.
Not assuming he'll be crap is one thing, but ignoring his at best mediocre overall record is another entirely.
You have to factor in who he was managing and under what circumstances.
-
Or if you ignore the trophies and promotions he's a shit manager.
His record is mixed and rather than assume that he'll be crap I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
His record in England is indeed mixed - you're right, it is a mixture of a promotion and a league cup and two relegations, carried out with dire football. The two relegations carry more weight than the good things, though, that's the important bit.
Not assuming he'll be crap is one thing, but ignoring his at best mediocre overall record is another entirely.
You have to factor in who he was managing and under what circumstances.
It's results at the end of the day Bren, mitigating circumstances won't cut any ice when you've tumbled out of the Premiership.
-
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.
Piss poor excuse indeed.
We're staring to get into the territory of
'Well, if you ignore the two relegations, he's actually a very good Manager'
Selective ahoy.
Or if you ignore the trophies and promotions he's a shit manager.
One trophy - League cup. You were less impressed with the FA cup win of 'Arry Redknapp when it was pointed out to you.
Promotion - Well done, who relegated them in the first place?
It's more bad than good i'm afraid.
]
Or if you ignore the trophies and promotions he's a shit manager.
His record is mixed and rather than assume that he'll be crap I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
His record in England is indeed mixed - you're right, it is a mixture of a promotion and a league cup and two relegations, carried out with dire football. The two relegations carry more weight than the good things, though, that's the important bit.
Not assuming he'll be crap is one thing, but ignoring his at best mediocre overall record is another entirely.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not choosing to to spend my days banging on about it endlessly.
I said at the time of his appointment that he had a clean slate and I would judge him on the job he does for us. That hasn't changed. I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
-
Or if you ignore the trophies and promotions he's a shit manager.
His record is mixed and rather than assume that he'll be crap I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
His record in England is indeed mixed - you're right, it is a mixture of a promotion and a league cup and two relegations, carried out with dire football. The two relegations carry more weight than the good things, though, that's the important bit.
Not assuming he'll be crap is one thing, but ignoring his at best mediocre overall record is another entirely.
You have to factor in who he was managing and under what circumstances.
It's results at the end of the day Bren, mitigating circumstances won't cut any ice when you've tumbled out of the Premiership.
You know as well as I that Blues are no better than a championship side, that's pretty much always been the case. To get them their highest league placing in over 50 years under the circumstances he had to manage is a remarkable achievement. Blues winning a meaningful trophy is a remarkable achievement. Admittedly, his copy book is blotted with last year's relegation but for a few minutes it could have been all so different and your's and others perception of him would have been totally different.
I remember 3 years ago discussions on here (Blues most successful season for 50 years) stating McLeish was a better manager than MON.
-
Why do you have to be quite so over the top about things, Chris?
"Constantly going on about how you don't rate him" - slight exaggeration. It's almost like you don't want people to say what they think when the new manager is being discussed, like it'll all go away.
I'm going to give him a chance and get behind him. You seem to want us all to stop being so nasty about his past record.
-
I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
This is a discussion forum, isn't it? There wouldn't be much discussion if everybody said: "Let's see how it goes."
-
Why do you have to be quite so over the top about things, Chris?
"Constantly going on about how you don't rate him" - slight exaggeration. It's almost like you don't want people to say what they think when the new manager is being discussed, like it'll all go away.
I'm going to give him a chance and get behind him. You seem to want us all to stop being so nasty about his past record.
It's not an exaggeration at all. A lot of people say they're going to give him a chance but inavariably only mention the negatives and it happens across threads on a daily basis.
-
I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
This is a discussion forum, isn't it? There wouldn't be much discussion if everybody said: "Let's see how it goes."
It's not much of a discussion when you just keeop saying the same thing over and over again as Damon recently discovered.
-
Why do you have to be quite so over the top about things, Chris?
"Constantly going on about how you don't rate him" - slight exaggeration. It's almost like you don't want people to say what they think when the new manager is being discussed, like it'll all go away.
I'm going to give him a chance and get behind him. You seem to want us all to stop being so nasty about his past record.
It's not an exaggeration at all. A lot of people say they're going to give him a chance but inavariably only mention the negatives and it happens across threads on a daily basis.
If that's the way the people feel, when the manager is being discussed, what do you expect?
-
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not choosing to to spend my days banging on about it endlessly.
I said at the time of his appointment that he had a clean slate and I would judge him on the job he does for us. That hasn't changed. I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
Chris.
It's gone 12, time for your medication, don't get carried away.
You'll be doling out your NOTW comparisons next.
We're on a forum about all things AVFC, the Manager of the club will obviously take up a large part of what we talk about.
It seems only natural that his confusing appointment gets bought up when we're discussing anything to do with the board.
Your best bet is for you to avoid any thread that makes mention of McLeish's record.
-
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not choosing to to spend my days banging on about it endlessly.
I said at the time of his appointment that he had a clean slate and I would judge him on the job he does for us. That hasn't changed. I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
Chris.
It's gone 12, time for your medication, don't get carried away.
You'll be doling out your NOTW comparisons next.
We're on a forum about all things AVFC, the Manager of the club will obviously take up a large part of what we talk about.
It seems only natural that his confusing appointment gets bought up when we're discussing anything to do with the board.
Your best bet is for you to avoid any thread that makes mention of McLeish's record.
You're the one not prepared to accept any view other than the one that says he's fucking usless.
The reality is that there are positives and negatives in his record and trying to rule some out just to suit your standpoint doesn't mean that you're right.
-
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not choosing to to spend my days banging on about it endlessly.
I said at the time of his appointment that he had a clean slate and I would judge him on the job he does for us. That hasn't changed. I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
Chris.
It's gone 12, time for your medication, don't get carried away.
You'll be doling out your NOTW comparisons next.
We're on a forum about all things AVFC, the Manager of the club will obviously take up a large part of what we talk about.
It seems only natural that his confusing appointment gets bought up when we're discussing anything to do with the board.
Your best bet is for you to avoid any thread that makes mention of McLeish's record.
You're the one not prepared to accept any view other than the one that says he's fucking usless.
The reality is that there are positives and negatives in his record and trying to rule some out just to suit your standpoint doesn't mean that you're right.
'Fucking useless' is somewhat of an exaggeration.
I agree about the positives and negatives, but I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.
Putting that aside, I think we're a big enough act to expect a better standard of Manager than McLeish.
-
I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
This is a discussion forum, isn't it? There wouldn't be much discussion if everybody said: "Let's see how it goes."
It's not much of a discussion when you just keeop saying the same thing over and over again as Damon recently discovered.
It may be disappointing that not every thread is a frontier toward new-found insights, but I don't think that I've read more posts by Fletch saying AM's shit than posts by you say that he should be given a chance.
-
When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.) Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.
-
I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
This is a discussion forum, isn't it? There wouldn't be much discussion if everybody said: "Let's see how it goes."
It's not much of a discussion when you just keeop saying the same thing over and over again as Damon recently discovered.
It may be disappointing that not every thread is a frontier toward new-found insights, but I don't think that I've read more posts by Fletch saying AM's shit than posts by you say that he should be given a chance.
Then you can't count.
-
I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
This is a discussion forum, isn't it? There wouldn't be much discussion if everybody said: "Let's see how it goes."
It's not much of a discussion when you just keeop saying the same thing over and over again as Damon recently discovered.
It may be disappointing that not every thread is a frontier toward new-found insights, but I don't think that I've read more posts by Fletch saying AM's shit than posts by you say that he should be given a chance.
Then you can't count.
Perhaps. Or maybe you tire more easily of other's opinions than your own.
-
I'm not sure what is to be achieved by constantly going on about how you don't rate him.
This is a discussion forum, isn't it? There wouldn't be much discussion if everybody said: "Let's see how it goes."
It's not much of a discussion when you just keeop saying the same thing over and over again as Damon recently discovered.
It may be disappointing that not every thread is a frontier toward new-found insights, but I don't think that I've read more posts by Fletch saying AM's shit than posts by you say that he should be given a chance.
Then you can't count.
Like you, i'll give him a chance, i've got no choice have I?
But it doesn't make his previous record disappear, it doesn't allay concerns about mind-numbingly boring football, it doesn't erase the suspicion that he was appointed to work with a tight budget.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see him be a success, I couldn't give a shit how daft i'd look as long as the club are flying.
Till then his record will be debated to the nth degree, he's got everything to prove, the board believe he's a rough gem and we'll see what happens.
It's still a baffling appointment on so many levels and while the bafflement is there you're going to see continuous references to it.
-
When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.) Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.
But they've done it now, he's our manager and I'm prepared to be open minded about it. He might be the disaster that many of you are convinced he will be or perhaps his positive attributes will come to the fore at a bigger and better club. All I'm saying is that I will make my mind up based on what he does for us not prejudge him on what has gone before.
-
When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.) Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.
But they've done it now, he's our manager and I'm prepared to be open minded about it. He might be the disaster that many of you are convinced he will be or perhaps his positive attributes will come to the fore at a bigger and better club. All I'm saying is that I will make my mind up based on what he does for us not prejudge him on what has gone before.
How can you not have an opinion on somebody based on their previous work record?
You wouldn't appoint Glenn Roeder on the basis that
'All his relegations happened before he came to us.'
-
When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.) Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.
But they've done it now, he's our manager and I'm prepared to be open minded about it. He might be the disaster that many of you are convinced he will be or perhaps his positive attributes will come to the fore at a bigger and better club. All I'm saying is that I will make my mind up based on what he does for us not prejudge him on what has gone before.
Well we have no choice but to see how it goes. However I think he's a poor manager, who buys mostly poor players, who gets his teams playing poor football, and has suffered two relegations in three years. You could argue that any manager from lower in the league would stand a chance of doing better at a bigger club like Villa. That doesn't stop their lack of ability from making it unlikely that they'll succeed, which I think is the case with McLeish.
-
With a few weeks to go, if we're not allowed to speculate on what the forthcoming season will hold, especially with a controversial new manager in place and concerns about the level of funding they may be, then when can we discuss it?
And if we're not allowed to point to aspects of that manager's past record in the Premier League as a guide to how we might fare then what are we allowed to point to?
And if we're not allowed to express opinions on whether we think the manager will be a success or not, what are we allowed to express opinions on?
-
When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.) Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.
But they've done it now, he's our manager and I'm prepared to be open minded about it. He might be the disaster that many of you are convinced he will be or perhaps his positive attributes will come to the fore at a bigger and better club. All I'm saying is that I will make my mind up based on what he does for us not prejudge him on what has gone before.
How can you not have an opinion on somebody based on their previous work record?
You wouldn't appoint Glenn Roeder on the basis that
'All his relegations happened before he came to us.'
Or, seeing as someone made a comparison to the NOTW situation earlier, "Andy Coulson? All his bad things happened before he came to us".
-
When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.) Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.
But they've done it now, he's our manager and I'm prepared to be open minded about it. He might be the disaster that many of you are convinced he will be or perhaps his positive attributes will come to the fore at a bigger and better club. All I'm saying is that I will make my mind up based on what he does for us not prejudge him on what has gone before.
Well we have no choice but to see how it goes. However I think he's a poor manager, who buys mostly poor players, who gets his teams playing poor football, and has suffered two relegations in three years. You could argue that any manager from lower in the league would stand a chance of doing better at a bigger club like Villa. That doesn't stop their lack of ability from making it unlikely that they'll succeed, which I think is the case with McLeish.
Two relegations in four years, either side of a promotion, their best PL finish and a trophy. This is where the debate started though, it's a mixed record and if you want to you can take that as a sign of potential to do better; I repeat - if you want to.
-
Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements. If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed. Anything else is just pure revisionism.
-
Is this true? He was slating him before he became our manager? Now he praising him because he is our manager?
One thing that isn't unacceptable and that's hypocrisy.
-
Is this true? He was slating him before he became our manager? Now he praising him because he is our manager?
One thing that isn't unacceptable and that's hypocrisy.
You do realise that there's a difference between being willing to giving someone you didn't want a chance to prove you wrong and "praising" them, don't you?
Think you've buggered up your third sentence there.
-
Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements. If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed. Anything else is just pure revisionism.
How am I embellsihing anything? I've just stated the facts of his record at the Blues and said IF you are so inclined you can use the positives as an indication of a POTENTIAL to do better.
-
So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?
You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)
I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.
They won their first game away at Spurs. Normally when a new manager takes over there is an extended honeymoon period. So it makes the relegation seem all the worse.
-
Is this true? He was slating him before he became our manager? Now he praising him because he is our manager?
One thing that isn't unacceptable and that's hypocrisy.
I'm neither praising nor slating him, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because I'm a Villa fan and I want him to do well. Is that so difficult to understand?
Isn't that not unaccepable?
-
Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements. If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed. Anything else is just pure revisionism.
How am I embellsihing anything? I've just stated the facts of his record at the Blues and said IF you are so inclined you can use the positives as an indication of a POTENTIAL to do better.
There was a discussion on here when Blues had just beaten Arsenal at Wembley, where you said that if Houllier was to leave, you didn't want McLeish as manager. There was no sign of you looking for his potential before he was arrived, so this new found desire to have us all look at his positives is a bit strange.
-
Is this true? He was slating him before he became our manager? Now he praising him because he is our manager?
One thing that isn't unacceptable and that's hypocrisy.
You do realise that there's a difference between being willing to giving someone you didn't want a chance to prove you wrong and "praising" them, don't you?
Think you've buggered up your third sentence there.
;D Ho ho ho!!!! Its the McLiesh effect, the symptoms are mild delusion followed by an overwhelming need to be tolerant followed by hysteria, panic, depression, and this strange syndrome of repeating yourself or finishing every sentance with a " who gives a phuk".
Treatment: A good long spell in the Championship, if symptoms persist, League 1. ;)
I'm sorry but how the hell do you get onside with a manager that you wouldn't previously given the time of day to, just because he's the club manager.
Surely the sensible response is to view this has this bloke has to go the extra mile, has to hit the ground running, has to come up with the goods, and the board also, they appointed him, or face summary execution, that's it. :D
-
Yes, he has to hit the ground running (as I think our more "sensitive" fans won't give him any honeymoon period at all), no he shouldn't have to go the extra mile, whatever that means. Coming up with the goods to me means winning football matches consistently, and improving on the previous season. This is EXACTLY what I'm (and, I presume, Chris is) giving him the opportunity to do. What's so difficult to understand about that?
EDIT: I've just realised that using the phrase "giving him the opportunity" sounds a bit pretentious, but you know what I mean. We can hardly start calling for his head when he hasn't even had a chance to start winning matches yet, can we?
-
Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements. If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed. Anything else is just pure revisionism.
How am I embellsihing anything? I've just stated the facts of his record at the Blues and said IF you are so inclined you can use the positives as an indication of a POTENTIAL to do better.
There was a discussion on here when Blues had just beaten Arsenal at Wembley, where you said that if Houllier was to leave, you didn't want McLeish as manager. There was no sign of you looking for his potential before he was arrived, so this new found desire to have us all look at his positives is a bit strange.
I didn't want him as manager. However, as he is I've tried to look at it objectively and it's undeniable that there are positives there.
-
Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements. If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed. Anything else is just pure revisionism.
How am I embellsihing anything? I've just stated the facts of his record at the Blues and said IF you are so inclined you can use the positives as an indication of a POTENTIAL to do better.
There was a discussion on here when Blues had just beaten Arsenal at Wembley, where you said that if Houllier was to leave, you didn't want McLeish as manager. There was no sign of you looking for his potential before he was arrived, so this new found desire to have us all look at his positives is a bit strange.
I didn't want him as manager. However, as he is I've tried to look at it objectively and it's undeniable that there are positives there.
I want him to do well, but what is undeniable is that the negatives outweight the positives. He's a bad manager, who may do better at a better club, but his methods and style of play make it unlikely that he's going to bring us success in my opinion. At best I think he'll make us hard to beat, but the down side to that is that we'll be poor to watch, and I think he'll make safe, uninspired signings that fit in with the new penny pinching views of the board, which can be the only real reason that he was appointed.
-
Yes, he has to hit the ground running (as I think our more "sensitive" fans won't give him any honeymoon period at all), no he shouldn't have to go the extra mile, whatever that means. Coming up with the goods to me means winning football matches consistently, and improving on the previous season. This is EXACTLY what I'm (and, I presume, Chris is) giving him the opportunity to do. What's so difficult to understand about that?
EDIT: I've just realised that using the phrase "giving him the opportunity" sounds a bit pretentious, but you know what I mean. We can hardly start calling for his head when he hasn't even had a chance to start winning matches yet, can we?
Ger: The point I'm making is in 1 slight humour but 2 mainly that whether we like it or not right from the first whistle of this season McLiesh will be given no time, we lose our opener, and i think we will v Fulham under Jol, the pressure will be immediate for the 2nd game, he will feel it, the fans will apply it and worse still the players will feel it.
I may love Alex Mac, fact is unless this fella starts chalking up the wins from day 1 (hits the ground running) he's a goner. Not the most astute appointment if you wanted to avoid turmoil.
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
-
I really cannot see the point of beating the shit out of this. Are people who are still staunchly against him being manager, for whatever reason going to do anything other than continuously analyze and moan for the rest of the season? The only fuel you have to continue to your argument and position is if he actually fails. Otherwise, it's over and done with. Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument. They identfied a candidate, did what they had to do and now he's in place.
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
-
Not at all. And a convincingly argued point.
We'll give the useless ginger ****** a fair crack.
-
I really cannot see the point of beating the shit out of this. Are people who are still staunchly against him being manager, for whatever reason going to do anything other than continuously analyze and moan for the rest of the season? The only fuel you have to continue to your argument and position is if he actually fails. Otherwise, it's over and done with. Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument. They identfied a candidate, did what they had to do and now he's in place.
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
Only if he gets his head down and works hard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
-
I really cannot see the point of beating the shit out of this. Are people who are still staunchly against him being manager, for whatever reason going to do anything other than continuously analyze and moan for the rest of the season? The only fuel you have to continue to your argument and position is if he actually fails. Otherwise, it's over and done with. Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument. They identfied a candidate, did what they had to do and now he's in place.
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
There's always an off button, tv. What you have to accept is that there are a significant number of fans, not least on H&V, who don't share your almost Timmy Mallet levels of enthusiasm and perkiness. In fact, speaking for myself, I haven't felt quite so dispirited about a forthcoming season since before O'Neill arrived. If, in the face of the McLeish appointment and the lowering of expectations, you still find reason to be incredibly positive then I salute you. But it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to share that view, or to refrain from posting about how they do feel. And if that means there are threads you feel you don't want to contribute to, then steer clear of them. As much as you can't see the point in some threads, you have to accept that others do.
-
I really cannot see the point of beating the shit out of this. Are people who are still staunchly against him being manager, for whatever reason going to do anything other than continuously analyze and moan for the rest of the season? The only fuel you have to continue to your argument and position is if he actually fails. Otherwise, it's over and done with. Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument. They identfied a candidate, did what they had to do and now he's in place.
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
What constitutes failure and success then? There doesn't seem to be any way of knowing what direction the club is taking other than by judging the managerial appointment and statements McLeish has made subsequently. These all point to a few years of puttering around in mid-table, and not challenging for anything. Is that success or failure?
-
Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument.
I don't see it as a pointless argument at all.
You accept coughing up compensation for a quality manager, but I and many others object to stumping up for a manager with a sub-standard record.
Due to his below par record people ARE going to analyse his methods to a higher degree than they would normally.
If that's 'exhausting', lay the blame at the feet of the board who made this baffling appointment.
-
I really cannot see the point of beating the shit out of this. Are people who are still staunchly against him being manager, for whatever reason going to do anything other than continuously analyze and moan for the rest of the season? The only fuel you have to continue to your argument and position is if he actually fails. Otherwise, it's over and done with. Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument. They identfied a candidate, did what they had to do and now he's in place.
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
There's always an off button, tv. What you have to accept is that there are a significant number of fans, not least on H&V, who don't share your almost Timmy Mallet levels of enthusiasm and perkiness. In fact, speaking for myself, I haven't felt quite so dispirited about a forthcoming season since before O'Neill arrived. If, in the face of the McLeish appointment and the lowering of expectations, you still find reason to be incredibly positive then I salute you. But it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to share that view, or to refrain from posting about how they do feel. And if that means there are threads you feel you don't want to contribute to, then steer clear of them. As much as you can't see the point in some threads, you have to accept that others do.
Prozac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I will give him a chance. Of course I will.
BUT by Christ this a brave appointment- not because he was Blues- but because of his reputation for defensive football.
Will he be more positive because of more mature management and a better squad?
If he fails to produce immediate results, and decent positive footie, his, Lerner/Faulkner's, and our reputation as a Club will be buggared. We are not Wimbledon- but they won an FA Cup. Then what?
I can't remember a braver owner decision in English Football.
All we can do is touch wood.
-
The oft repeated comment from some quarters
'Oh, you only object to him because he managed the Blues'
Is lazy and inaccurate.
It might apply to the 500 or so goons who stormed the Witton Lane gates, but to the vasts majority of Villa supporters, they're more concerned about his managerial record.
-
Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument.
I don't see it as a pointless argument at all.
You accept coughing up compensation for a quality manager, but I and many others object to stumping up for a manager with a sub-standard record.
Due to his below par record people ARE going to analyse his methods to a higher degree than they would normally.
If that's 'exhausting', lay the blame at the feet of the board who made this baffling appointment.
Precisely, in the history of the world you couldn't orchestrate a more contentious appointment, it is done, and that is that, doesn't change the fact of how fast the do do's will hit the fan if this campaign gets of to a bad start, we all know how losing becomes a habit for any team, my point would be if I was optimistic about this appointment, I would catch myself up a little, bite my tongue, and wait to see how this pans out, rather than be a little to over optimistic at this stage, that would be my opinion.
Put it another way, if this goes well, then so be it, but, if this goes wrong it won't just be a failed manager and a sacking, IMO, this will bring massive harm to the club and real vitriol, we are on a knife edge, you only have to look at this thread and across the wide world of Villa message boards to see how this is still sooooo prominent.
-
Not at all. And a convincingly argued point.
We'll give the useless ginger c*** a fair crack.
you forgot to add "bluenose"
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
Blind prejudice.
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
Blind prejudice.
Is that true Chris, or did you think he was not good enough for the Villa job?
-
Well, we will soon find out wont' we?
-
The oft repeated comment from some quarters
'Oh, you only object to him because he managed the Blues'
Is lazy and inaccurate.
It might apply to the 500 or so goons who stormed the Witton Lane gates, but to the vasts majority of Villa supporters, they're more concerned about his managerial record.
Very true. I don't think people would have been happy with Holloway or Grant either. And plenty, myself included, didn't want Martinez who was more successful in the league.
The other thing about the Blues connection is that if he'd done really well for them, say, won a trophy and then not tarnished it by taking them down, again, then I think many of us would be enjoying poaching their promising manager. The fact of the matter is he was their manager and he wasn't very good.
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
Blind prejudice.
Is that true Chris, or did you think he was not good enough for the Villa job?
It's as true as you lot pretending him manging that lot has nothing to do with it.
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
Blind prejudice.
Is that true Chris, or did you think he was not good enough for the Villa job?
It's as true as you lot pretending him manging that lot has nothing to do with it.
I think even you know that is patently untrue Chris, I can only assume you've got your arse in your hand over something.
I and many others objected with equal force to appointing the thin Spanish waiter from Wigan.
If he was a quality manager coming from the Blues, i'd welcome him with open arms.
-
The oft repeated comment from some quarters
'Oh, you only object to him because he managed the Blues'
Is lazy and inaccurate.
It might apply to the 500 or so goons who stormed the Witton Lane gates, but to the vasts majority of Villa supporters, they're more concerned about his managerial record.
Very true. I don't think people would have been happy with Holloway or Grant either. And plenty, myself included, didn't want Martinez who was more successful in the league.
The other thing about the Blues connection is that if he'd done really well for them, say, won a trophy and then not tarnished it by taking them down, again, then I think many of us would be enjoying poaching their promising manager. The fact of the matter is he was their manager and he wasn't very good.
And he cost us a lot of money, would you pay millions for the privilege.
Love to know what kind of contract and severance he's been offered.
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
Blind prejudice.
Is that true Chris, or did you think he was not good enough for the Villa job?
It's as true as you lot pretending him manging that lot has nothing to do with it.
Maybe you could do us the benefit of at least taking our views at face value rather than assuming we're lying.
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
Blind prejudice.
Is that true Chris, or did you think he was not good enough for the Villa job?
It's as true as you lot pretending him manging that lot has nothing to do with it.
I think even you know that is patently untrue Chris, I can only assume you've got your arse in your hand over something.
I and many others objected with equal force to appointing the thin Spanish waiter from Wigan.
If he was a quality manager coming from the Blues, i'd welcome him with open arms.
I'm actually quite enjoying myself. We wouldn't have facebook pages etc for any other manager, it might not be the prime reason for all of you but the fact that he came from them makes a difference.
I didn't want him as I prefered Moyes.
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
Blind prejudice.
Is that true Chris, or did you think he was not good enough for the Villa job?
It's as true as you lot pretending him manging that lot has nothing to do with it.
Maybe you could do us the benefit of at least taking our views at face value rather than assuming we're lying.
So I'm asked if I'm lying, give a flippant answer and you then take offence. How queer.
-
I think its also worth pointing out at this point that my status has been elevated to "youth team"......Just thought i would point that little detail out.
-
Maybe you could do us the benefit of at least taking our views at face value rather than assuming we're lying.
It's textbook Smith-ery: having a go at those who hold a view of McLeish that he himself held just a few months ago.
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
-
I think its also worth pointing out at this point that my status has been elevated to "youth team"......Just thought i would point that little detail out.
I need my boots cleaning.
-
Maybe you could do us the benefit of at least taking our views at face value rather than assuming we're lying.
It's textbook Smith-ery: having a go at those who hold a view of McLeish that he himself held just a few months ago.
Of course it is. Chris loves a ruck.
That's why we get comments like the one about "you lot pretending him coming from Blues had nothing to do with it".
A classic Smudger move - moaning about people going on about something then dropping in a perfect little comment which he knows will ensure the row goes on much longer.
If Alistair Campbell didn't support one of the other clubs in claret and blue, I'd swear Chris was him
-
I didn't want him as manager.
What was that view based on?
Blind prejudice.
Is that true Chris, or did you think he was not good enough for the Villa job?
It's as true as you lot pretending him manging that lot has nothing to do with it.
I think even you know that is patently untrue Chris, I can only assume you've got your arse in your hand over something.
I and many others objected with equal force to appointing the thin Spanish waiter from Wigan.
If he was a quality manager coming from the Blues, i'd welcome him with open arms.
I'm actually quite enjoying myself. We wouldn't have facebook pages etc for any other manager
I couldn't give a fig about that ridiclous Facebook page.
That goes for 99% of posters on here and about 99% of Villa supporters as a whole.
You know as well as I do that the facebook cack is totally unrepresentative.
-
I really cannot see the point of beating the shit out of this. Are people who are still staunchly against him being manager, for whatever reason going to do anything other than continuously analyze and moan for the rest of the season? The only fuel you have to continue to your argument and position is if he actually fails. Otherwise, it's over and done with. Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument. They identfied a candidate, did what they had to do and now he's in place.
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
There's always an off button, tv. What you have to accept is that there are a significant number of fans, not least on H&V, who don't share your almost Timmy Mallet levels of enthusiasm and perkiness. In fact, speaking for myself, I haven't felt quite so dispirited about a forthcoming season since before O'Neill arrived. If, in the face of the McLeish appointment and the lowering of expectations, you still find reason to be incredibly positive then I salute you. But it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to share that view, or to refrain from posting about how they do feel. And if that means there are threads you feel you don't want to contribute to, then steer clear of them. As much as you can't see the point in some threads, you have to accept that others do.
You couldn't have posted more bollocks if you'd tried hilts. It would be no different to me calling you an eternal miserable bastard about asll things Villa which I'd be wrong in doing. I'm not spouting optimism on this, though clearly the fact that perceive it be bothers you. Where have I been "incredibly positive"? Where have I once stated that I'd delighted with AM, and I'm really looking forward to the season. You'll do well to find one post that I've made remotely suggesting that. What you will find is several pots suggesting that we need to give the bloke a chance now that he's here.
My position is simple. We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change. You clearly didn't read my post before jumping to your conclusion on my stance with regard to this topic. But yes feel free to contribute to another 50 pages of "oh woe is us", "everything at Villa is shit", "the board are completely incompetent", "we've settled for mid table for ever and ever". The off button seems like a good option when faced with reading that on here every day from the same old crowd.
-
The off button seems like a good option when faced with reading that on here every day from the same old crowd.
Excellent.
-
We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change.
Does this mean that I can't whinge and moan if McLeish plays Heskey? Because I doubt that I'll be able to influence team selections.
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
If people are going to consider his previous record then they should look at the total body of work, and not just concentrate on the 2 relegations that seem to occupy everybody's attention. While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career and especially now being in an entirely different working environment and circumstance.
-
My position is simple. We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change.
Well what you see as 'Whinging and fucking moaning'
I see as constructive criticism.
I haven't seen any comments on McLeish's record during this thread that could be misconstrued as moaning.
We're all willing to give him a chance and i'm sure we all want him to succeed, but that shouldn't erase the thorny issue of his past record.
-
I honestly couldn't give a shite that he came from Blues. In fact Paulie made a good point yesterday, ie that if we'd nabbed him after he'd just finished 4th in the PL with them I'd congratulate the board on managing to procure such a good manager.
All I want is a manager who I think will do well for Villa. If that man was Trevor Francis, I wouldn't care about his Blues connection at all.
-
The off button seems like a good option when faced with reading that on here every day from the same old crowd.
Excellent.
Do you just sit in a dark room all day? Must be well depressing.
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
If people are going to consider his previous record then they should look at the total body of work, and not just concentrate on the 2 relegations that seem to occupy everybody's attention. While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career and especially now being in an entirely different working environment and circumstance.
I don't know what you do for a living, but you and Chris would make terrible HR managers.
-
While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career
Obviously not.
But a past working record is surely an important indicator of how a person will perform.
You wouldn't employ an electrician who had a history of electrocuting himself.
-
My position is simple. We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change.
Well what you see as 'Whinging and fucking moaning'
I see as constructive criticism.
I haven't seen any comments on McLeish's record during this thread that could be misconstrued as moaning.
We're all willing to give him a chance and i'm sure we all want him to succeed, but that shouldn't erase the thorny issue of his past record.
I'm not dismissing his past. I completely agree that it contributes to who is he is. But his past should just be about his relegations which consumes every discussion and argument about his past. His past, if you are to have a fair discussion includes league titles and cups. He still won them, and one them involved beating us along the way and tactically outdoing Arsenal in the final.
His past also should be a 100% indicator of what he can do in different circumstances. If he was still at Blues, under the same working environment I'd agree that the likelihood of things improving would be slim. But sometimes getting away from a difficult situation can help. I'm willing to see if it does. I hope I'm right. I could be horribly wrong. I just don't know.
-
While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career
Obviously not.
But a past working record is surely an important indicator of how a person will perform.
You wouldn't employ an electrician who had a history of electrocuting himself.
His entire history or just a couple of examples? And maybe the house that he did it in was fucked from the start and the owners were complete wankers and threw water on him as worked.
-
I really cannot see the point of beating the shit out of this. Are people who are still staunchly against him being manager, for whatever reason going to do anything other than continuously analyze and moan for the rest of the season? The only fuel you have to continue to your argument and position is if he actually fails. Otherwise, it's over and done with. Had the club employed any other employed manager we'd have paid some form of compensation so that part in my opinion is a pointless argument. They identfied a candidate, did what they had to do and now he's in place.
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
There's always an off button, tv. What you have to accept is that there are a significant number of fans, not least on H&V, who don't share your almost Timmy Mallet levels of enthusiasm and perkiness. In fact, speaking for myself, I haven't felt quite so dispirited about a forthcoming season since before O'Neill arrived. If, in the face of the McLeish appointment and the lowering of expectations, you still find reason to be incredibly positive then I salute you. But it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to share that view, or to refrain from posting about how they do feel. And if that means there are threads you feel you don't want to contribute to, then steer clear of them. As much as you can't see the point in some threads, you have to accept that others do.
You couldn't have posted more bollocks if you'd tried hilts. It would be no different to me calling you an eternal miserable bastard about asll things Villa which I'd be wrong in doing. I'm not spouting optimism on this, though clearly the fact that perceive it be bothers you. Where have I been "incredibly positive"? Where have I once stated that I'd delighted with AM, and I'm really looking forward to the season. You'll do well to find one post that I've made remotely suggesting that. What you will find is several pots suggesting that we need to give the bloke a chance now that he's here.
My position is simple. We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change. You clearly didn't read my post before jumping to your conclusion on my stance with regard to this topic. But yes feel free to contribute to another 50 pages of "oh woe is us", "everything at Villa is shit", "the board are completely incompetent", "we've settled for mid table for ever and ever". The off button seems like a good option when faced with reading that on here every day from the same old crowd.
Interesting, can you post some photo's please.......
I think there are people that will be upbeat about pretty much anything and fair play to that, i think the point you are making with regards to getting on with it, its done, now lets back him notion, doesn't take into account that there are those who simply don't rate the bloke, that also think this is the worst of all options, and to add salt to the wound we paid our loathing neighbours for the privilege.
But more than all this there are those who may feel a sense of foreboding that is only just around the corner of what we maybe in for who would otherwise be looking forward to justifying spending on season tickets, travelling around the country, but most of all a good season with just maybe something at the end of it.
My stance on this is simple, I hope the bloke holds it together and does OK, what i dread is seeing advertised across the whole Premiership is the kind of displays that Villa can do oh so well, if this goes wrong, and how embarrassing this may turn out.
This has the potential of a soap opera that i really don't want to see the likes of Lineker and Hanson and the other geezer waxing lyrical about on MOTD with the kind of statement " well Alan where did it all go wrong for Villa".
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
If people are going to consider his previous record then they should look at the total body of work, and not just concentrate on the 2 relegations that seem to occupy everybody's attention. While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career and especially now being in an entirely different working environment and circumstance.
I don't know what you do for a living, but you and Chris would make terrible HR managers.
I agree, all that pretending to be nice to people while stabbing them in the back isn't my cup of tea.
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
If people are going to consider his previous record then they should look at the total body of work, and not just concentrate on the 2 relegations that seem to occupy everybody's attention. While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career and especially now being in an entirely different working environment and circumstance.
I don't know what you do for a living, but you and Chris would make terrible HR managers.
I have no idea what you're on about. Are you suggesting that all companies make good hires all the time? Or maybe some companies make hires they are not sure about that turn out to be great, and other make what they consider good hires at the time that turn out to be crap. You're statement makes no sense at all Risso.
-
My position is simple. We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change.
Well what you see as 'Whinging and fucking moaning'
I see as constructive criticism.
I haven't seen any comments on McLeish's record during this thread that could be misconstrued as moaning.
We're all willing to give him a chance and i'm sure we all want him to succeed, but that shouldn't erase the thorny issue of his past record.
I'm not dismissing his past. I completely agree that it contributes to who is he is. But his past should just be about his relegations which consumes every discussion and argument about his past. His past, if you are to have a fair discussion includes league titles and cups. He still won them, and one them involved beating us along the way and tactically outdoing Arsenal in the final.
I do take my hat off to his League cup win, although this is tempered by the spiralling form afterwards that caused their relegation.
To quote my Blues Mate
'They seemed to think it was job done after the League cup win, it wasn't tiredness or squad size that caused the relegation, it was complacency'
That worries me after being told what a great motivator he is.
And i'm sorry, I still can't take the Scottish stuff seriously.
Gordon Strachan won 6 trophies up there, 3 of them League titles and he was a resounding failure at Middlesbrough.
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
If people are going to consider his previous record then they should look at the total body of work, and not just concentrate on the 2 relegations that seem to occupy everybody's attention. While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career and especially now being in an entirely different working environment and circumstance.
I don't know what you do for a living, but you and Chris would make terrible HR managers.
I agree, all that pretending to be nice to people while stabbing them in the back isn't my cup of tea.
Care to elaborate?
-
My position is simple. We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change.
Well what you see as 'Whinging and fucking moaning'
I see as constructive criticism.
I haven't seen any comments on McLeish's record during this thread that could be misconstrued as moaning.
We're all willing to give him a chance and i'm sure we all want him to succeed, but that shouldn't erase the thorny issue of his past record.
I'm not dismissing his past. I completely agree that it contributes to who is he is. But his past should just be about his relegations which consumes every discussion and argument about his past. His past, if you are to have a fair discussion includes league titles and cups. He still won them, and one them involved beating us along the way and tactically outdoing Arsenal in the final.
I do take my hat off to his League cup win, although this is tempered by the spiralling form afterwards that caused their relegation.
To quote my Blues Mate
'They seemed to think it was job done after the League cup win, it wasn't tiredness or squad size that caused the relegation, it was complacency'
That worries me after being told what a great motivator he is.
And i'm sorry, I still can't take the Scottish stuff seriously.
Gordon Strachan won 6 trophies up there, 3 of them League titles and he was a resounding failure at Middlesbrough.
I think the league cup run coupled with losing Scott Dann ultimately fucked them. I too don't place a huge amount of stock in his Scottish record, but it's still a part of his past. But if we were to completely dismiss it then MON's primary accomplishments need to be struck from the record too.
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
If people are going to consider his previous record then they should look at the total body of work, and not just concentrate on the 2 relegations that seem to occupy everybody's attention. While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career and especially now being in an entirely different working environment and circumstance.
I don't know what you do for a living, but you and Chris would make terrible HR managers.
I agree, all that pretending to be nice to people while stabbing them in the back isn't my cup of tea.
Care to elaborate?
Can't really, just something I'm having to deal with at the moment.
-
Can't really, just something I'm having to deal with at the moment.
Understand.
-
My position is simple. We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change.
Well what you see as 'Whinging and fucking moaning'
I see as constructive criticism.
I haven't seen any comments on McLeish's record during this thread that could be misconstrued as moaning.
We're all willing to give him a chance and i'm sure we all want him to succeed, but that shouldn't erase the thorny issue of his past record.
I'm not dismissing his past. I completely agree that it contributes to who is he is. But his past should just be about his relegations which consumes every discussion and argument about his past. His past, if you are to have a fair discussion includes league titles and cups. He still won them, and one them involved beating us along the way and tactically outdoing Arsenal in the final.
I do take my hat off to his League cup win, although this is tempered by the spiralling form afterwards that caused their relegation.
To quote my Blues Mate
'They seemed to think it was job done after the League cup win, it wasn't tiredness or squad size that caused the relegation, it was complacency'
That worries me after being told what a great motivator he is.
And i'm sorry, I still can't take the Scottish stuff seriously.
Gordon Strachan won 6 trophies up there, 3 of them League titles and he was a resounding failure at Middlesbrough.
I think the league cup run coupled with losing Scott Dann ultimately fucked them. I too don't place a huge amount of stock in his Scottish record, but it's still a part of his past. But if we were to completely dismiss it then MON's primary accomplishments need to be struck from the record too.
I agree TV.
I'd say the same about MON's achievements up there.
Although in the Hobbit's favour, he did win shitty Leicester a couple of League Cups.
-
McLeish finished third up there. That's the Scottish football equivalent to getting Arsenal relegated.
-
McLeish finished third up there. That's the Scottish football equivalent to getting Arsenal relegated.
I dont wish to defend him much but adversely, he got Motherwell to 2nd above Celtic, which is like getting Bolton into the champions league.
-
He's obviously had a hit & miss career.
Let's hope the bad times are behind him.
-
McLeish finished third up there. That's the Scottish football equivalent to getting Arsenal relegated.
He also finished second with Motherwell didn't he?
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
If people are going to consider his previous record then they should look at the total body of work, and not just concentrate on the 2 relegations that seem to occupy everybody's attention. While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career and especially now being in an entirely different working environment and circumstance.
No, it doesn't guarantee he'll always be a failure, but by the same stretch it raises a big question over how he got the job in the first place, and what we should expect given said poor record.
-
McLeish finished third up there. That's the Scottish football equivalent to getting Arsenal relegated.
He also finished second with Motherwell didn't he?
That's the Scottish equivalent of finishing 2nd in a two horse race.
-
McLeish finished third up there. That's the Scottish football equivalent to getting Arsenal relegated.
I dont wish to defend him much but adversely, he got Motherwell to 2nd above Celtic, which is like getting Bolton into the champions league.
Not back then it wasn't. For a period of about 7/8 years after 1988, Celtic didn't finish in the top two at all, and other clubs like Aberdeen, Hearts and Motherwell did instead. It was only from about 1996 that the two club league restablished itself.
-
We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change.
Does this mean that I can't whinge and moan if McLeish plays Heskey? Because I doubt that I'll be able to influence team selections.
It's the common line when people who don't think we should be critical of anything the club say come out with when people say things they don't like to hear.
If we stopped moaning and whingeing (and by extension, talking) about things we can't change, then there would be no point in this place.
There are clearly some people on here who are unhappy about pretty much everything.
There are also some people who, were the club to institute a policy of beheading a puppy on the centre spot before every game, would support it.
They're all perfectly entitled to have they say, and I imagine this place would be a lot more boring if we all shut up talking about stuff we can't influence.
-
You are now either going to refocus and get behind the club and hope the manager succeeds or you're going to keep on with complaining about it which is getting so exhausting. Look, almost none of us wanted him, but he's here now. Give him a chance to win you over. Is that really so much to ask?
No, it isn't too much to ask, and pretty much every single poster on here has said they'll give him a chance.
However, giving him a chance and pretending his previous record doesn't matter are two totally different things.
If people are going to consider his previous record then they should look at the total body of work, and not just concentrate on the 2 relegations that seem to occupy everybody's attention. While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career and especially now being in an entirely different working environment and circumstance.
No, it doesn't guarantee he'll always be a failure, but by the same stretch it raises a big question over how he got the job in the first place, and what we should expect given said poor record.
which is why I'm keeping an open mind. Harry Redknapp got more than one team relegated, yet won the FA Cup (albeit having spent stupidly at Pompey) and then lands the Spurs job. He's done quite well. Now, I have no idea if AM can do the same, is capable of anything close to that, and we'd all probably be delighted if he could. But it shows that just because someone has failed in the past doesn't mean they haven't learnt a thing or two along the way to make them better. That's the position I'll take until he proves otherwise in his new role. If he shits the bed, I'll be the first to say "fair enough" because he'll be given the very best working conditions he's ever had as a manager. He has a massive chance to be the best he can be in his new role.
-
We need to move on and stop whinging and fucking moaning about something we can't change.
Does this mean that I can't whinge and moan if McLeish plays Heskey? Because I doubt that I'll be able to influence team selections.
It's the common line when people who don't think we should be critical of anything the club say come out with when people say things they don't like to hear.
If we stopped moaning and whingeing (and by extension, talking) about things we can't change, then there would be no point in this place.
There are clearly some people on here who are unhappy about pretty much everything.
There are also some people who, were the club to institute a policy of beheading a puppy on the centre spot before every game, would support it.
They're all perfectly entitled to have they say, and I imagine this place would be a lot more boring if we all shut up talking about stuff we can't influence.
It's not just a case of whinging and moaning. It's about how long do you do it for? What does it ultimately achieve? I wasn't happy with the appointment but unless we can physically change it then how does it really help 3 weeks or so on? The club appointed him, people complained and rightly so. It went a little quiet and then started up again following the settlement. But at some point we have to move on. Maybe it's just me, but unless something concrete came from it, I don't see the point of beating what is a very dead horse.
-
It's not just a case of whinging and moaning. It's about how long do you do it for? What does it ultimately achieve? I wasn't happy with the appointment but unless we can physically change it then how does it really help 3 weeks or so on? The club appointed him, people complained and rightly so. It went a little quiet and then started up again following the settlement. But at some point we have to move on. Maybe it's just me, but unless something concrete came from it, I don't see the point of beating what is a very dead horse.
No-one expects to "physically change" the McLeish appointment. No-one expects discussion on here to "achieve" anything, in terms of influencing decisions made at the club.
H&V is a discussion forum not an action group, so to limit the discussion to things we can achieve or influence, or to limit the amount of time we're allowed to talk about them, seems counter-intuitive. Besides, what does saying saying 'I give him the benefit of the doubt' actually "achieve"? Fuck all is what.
It's the same every time on H&V: the same posters seek to limit what we can discuss, for no other reason that they get upset when critical views are expressed. I recognise your point of view and right to express it, even if I disagree with it or find your manner irritating. What I don't do is say "can you please talk about something else because it bothers me?" I've said before, if you don't feel able to contribute to a thread, other than to say 'this thread is boring', then perhaps it's best not to bother.
-
It's not just a case of whinging and moaning. It's about how long do you do it for? What does it ultimately achieve? I wasn't happy with the appointment but unless we can physically change it then how does it really help 3 weeks or so on? The club appointed him, people complained and rightly so. It went a little quiet and then started up again following the settlement. But at some point we have to move on. Maybe it's just me, but unless something concrete came from it, I don't see the point of beating what is a very dead horse.
Alas, I think this proves that people will jump at every chance to criticize the McLeish appointment. After the outrage over his appointment had silenced, the settlement was the first chance to have a go at him (or, rather, the appointment of him) once again. Wait until we start losing matches.
-
It's not just a case of whinging and moaning. It's about how long do you do it for? What does it ultimately achieve? I wasn't happy with the appointment but unless we can physically change it then how does it really help 3 weeks or so on? The club appointed him, people complained and rightly so. It went a little quiet and then started up again following the settlement. But at some point we have to move on. Maybe it's just me, but unless something concrete came from it, I don't see the point of beating what is a very dead horse.
Why does anything we discuss have to "achieve" anything?
-
While the 2 relegations don't look good on his CV, it doesn't 100% guarantee that this is what McLeish will be for the remainder of this managerial career
Obviously not.
But a past working record is surely an important indicator of how a person will perform.
You wouldn't employ an electrician who had a history of electrocuting himself.
Where are all the HR managers when you need them?
I can't believe this spark is having to work in a house with w**kers throwing water over him.
These threads are great.
-
Club Statement
"Many years before, other chairmen were sending spies into his stadium to steal Lerner's amazing footballing secrets. Finally, Mr Lerner locked the gates, and banished all his workers from the factory. Shortly after this, the football club started up, but noone knows who is making Lerner's players now."
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1158/lerner.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/lerner.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
...
His past also should be a 100% indicator of what he can do in different circumstances. If he was still at Blues, under the same working environment I'd agree that the likelihood of things improving would be slim. But sometimes getting away from a difficult situation can help. I'm willing to see if it does. I hope I'm right. I could be horribly wrong. I just don't know.
"I knew about his past and I decided to give him a second chance" David Cameron.