Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Legion on November 19, 2011, 05:48:45 PM
-
From the Pravda Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/avfcofficial):
Look out for a website exclusive with Chairman Randy Lerner tomorrow morning on www.avfc.co.uk.
A rehashed version of The Times article?
-
From the OS:
"I'd like to thank our fans for supporting the franchise this year. The club is performing where it should be with respect to our revenues. When the financial fair play system arrives we will be well positioned to remain where we are.
By the way, has any of you dudes seen the General? Most bogus."
The Chairman.
-
About time?
-
FFS Randy, why don't you stop banging on in the press. Talk is cheap. FFS.
-
FFS Randy, why don't you stop banging on in the press. Talk is cheap. FFS.
I am surprised he has gone public recently, and now we want him to stop? :)
-
I just hope he does not select anymore quotes from prestigious individuals from our past, it is cringe worthy and not accurate.
-
I just hope he does not select anymore quotes from prestigious individuals from our past, it is cringe worthy and not accurate.
What? Has he been misquoting Doug again?
-
I just hope he does not select anymore quotes from prestigious individuals from our past, it is cringe worthy and not accurate.
What? Has he been misquoting Doug again?
No. I wonder why he does not include the full Frederick Rinder quote?
-
He's going to tell us he's helping Rolf Harris move house,next week.
-
"The Franchise?" Fuck off you c***.
-
"The Franchise?" Fuck off you c***.
Are you for real?
-
"The Franchise?" Fuck off you c***.
Oh Dear.
-
Insert smiley face
-
Banned for unacceptable abuse. It's such a shame that this thread has degenerated into this. I was hoping for better. Let's see what Mr. Lerner has to say tomorrow.
-
I'll be honest when I first read the franchise "quote" I was a tad annoyed but if anyone thinks "By the way, has any of you dudes seen the General? Most bogus." was a real quote from Randy then they deserve to get banned for stupidity alone.
-
People around here just seem to love to nitpick and get annoyed about anything they can...
I am still not sure if we are all hating Randy Lerner for not signing high profile big names and pouring out cash, or if we all hate him for his dedication to "Modern Football" and putting money ahead of the club...
...but now I get it. It is for using a word that people "don't like" in an interview.
-
I have to admit I had to reread the post to check it wasn't real.
-
People around here just seem to love to nitpick and get annoyed about anything they can...
I am still not sure if we are all hating Randy Lerner for not signing high profile big names and pouring out cash, or if we all hate him for his dedication to "Modern Football" and putting money ahead of the club...
...but now I get it. It is for using a word that people "don't like" in an interview.
Er you really sure? which interview?
-
Wind your neck in pmarachi, thats just one person who fell for the obvious hoax (before you anyway!).
For the record, I don't even have a mild dislike of Randy, let alone hate him & I suspect many here feel the same.
Mind you, if he ever does call us a 'franchise', I might have to revise that opinion. Unlikely to ever happen though, since he called us a 'proud Victorian club' in the Times article.
-
A ban for a knee jerk reaction to a wind up post is a bit harsh surely?
-
Here is the article
http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10265~2521247,00.html
-
He should be more communicative as what he says gives confidence to me that he is in itfor the long term. Well done Randy.
-
He's in it for the long term providing we keep the wage bill low. Poor interview in my opinion
-
The article says absolutely nothing, bar what we already know, same thing he has been saying since he arrived about the 3 areas he wants to improve. Bodymoor, ground and squad.
-
The article says absolutely nothing, bar what we already know, same thing he has been saying since he arrived about the 3 areas he wants to improve. Bodymoor, ground and squad.
What should he have said instead?
And can you think of any examples of other chairmen saying the things that you want Randy to say?
-
Typically understated stuff.
-
He fit our feeling that a modern manager needs to balance the hysterical urgency to win and win quickly with the equally crucial need to not squander the work of our academy.
So he was told that a few losses playing the kids is ok?
-
It's surprised me that between him Faulkner and 24 possible names in the frame for the vacant manager position, that Big Eck was the man they chose.
In fact it worries me somewhat.
-
A ban for a knee jerk reaction to a wind up post is a bit harsh surely?
The ban has been lifted as I mis-read the post. Apologies.
-
He could let us know what we might do once we got rid of 2 or 3 very very big wages players like Heskey and Bebe.
He say Alex Ferguson say he made right choice for manager. Is Alex McLeish right choice or not for us.
-
He could let us know what we might do once we got rid of 2 or 3 very very big wages players like Heskey and Bebe.
He say Alex Ferguson say he made right choice for manager. Is Alex McLeish right choice or not for us.
Its's the right choice for Fergie by the look of it
-
Not much to get excited about, we really needed to hear some setting out of his vision for the club, some positivity about the future, not how Randy had his tummy tickled by Fergie. I don't think any of the recent criticism has been answered by that interview.
Hey, ho.
-
It's surprised me that between him Faulkner and 24 possible names in the frame for the vacant manager position, that Big Eck was the man they chose.
In fact it worries me somewhat.
Well it gives us an idea of the criteria they were looking for I reckon.
-
It's surprised me that between him Faulkner and 24 possible names in the frame for the vacant manager position, that Big Eck was the man they chose.
In fact it worries me somewhat.
Well it gives us an idea of the criteria they were looking for I reckon.
I'd hate to see who was at the bottom of the list
*shudder*
-
Just noticed my brother sitting to the right of the 2nd picture a couple of rows in front of Randy, fortunately he is out of focus.
For me, this does make me feel better about our manager for two good reasons. First, it seems reasonable to believe Randy when he says he picked McC because of his character and qualities as a person, fair enough. Secondly, Sralex knows him well and knows the management game as well as anybody on this planet. His opinion has to be of value and he has never shown any animosity towards our club.
I was disappointed with his appointment, but less so than with Gerard's and would have hated Rafa. This is probably because I also rate character above some of the other qualities we usually judge by.
-
In the interview, he comes across as a chairman with the best of intentions, but someone who doesn't quite know what he is doing. Yes, I'm sure that McLeish is more likeable than many managers, but like it or not, at the end the manager is judged on results. I'm not saying that McLeish has failed or will fail in that respect, but his record of delievering results have been mixed in the past, and surely that should have been just as important as his 'character'.
-
It was nice of him to come out and finally say something but, if considering 24 managers they came to the conclusion that Alex McLeish was going to be the guy that pushed us forward then they really are not that good at football knowledge.
-
It seems pretty clear they don't know much about football but that interview is about as good as you're going to get. He's hardly going to set out his detailed business model or strategy for success. How many other businesses publish that info for all their competitors to see?
Is there no way we can prize Sir Graham away from his punditry duties? If the Board are as clueless about footy as they appear to be they couldn't do much better than getting Sir Graham in as an advisor.
-
Villa chairman Randy Lerner spoke to Brian Doogan, the club's head of media, at our home game against Norwich and again this week for an exclusive www.avfc.co.uk interview.
The entrance, as always, is low-key but the depth of feeling never diminishes. Randy Lerner arrives at Villa Park with an easy smile as he and Paul Faulkner stride in tandem towards the home dressing room. Along the corridor, the images on the wall portray proud men from the turn of the 20th century congregated around the Football League trophy, more familiar faces displaying the European Cup and also League Cup-winning teams. With the players warming up on the pitch, he joins Alex McLeish inside the dressing room and, along with the chief executive, they discuss the game.
It will turn out to be open and compelling. Norwich take the lead from an Anthony Pilkington free kick before Darren Bent and Gabby Agbonlahor combine to deadly effect in front of the visitors' goal, Bent scoring twice (set up twice by Agbonlahor) and the academy graduate and Holte End favourite scoring, too. Approaching the stadium, the chairman explained to a group of supporters by the players' entrance that his eldest son is attending a new school in the American Midwest and he has therefore not been able to travel to games as frequently as in previous seasons. Perhaps his enjoyment of the game is heightened by this reality. Certainly, his sense of relief and excitement while sat in the stands with family and friends is palpable. "How did I feel? Terrified," he says, half-jokingly. "I didn't want to bring bad luck and, obviously, I'm thrilled that we played well today. As a former player and a manager, Alex understands my situation, I know, as do many in this game. But part of my job is to be visible - even while remaining, some might suggest, quiet to silent! - and I've not done that well enough. I know that to some extent and I've been at this long enough for people to know that I'm committed and yet at the same time, given the craziness we've faced over the last 18 months, I should have done more. Certainly I could have been more communicative.
"I get it and I understand but my focus is on the nuts and bolts of operating the club and in reality this takes place in the week. Most of my visits in the last two, three years have been digging in with senior management and figuring out how to think through decisions.
"This is part of the deeper, personal philosophy which is to make sure the hidden parts are built well. I understand this does not get the same applause and it's easy to say 'Yes, the enthusiasm is there,' but the criteria have shifted from year one to year five, six, seven and examples of enthusiasm may be less conspicuous."
The past 18 months have been tumultuous for Villa fans and also for the Villa board. The Villa chairman and his chief executive have had to deal with losing two managers and their staffs. Neither exit had been anticipated and on both occasions they were tested. Towards the end of 2010 the Villa squad was in flux. The club and Manchester City had gone through a protracted back and forth dealing over whether James Milner would leave in the summer transfer window and heading into the January window they both felt an almost desperate need for change. For points, too.
"We knew the style of play was changing under the new manager [Gerard Houllier] and that he hadn't really had time to shape the dressing room as he was following Kevin [MacDonald, caretaker manager as the 2010-11 season began], who also had to operate under barely reasonable circumstances," the chairman acknowledges. "What's more, I had been very hard on our guys on the business side regarding our wage bill to revenue level and under those circumstances what Paul and Robin [Russell, Villa's chief financial officer] pulled off in January was particularly impressive. Who knows how Darren would have been valued had Paul waited until later in the window to get his transfer from Sunderland done?"
Bent's nine goals over the second half of the season would prove critical and, with very strong performances in the last two games of the season in particular, Villa were able to finish ninth in the Barclays Premier League.
"But just as it seemed time, finally, to take a deep breath and regroup a little, we needed to focus hard on the totally unforeseen reality that we would be back out looking for another manager, as well as facing the regrettable - and yet, to be fair, expected - departure of Ashley Young to Manchester United and the much less anticipated move to Liverpool of Stewart Downing," the chairman elaborates. "That was a difficult and uncomfortable period. Paul and I felt that, above all, the club needed stability. We needed a manager who would understand Villa and could bring credibility and experience to the dressing room and had chemistry with us and trust in our approach. We researched and debated and discussed probably two dozen odd managers from all over until we came to feel that, despite Alex's last post, he met the criteria. Not only is he affable and optimistic, well-liked and certainly well-respected among peers and players alike, but he fit our plan. He fit our feeling that a modern manager needs to balance the hysterical urgency to win and win quickly with the equally crucial need to not squander the work of our academy."
Did the reaction of some supporters make him question this decision at any stage? "It certainly raised the stakes but, if we are right in terms of the fundamentals, then over time Alex will do as he's always done and that is make Villa better," he insists. "What Paul and I knew was that he had the right ingredients. With some good luck, and his trademark hard work and commitment, we felt our chances would be good. We felt his strengths simply outweighed any concerns. When you spend time with Alex, a lot of the sensitivities go away very quickly. Time with Alex is not only engaging, it is compelling. He's pure football. That, in the end, is what you want.
"Sir Alex Ferguson wrote to me after the appointment, a proper letter, talking about his feelings about Alex. It was something you don't easily forget and it's now in a safe deposit box. Given what Sir Alex Ferguson means to the game of football, I don't think you could get many things that you would be more proud of, or reflect better on Alex McLeish."
The manager has led Villa to a sound and solid start to the season and, for the chairman, the way ahead is to build on the strong foundations that are in place. "Sometimes I think you need to do less and allow the pieces you've put in place to settle in and gel. You know, I'm not always sure of what's next but I'd love to come up with a plan for the North Stand and yet I'd also like to strengthen the squad. Our goal, originally, was to invest across three areas: the ground, the squad and Bodymoor Heath. We felt that if that were done carefully we could grow Villa in terms of sustainable revenue and that would give us some flexibility moving forward. I think Alex feels that we have some promising young players coming through and yet we also know that on this level there is no substitute for experience. Taken together, I'd say that we are focused on running Villa well and fighting to be in position, ultimately, to get back into Europe. If we can get that to happen, I'd expect that more will follow."
-
A good interview I think. Only time will tell if he's right about AM. And let's face it like every other manager in these times, only winning the FA Cup will bestow immortality on him. Sadly for some on here he didn't say 'I've found oil under Bodymoor Heath so expect us to outspend City next year '
-
Is it just me who finds the reference to Ferguson absolutely nauseating?
-
Is it just me who finds the reference to Ferguson absolutely nauseating?
It's just further evidence he realises he doesn't know much about football. He's almost justifying his decision by saying, 'look, Fergie knows more about footy than I ever will, and he says it was a good appointment, so it must be a good appointment'.
Plus, he's a fan of English football and like it or not, Fergie is a legend when it comes to English football. I think most fans would be quite chuffed if they'd had a letter from him.
-
Or maybe he's saying "Our manager is highly respected by his former manager."
-
I wonder if Ellis still has the quote from Ferguson about Robbie Keane in a safe somewhere.
-
In the interview, he comes across as a chairman with the best of intentions, but someone who doesn't quite know what he is doing. Yes, I'm sure that McLeish is more likeable than many managers, but like it or not, at the end the manager is judged on results. I'm not saying that McLeish has failed or will fail in that respect, but his record of delievering results have been mixed in the past, and surely that should have been just as important as his 'character'.
Spot on.
A Hughes or a Benitez might have been more 'distant,' not as willing to chat and engage with Faulkner and RL when it came to football matters, but you get the best possible candidate for the job. Not someone who massages your ego and tells you what you want to hear.
Benitez wasn't a runner once he was told the transfer budget. Hughes apparently put the kybosh on his chances by insisting on a release clause if one of the Sky 4 lot came in.
In times gone by, the mere suggestion of such a clause would be an insult to a club of our size, but you can look at it two ways. 1: He's out for himself and would drop us like a stone if a better gig came up. Or 2: He must have a degree of faith in his ability to even request such a stipulation. Maybe a misplaced faith.
Personally, such a clause wouldn't have automatically put me off. To invoke it, he'd likely needed to have overseen a degree of success at VP, a cup run (a cup win, even) or a challenge for top 5/6 despite bigger spending by all the other sides directly around us.
If he had managed any of that- and left us in a better state than he found us- he'd go with my blessing.
-
i think an endorsement from one of the games most successful managers isnt a problem, but it can go one of 2 ways. Dont forget that Sir Graham was in the press saying we had made a mistake by not appointing Mclaren. Look what he did at Forest, and what would we have said about Sir Graham if we had appointed him and gone tits up like that?
Personally, i dont have a problem with the mcleish signing, but i dont live in brum and it doesnt affect me daily like it would brummies who have had a lot of stick over it. I dont see a lot different to the Mon football just a lack of quality of players as the money has had to be trimmed.
-
Is it just me who finds the reference to Ferguson absolutely nauseating?
I find it nauseating and worrying. He keeps Fergie's letter in a safe? Ashley Young's move was inevitable? I don't really like to hear any man responsible for leading Villa go all doe-eyed for another club or saying anything like this. On reading this, Randy just does not strike me as a winner or leader. A nice guy, sure. A decent, well meaning Chairman? Absolutely. The man to drive Villa to the very top? Nope.
Reading the final paragraph of the interview I see no evidence of clarity or defining leadership. What are our club's targets and ambitions? "Ultimately, to get back into Europe." When are we expected to achieve this? Who knows? Surely it would make sense to let the fans in on the set timescale - if there is one?
If we get back into Europe he expects "more to follow." What does this mean? Are we going to be competing for the title? Are we just going to set our sights on top four? Maybe we will simply concentrate on being a good cup team? Compare and contrast this to the leadership shown at any of the clubs currently above us. Dalglish knows that it is top four or bust, for example. The Liverpool fans know it, too. Because of a clearly defined target the whole club has got something to rally behind and fight for.
I like Randy, he is a good guy, but I have lost a fair bit of belief in him these past eighteen months. Aiming, ultimately, for Europe? I'd expect Stoke City, Fulham, Sunderland, West Brom, Wolves, QPR...all the also-rans of the league, to be aiming for this. In my view he's selling the club short when he ought to be lifting us and driving us on.
-
I can't fault Randy for finally coming out and doing what we have been askign for since he cam eot the club and communciaitng directly with us. What is good is he acknowledges that fact and that he aims to eb more communicative going forward. For that I say well done.
Nothing in the interview you wouldn't expect but at least it puts to bed whether he is committed to the club still or not. I also despite not agreeing with his choice initially, admire his strength in going for AM if he felt it was the right thing to do. It would given everythign that had gone on in the last 18 months been very easy to go for a manager who would pacify the fans but may not have worked out as beign the best man for the job long term. I think Randy values having a connection with his manager which he obviously has with AM and perhaps that will bode well for the future.
I am actually warming a bit to AM. I think he is a really honest guy who has a strong enough character to deal with what is a huge job. Maybe with the potential for a new stand and proper backing in the transfer market, competing for the tiop 4 again might not be a pipe dream.
-
Damn, I was hoping he'd say at least one of these things: "75% off all season tickets next season... David Silva is signing for us in January... the North Stand will be re-named the Witton End... fans would once again be trusted with bottle tops".
-
I think he showed some statemanship and acknowledged that he has not comunicated enough. Well done.
If the aim is the Europa Cup I would rather not bother.
-
It was nice of him to come out and finally say something but, if considering 24 managers they came to the conclusion that Alex McLeish was going to be the guy that pushed us forward then they really are not that good at football knowledge.
That's the bit I don't get.
i like AM myself, he seems a very affable chap, but I can't see how they considered 24 managers and concluded that the best option was one with two relegations in four years in the Premier League. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Mind you, as he says, he likes him, so he's basically given him the job because he gets on well with him.
I'd prefer our appointing decisions were based on a bit more than that.
Oh, and the Ferguson letter thing - good luck to him if it made him happy, but fuck me, how cringeworthy and small time does it feel to hear our chairman go on about keeping it in a safe box as if it's the most precious thing ever.
-
Is it just me who finds the reference to Ferguson absolutely nauseating?
Makes you wonder about the consequences if RL had asked the redfaced miserablist about Paul Ince or Darren Ferguson. I'm sure they also would have received glowing references.
Despite my better instincts I quite like Big Eck - I did so ever since he mocked the B-lose fans for being small-time, for running on to the pitch after beating us in the cup. As manager of that lot, he never engaged in petty point scoring and always spoke well of us.
But he is one of Fergies stool pigeons -see also Steve Bruce and Fat Sam- average>below average managers who regularly worship at the feet of Siralex and hope to get some kind of kudos from the association. It's largely a one way attraction (although due to his connection with Big Eck dating back to his time at Aberdeen I can readily believe Fergie might actually have a bit of time for him). And doesn't seem to get in the way of the real business, with Fergie's sides turning over any side managed by the above with relative ease. They praise him - he takes the points. That seems to be about the size of it.
I'd rather we had a manager that Fergie didn't particularly like, in all honesty. Because then we might actually be a thorn in his side.
-
In the interview, he comes across as a chairman with the best of intentions, but someone who doesn't quite know what he is doing. Yes, I'm sure that McLeish is more likeable than many managers, but like it or not, at the end the manager is judged on results. I'm not saying that McLeish has failed or will fail in that respect, but his record of delievering results have been mixed in the past, and surely that should have been just as important as his 'character'.
I'd say that's as good a summation of him as I've seen anywhere.
-
I'd rather we had a manager that Fergie didn't particularly like, in all honesty. Because then we might actually be a thorn in his side.
Quite so. I got sick of Ferguson always being nice about us, usually after they'd just torn us a new arsehole.
-
I'd rather we had a manager that Fergie didn't particularly like, in all honesty. Because then we might actually be a thorn in his side.
Quite so. I got sick of Ferguson always being nice about us, usually after they'd just torn us a new arsehole.
That has been Ferguson's speciality for donkey's years - freely bigging up those who are absolutely no threat to him.
-
It seems pretty clear they don't know much about football but that interview is about as good as you're going to get. He's hardly going to set out his detailed business model or strategy for success. How many other businesses publish that info for all their competitors to see?
Is there no way we can prize Sir Graham away from his punditry duties? If the Board are as clueless about footy as they appear to be they couldn't do much better than getting Sir Graham in as an advisor.
Hasn't he recently fallen out with Watford so he might have time on his hands.
-
In the interview, he comes across as a chairman with the best of intentions, but someone who doesn't quite know what he is doing. Yes, I'm sure that McLeish is more likeable than many managers, but like it or not, at the end the manager is judged on results. I'm not saying that McLeish has failed or will fail in that respect, but his record of delievering results have been mixed in the past, and surely that should have been just as important as his 'character'.
Spot on.
A Hughes or a Benitez might have been more 'distant,' not as willing to chat and engage with Faulkner and RL when it came to football matters, but you get the best possible candidate for the job. Not someone who massages your ego and tells you what you want to hear.
Benitez wasn't a runner once he was told the transfer budget. Hughes apparently put the kybosh on his chances by insisting on a release clause if one of the Sky 4 lot came in.
In times gone by, the mere suggestion of such a clause would be an insult to a club of our size, but you can look at it two ways. 1: He's out for himself and would drop us like a stone if a better gig came up. Or 2: He must have a degree of faith in his ability to even request such a stipulation. Maybe a misplaced faith.
Personally, such a clause wouldn't have automatically put me off. To invoke it, he'd likely needed to have overseen a degree of success at VP, a cup run (a cup win, even) or a challenge for top 5/6 despite bigger spending by all the other sides directly around us.
If he had managed any of that- and left us in a better state than he found us- he'd go with my blessing.
Not sure I agree with the last bit KevinGage. I don't think we need another nearly man or somebody to use us as a stepping stone back to the 'big time'. We seem to have had our fill with them in years previous to these.. Personally think that what the club needs is a long-haul, big-picture manager. Whether that is AM remains to be seen and he has a long way to go. Somebody who is fucking chuffed to be here but with a steely determination for bigger and better things. Easier said than done obviously.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
-
The club had the power to keep Downing. Tottenham had no trouble keeping Modric in a similar situation. No excuse. It also contradicts the fact we're suppose to be reducing the wage bill and have seen no reinvestment of the 20m sale, so I doubt our chairman wasn't too disappointed he has gained money.
24 managers and the best he could come up with McLeish? A man who can't even do good in a shoe shring budget as proven with his 2 Premier League relegations? It seems Randy Lerner only wants yes men at the helm and that's why we've got the equally hopeless Paul Faulkner.
And Chris, when has SAF ever had our interests at heart? Would he be happy to see McLeish succeed after him at Man Utd? Not a chance.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
Fergie's a very good manager. I'm pretty certain he didn't get there by assisting rivals in their bids to strengthen themselves. His influence at other clubs is what makes him so powerful.
Having a person he gets on well with manage a club in the Premier League strengthens Fergie's hand. Look at the magnificent job Steve Bruce is doing at Sunderland for Fergie: he lets Man Utd blood their talented youngsters there whilst, at the same time, doing them the further favour of giving them very good money for players past their sell-by dates.
When Fergie recommends anyone or anything for another club I'm pretty sure he is doing it for the main benefit of himself. If Fergie asks McLeish to keep him informed of Gary Gardner's progress, for example, I wonder what McLeish's response would be? I hope he would tell him to mind his own business but would he - especially after Fergie putting in a good word for him in the context of getting the Villa manager's job?
The sooner Fergie retires the better.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
How does receiving a letter from Ferguson AFTER the appointment count as taking advice?
"Sir Alex Ferguson wrote to me after the appointment".
-
Not sure I agree with the last bit KevinGage. I don't think we need another nearly man or somebody to use us as a stepping stone back to the 'big time'. We seem to have had our fill with them in years previous to these.. Personally think that what the club needs is a long-haul, big-picture manager. Whether that is AM remains to be seen and he has a long way to go. Somebody who is fucking chuffed to be here but with a steely determination for bigger and better things. Easier said than done obviously.
Fair enough Rigadon. I had misgivings about Hughes myself. I'm still in two minds about the bloke, TBH. Sometimes when he talks he conveys a smart, measured approach. Even at Citeh and with all their filthy lucre he came across as modest rather than arrogant. Almost Little-esque. But the clauses in his deal at Fulham and -according to GK's son who used to post on here- asking for one at the Villa, might contradict that. I'd have been happy enough with the appointment, but would have also had a nagging feeling that we could be facing another DOL scenario.
Once the usual suspects had been ruled out (not to mention flights of fantasy like Ancelotti) my preference would have been for a Director of Football > Coach type set up, rather than the traditional manager route.
The Director of Football gives you the permanence and stability, the 'bigger picture' aspect to set in place a project. Then someone like a Quique Sanchez Flores or a Laudrup could concentrate on the day to day stuff, training, picking the side and so on. If -for whatever reason- they left, it wouldn't be a case of virtually having to start again from scratch, as we've seen over the last 18 months.
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it was part of some dastardly conspiracy by ol' beetroot features. Rather a case of he was asked and quite liked the idea of having a manager like McLeish at the Villa. And not because of some longstanding affection for Big Eck.
Under O'Neill we were a difficult proposition for his side more often than not.
With McLeish at Villa, once you get past all the gushing praise and tributes, he knows he'll be up against a manager that hasn't really troubled him in the past.
-
Champions League here we come.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
How does receiving a letter from Ferguson AFTER the appointment count as taking advice?
"Sir Alex Ferguson wrote to me after the appointment".
The old memory could be playing tricks, but didn't GK say within hours of the appointment -and with this place in meltdown- that they'd asked Fergiescum?
The letter may have come after that, once the appointment was confirmed.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
How does receiving a letter from Ferguson AFTER the appointment count as taking advice?
"Sir Alex Ferguson wrote to me after the appointment".
Strange way of looking at it, almost as if he's bowled over at getting a letter from the great man and I must mention it.
Way to think about it is this, how would RL look at it if Sir Alex had written to him afterwards saying, "you big t*t, fancy employing a bloke like Eck"
What would he do with that so called advice after the horse has bolted
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
There's a difference between saying "We spoke to Alex Ferguson and he spoke highly about Alex McLeish which helped us see that our decision was the right one' than gushing like a love-sick teenage. 'Ooooh he wrote me a letter commending my decision and I was so touched by it that I locked it in my safe' which sounds like something the chairman of someone like Stockport County would say. If I received a letter from Sir Alex I might put it into safekeeping and gush to people about it. I'd expect the chairman of one of Man United's competitors (if I'm being kind to us) to be above that kind of thing.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
There's a difference between saying "We spoke to Alex Ferguson and he spoke highly about Alex McLeish which helped us see that our decision was the right one' than gushing like a love-sick teenage. 'Ooooh he wrote me a letter commending my decision and I was so touched by it that I locked it in my safe' which sounds like something the chairman of someone like Stockport County would say. If I received a letter from Sir Alex I might put it into safekeeping and gush to people about it. I'd expect the chairman of one of Man United's competitors (if I'm being kind to us) to be above that kind of thing.
Right, so it's his honesty you have a problem with. He's using it as a way of supporting his own opinion of AM, by saying a man who knows more about football than any of us ever will endorsed his opinion. I just think that collectively we are in one of those moods where we pick apart everything that is said and done and use it as a way of knocking the club.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
How does receiving a letter from Ferguson AFTER the appointment count as taking advice?
"Sir Alex Ferguson wrote to me after the appointment".
The old memory could be playing tricks, but didn't GK say within hours of the appointment -and with this place in meltdown- that they'd asked Fergiescum?
The letter may have come after that, once the appointment was confirmed.
Yes, he did.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
How does receiving a letter from Ferguson AFTER the appointment count as taking advice?
"Sir Alex Ferguson wrote to me after the appointment".
The old memory could be playing tricks, but didn't GK say within hours of the appointment -and with this place in meltdown- that they'd asked Fergiescum?
The letter may have come after that, once the appointment was confirmed.
Yes, he did.
Not on here he didn't. His final ever post was BEFORE McLeish was appointed. A final post that included the following line incidentally:
"We will get the very best man for the job in our opinion and the opinion of those who assist us in the process. Once we get our man, we will support him 110%. Randy has never failed to support his Manager and he won't start now."
No wonder he never posted again.
-
I do remember reading a GK post saying they'd taken advice and had been recommended AM by Fergie.
But I don't think that was on here.
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
How does receiving a letter from Ferguson AFTER the appointment count as taking advice?
"Sir Alex Ferguson wrote to me after the appointment".
The old memory could be playing tricks, but didn't GK say within hours of the appointment -and with this place in meltdown- that they'd asked Fergiescum?
The letter may have come after that, once the appointment was confirmed.
Yes, he did.
Not on here he didn't. His final ever post was BEFORE McLeish was appointed. A final post that included the following line incidentally:
"We will get the very best man for the job in our opinion and the opinion of those who assist us in the process. Once we get our man, we will support him 110%. Randy has never failed to support his Manager and he won't start now."
No wonder he never posted again.
No wonder he was conveniently silenced
-
Ferguson's involvement in this debacle just adds insult to injury. McLeish will never, ever be considered for the role of Man Utd manager. But for little, go-nowhere Aston Villa? The team that habitually rolls over and throws points at Ferguson? Yes, he's the right man. There are a number of clubs in England that wouldn't dream of taking advice from Ferguson - including Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham and Everton - whether it's out of pride or because they are in competition with Man Utd. Looks like we belong to the other rabble.
-
Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was
Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham
Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time
-
Randy gets stick for not having a football man on the board. He takes advice from the best manager the game has seen and, surprise, surprise, he gets stick.
And the idea that Ferguson is doing it part of some cunning plan to fuck up other clubs is a conspiracy theory that even the recently dumped Gazza would laugh at.
Not trying to nit-pick but the deed was done after the alleged appointment but:
"Sir Alex Ferguson wrote to me after the appointment, a proper letter, talking about his feelings about Alex. It was something you don't easily forget and it's now in a safe deposit box. Given what Sir Alex Ferguson means to the game of football, I don't think you could get many things that you would be more proud of, or reflect better on Alex McLeish."
If Siralex was on Villa's Board, then I would be 100% with you. I too don't think that there is any conspiracy behind him and Villa, but I'm sure that his intentions with his letter are more to big up an old prodigy of his rather than saying "fuck me Villa, you have a steal there"
-
The thing about taking advice from Lord Ferguson of All Our Hearts wasn't on here, it was in the statement the club put on the OS after he'd been appointed and the ensuing protests.
Of course there's no conspiracy, Ferguson doesn't give a shite about Villa, as Villa are no threat to him. He's bigging up his former player, as he probably does with Bruce and others who have gone into management.
I don't really care too much if Ferguson wrote to Randy, that's up to him and between the two of them, but it does stick in the craw somewhat to see our chairman go so starstruck at it.
-
Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was
Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham
Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time
Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.
-
Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was
Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham
Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time
Its interesting to read you say 'the best we could have hoped for' no, the best we could have hoped for would have been managers on the same level as Furguson et al.
What we got was what the Aston Villa FC of 2011 was on a par with.
We may not like it but we are now and are likely to remain just one of the PL also rans, hoping for but not expecting an odd cup run to keep us happy.
-
Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was
Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham
Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time
Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.
There are numerous criteria to the appointment of a manger and I don't think it's totally unrealistic to believe that on some of them Randy would rate AM higher. For instance, following what MON did and the way Hughes left Fulham, loyalty may have been an issue, just as I think willingness to work within a budget ruled out Benitez.
And no, that wouldn't have lead me to McLeish had it been my decision, but the board does have to take a number of things into account.
-
Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was
Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham
Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time
Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.
There are numerous criteria to the appointment of a manger and I don't think it's totally unrealistic to believe that on some of them Randy would rate AM higher. For instance, following what MON did and the way Hughes left Fulham, loyalty may have been an issue, just as I think willingness to work within a budget ruled out Benitez.
And no, that wouldn't have lead me to McLeish had it been my decision, but the board does have to take a number of things into account.
I know, but Hookey was using the continued availability of two of those managers as a reason to suggest that AM was the best we could get.
That's like saying the continued availability of Ancelotti means that actually AM was a better choice than him too.
It's morre complicatead than that (as you suggested)
-
Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was
Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham
Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time
Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.
There are numerous criteria to the appointment of a manger and I don't think it's totally unrealistic to believe that on some of them Randy would rate AM higher. For instance, following what MON did and the way Hughes left Fulham, loyalty may have been an issue, just as I think willingness to work within a budget ruled out Benitez.
And no, that wouldn't have lead me to McLeish had it been my decision, but the board does have to take a number of things into account.
I get the impression with Hughes that we would have just been a stepping stone for him, just as Fulham was. I'm still convinced Randy wanted Moyes, and failing that wanted a Moyes look-a-like so to speak. A manager that would be there for the long haul and make us competitive as a long term project without the riches that the likes of Hughes or Benitez would have demanded. What I'm still sure of is that once the dust settles and we get our house in some semblance of order, AM will have significantly more funds to play with than he realised in his first transfer window.
-
I get the impression with Hughes that we would have just been a stepping stone for him, just as Fulham was. I'm still convinced Randy wanted Moyes, and failing that wanted a Moyes look-a-like so to speak. A manager that would be there for the long haul and make us competitive as a long term project without the riches that the likes of Hughes or Benitez would have demanded. What I'm still sure of is that once the dust settles and we get our house in some semblance of order, AM will have significantly more funds to play with than he realised in his first transfer window.
I think the first part of that is the most likely scenario of all those we've speculated about. As for the second part - I hope so!
-
Finally - a long overdue interview with Randy. Not exactly thrilled with what he said, but for me it does at least demonstrate his commitment to the club, which I know was being questioned in some quarters.
A couple of other things:
I wouldn't have had a problem with this Hughes clause. For him to be approached by one of the big four would have meant he'd done something pretty special with us. Even then, I'd have been surprised had any of them gone for him - one of them being the club that once sacked him.
The Ferguson letter is a bit cringeworthy, I'm sorry. Asked for advice beforehand, he's only ever going to speak well of one of his former players, and such a key player for him in the past. I recall some of his comments (not in the locked-away letter, comments he made publicly) that were along the lines of AM would do a decent job with a limited budget, as he'd done so in Scotland. It all felt a little bit like a pat on the head for Villa.
All in all, good to hear from the owner, though.
-
Finally - a long overdue interview with Randy. Not exactly thrilled with what he said, but for me it does at least demonstrate his commitment to the club, which I know was being questioned in some quarters.
A couple of other things:
I wouldn't have had a problem with this Hughes clause. For him to be approached by one of the big four would have meant he'd done something pretty special with us. Even then, I'd have been surprised had any of them gone for him - one of them being the club that once sacked him.
The Ferguson letter is a bit cringeworthy, I'm sorry. Asked for advice beforehand, he's only ever going to speak well of one of his former players, and such a key player for him in the past. I recall some of his comments (not in the locked-away letter, comments he made publicly) that were along the lines of AM would do a decent job with a limited budget, as he'd done so in Scotland. It all felt a little bit like a pat on the head for Villa.
All in all, good to hear from the owner, though.
the thing with the Hughes clause is that with Kia Joorabchian behind the scenes it wouldn't take much to have him develop itchy feet. I think above all else, the board wanted an end to the managerial uncertainty that plagued us last season.
As for the Ferguson reference, I think it's a lot of nothing. Was he asked about it, or did he volunteer it readily and is all giddy about it? Does it really matter. It will only matter if it indeed becomes a really good appointment and gets under Fergies's skin when we beat him. Until then it's food for internet conversation but of little consequence besides.
-
Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was
Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham
Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time
Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.
There are numerous criteria to the appointment of a manger and I don't think it's totally unrealistic to believe that on some of them Randy would rate AM higher. For instance, following what MON did and the way Hughes left Fulham, loyalty may have been an issue, just as I think willingness to work within a budget ruled out Benitez.
And no, that wouldn't have lead me to McLeish had it been my decision, but the board does have to take a number of things into account.
I know, but Hookey was using the continued availability of two of those managers as a reason to suggest that AM was the best we could get.
That's like saying the continued availability of Ancelotti means that actually AM was a better choice than him too.
It's morre complicatead than that (as you suggested)
My point was Hughes obviously came across like a mercenary and after the MON fiasco i am sure RL would want to stay well clear of people like him.
Benitez - i think was believing his own hype - lets face it the best chance any 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' team have had to win the league was his final year and it was he that went all "mental" towards the end and threw it away + the way he conducted himself with American owners good bad or indifferent would not have enamoured himself to RL
Martinez / Whelan used us as a pawn to get himself a better deal - we looked foolish and to be honest as much as i liked Martinez i doubt evry much the results would have been any better with him. And more to the point it seesm AM has showed a few of our big time charlies who is the boss - Dunnes little clique would have eaten Martinez alive
Ancelloti - has been quoted many times that he wants a London job due to family etc so i never saw him in the frame to be honest as much as i would have liked.
The more i hear RL talk about hard work / acadamy / budgets etc then AM does seem like a perfect choice from a RL point of view
If Given and N'Zog come off then once the deadwood higher earners have pissed off then i am sure he will be trusted to spend a little more each time.
-
the thing with the Hughes clause is that with Kia Joorabchian behind the scenes it wouldn't take much to have him develop itchy feet.
I don't know; Hughes has hardly stockpiled loads of clubs so far in his career, still doesn't strike me as the sort to jump from club to club (spent decent spells at Wales and Blackburn before his spell at City, sacked there - only a year at Fulham but then, I still wonder whether he only left there for the chance of the Villa job, which then quickly disappeared).
For a better manager, you have to be prepared to accept that one day, someone might come calling. Yes, McLeish is a safer bet - this is perhaps the biggest job he'll have.
-
I'm still convinced Randy wanted Moyes, and failing that wanted a Moyes look-a-like
Well, he's ugly and speaks with a scottie accent so I guess he got what he wanted.
I think - as you say, TC - Hookey has got the scenario about right: RL saw McMinge as spot on for the situation the club was in; so far, he'll think he got his judgement right too, but the away game tonight mayreinforce the gap that there appears to be between us (in mid-table) and the trophy challengers. Which will merely re-emphasise that RL has taken a"holding pattern" approach to Villa rather than "another push for the summit".
-
the thing with the Hughes clause is that with Kia Joorabchian behind the scenes it wouldn't take much to have him develop itchy feet. I think above all else, the board wanted an end to the managerial uncertainty that plagued us last season.
As for the Ferguson reference, I think it's a lot of nothing. Was he asked about it, or did he volunteer it readily and is all giddy about it? Does it really matter. It will only matter if it indeed becomes a really good appointment and gets under Fergies's skin when we beat him. Until then it's food for internet conversation but of little consequence besides.
Good points, well made.
-
Hang on a second. Hughes operated completely legally and within the terms of his contract. Both he and his club had agreed a break clause in his contract. McLeish on the other hand ended up costing us a load in compensation. So where's the honour in approaching a manager under contract?
-
I want him gone. Not because he isn't spending huge amounts. That's not the point. The point is he has no idea what's he doing and he's been with us for 5 years. That's inexcusable. He's not the man to take us forward.
-
I want him gone. Not because he isn't spending huge amounts. That's not the point. The point is he has no idea what's he doing and he's been with us for 5 years. That's inexcusable. He's not the man to take us forward.
So who is?
-
Doesn't look to be much direction at the moment other than down.
-
Lerner can dress it up how he likes, but the fans aren't stupid and can see that we have a crap manager managing a team shorn of its best players which is now light years away from being in the same class as the top 6.
-
I'm affraid it's becoming obvious to me that for all his good intentions, in football terms Randy really doesn't know what he's doing at all.
How disappointing.
-
I'm affraid it's becoming obvious to me that for all his good intentions, in football terms Randy really doesn't know what he's doing at all.
How disappointing.
Incredibly disappointing.
-
Lerner can dress it up how he likes, but the fans aren't stupid and can see that we have a crap manager managing a team shorn of its best players which is now light years away from being in the same class as the top 6.
The pisser for me is that yes, even though we have lost two of our better players this year, we still have the likes of Bannan, Ireland, Albrighton, Delph and N Zog - players that a decent manager might actually get something out of.
-
Was Randy there tonight, or did he have important business in the US (mowing the lawn / rented DVD to take back / ailing budgie)?
-
Was Randy there tonight, or did he have important business in the US (mowing the lawn / rented DVD to take back / ailing budgie)?
He was checking his sons homework for errors.
-
He was doing dirty things to SAF's letter.
-
Is it merely a coincidence that when the shit was hitting the fan over the new manager, selling our best players and spending no money, that Lerner was nowhere to be seen.
Now, the shit is hitting the fan over there, with the Browns being utterly shite again, and Lerner is over here.
-
Is it merely a coincidence that when the shit was hitting the fan over the new manager, selling our best players and spending no money, that Lerner was nowhere to be seen.
Now, the shit is hitting the fan over there, with the Browns being utterly shite again, and Lerner is over here.
He seems to have shown at both teams that he cannot choose a manager for toffee, especially as the NFL draft system and wage cap means weak teams can traditionally get stronger over time.
-
Why did he not just appoint Mark Hughes?
-
Why did he not just appoint Mark Hughes?
Quite. Would he have done any worse?
-
Why did he not just appoint Mark Hughes?
Quite. Would he have done any worse?
Who knows, but we might have played a bit more football.
-
I thought hughes was a rubbish option but at the time i thought we were probably aiming higher. In hindsight once you knew it was Martinez or Mcliesh you wonder why he wasn't in the running. Wages probably.
-
the demise of our club in the last 18 months is shocking and totally unacceptable, from the moment faulkner was appointed we have been on a downward spiral-hugely uninspiring and i fear the slide could become out of control and see us going down-time to look for a new owner randy if you cannot afford anymore.
-
Not specifically you Eastie, but people often seem to identify Faulkner as being useless, even implying that he has been a catalyst for our demise. On what basis has everyone, well many people, reached this conclusion? I'm not saying they're wrong but I just wonder why he has been isolated in this fashion when so many other things have changed as well?
-
I think many are to blame, mon, randy, Faulkner , houllier and now mcleish can all look at their roles and none are blame free, I think the appointments have been poor , Faulkner had no football experience and although prepared to fully give mcleish a chance I must say having seen the drab style of football under him it looks as if randy is happy to just be around midtable- sadly I'm not sure we will be and fear a relegation battle lies ahead- we have a very poor defence and midfield and create little in the way of chances-a recipe for disaster.
-
The pisser for me is that yes, even though we have lost two of our better players this year, we still have the likes of Bannan, Ireland, Albrighton, Delph and N Zog - players that a decent manager might actually get something out of.
That's my frustration, too. We do have some talented players at the club and they naturally fit into a flexible and effective formation. But they're not being picked. Which goes right back again to my concerns over AM when he was appointed - the type of players he likes to sign, the type of team he likes to build.
-
We've gone from having Downing and Young on the wing, with Albrighton as a willing and able young deputy, to Albrighton and N'Zogbia as the first choice wingers, to a sort of concoction of Gabby some of the time and Alan Hutton. If that doesn't sum up how far we've slumped, I don't know what does.
-
The pisser for me is that yes, even though we have lost two of our better players this year, we still have the likes of Bannan, Ireland, Albrighton, Delph and N Zog - players that a decent manager might actually get something out of.
That's my frustration, too. We do have some talented players at the club and they naturally fit into a flexible and effective formation. But they're not being picked. Which goes right back again to my concerns over AM when he was appointed - the type of players he likes to sign, the type of team he likes to build.
Cast your mind back to the Blues last season.Hleb and Bentley, talented players bought in on loan and rarely got off the bench.Also Blues fans used to moan about how he never played the kids,so why Randy felt he fulfilled that criteria I'll never know.He played the same cloggers week in week out
-
We've gone from having Downing and Young on the wing, with Albrighton as a willing and able young deputy, to Albrighton and N'Zogbia as the first choice wingers, to a sort of concoction of Gabby some of the time and Alan Hutton. If that doesn't sum up how far we've slumped, I don't know what does.
Mostly this season we've had Gabby and N'Zogbia wide, a position which Gabby has thrived in. The irony of last night was that N'Zog seemed to be playing himself into some form, but then lost his place to what could be best described as a 'tactical error'.
-
The pisser for me is that yes, even though we have lost two of our better players this year, we still have the likes of Bannan, Ireland, Albrighton, Delph and N Zog - players that a decent manager might actually get something out of.
That's my frustration, too. We do have some talented players at the club and they naturally fit into a flexible and effective formation. But they're not being picked. Which goes right back again to my concerns over AM when he was appointed - the type of players he likes to sign, the type of team he likes to build.
My thoughts as well,yes the squad has been depleted,but theres enough there to get far better performances than we've been getting. Playing players out if position don't help,as does having a very limited coach.
-
I hope to be proved wrong, but after last night it looks utterly hopeless at the moment. I wonder if there is another club in the Premier League where the feeling around the club is so low? maybe Blackburn.
-
I work with a Nose who I get on really well with. He is for his sins a ST holder at the Temple of Doom.
All the issues that are being discussed about the setting up of the team under AMc, are just a repeat of what he has done previously there.
-
I hope to be proved wrong, but after last night it looks utterly hopeless at the moment. I wonder if there is another club in the Premier League where the feeling around the club is so low? maybe Blackburn.
I agree I'm afraid. I just can't see that Lerner has the ability, cash or desire to get us back competing with the best in England or Europe.
-
Coming here when he did, and under the circumstances he did, the absolute worst thing McLeish could choose to do would be to start playing the way he had Blues play.
I know plenty of noses, and they all said the same thing throughout his time there - that the football was unbelievably sterile and negative.
We've seen a few hints of it this season so far, but last night was the best (or worst) example of it yet. I genuinely can not think of another thing he could do which would lose the support of the fans faster than having us play like he had Blues play.
I don't give a flying one he used to manage them, but I do get very concerned about his previous brand of football, and I suspect there are an awful lot of people who are in that boat.
Much more of last night's approach and he's going to be hitting DOLian levels of popularity.
And as for Lerner - he's supposed to be managing the general direction of the club. Pretty much everything he's done for well over a year now has been utterly cackhanded or misguided, or both.
It's nice to work with people you find affable and get on with, but he's followed up the duff (if unfortunate) appointment of Houllier with one which looks custom made to create alienation and discord.
If we're settling for mid table, I'd rather we'd taken a punt on the likes of Poyet from the lower divisions and had some enjoyable football in the meantime than get exposed to some of the mind numbing guff we've had to put up with this season.
-
Coming here when he did, and under the circumstances he did, the absolute worst thing McLeish could choose to do would be to start playing the way he had Blues play.
But why would you think he wouldn't? You don't buy a cat and expect it to start barking.
-
Coming here when he did, and under the circumstances he did, the absolute worst thing McLeish could choose to do would be to start playing the way he had Blues play.
But why would you think he wouldn't? You don't buy a cat and expect it to start barking.
Which makes it all more puzzling. Perhaps we need to get Cesar Millan on the case.
-
Coming here when he did, and under the circumstances he did, the absolute worst thing McLeish could choose to do would be to start playing the way he had Blues play.
But why would you think he wouldn't? You don't buy a cat and expect it to start barking.
He made some encouraging noises about the way he wanted us to play when he joined.
I guess he's reverted to type, but it's depressing, nonetheless.
-
Coming here when he did, and under the circumstances he did, the absolute worst thing McLeish could choose to do would be to start playing the way he had Blues play.
But why would you think he wouldn't? You don't buy a cat and expect it to start barking.
He made some encouraging noises about the way he wanted us to play when he joined.
I guess he's reverted to type, but it's depressing, nonetheless.
As the General used to ram down our throats, "talk is cheap"
-
Coming here when he did, and under the circumstances he did, the absolute worst thing McLeish could choose to do would be to start playing the way he had Blues play.
But why would you think he wouldn't? You don't buy a cat and expect it to start barking.
He made some encouraging noises about the way he wanted us to play when he joined.
I guess he's reverted to type, but it's depressing, nonetheless.
I wonder how he'll set us up against Man U at home, Hutton and Cuellar doubling up on A Young ?
-
I was just thinking that it would be another waste of a couple of million to sack AMc but then realised that it is highly unlikely to happen given that we're pretty much mid-table which is par considering the players we have sold.
The best thing we can hope for is Randy has a word with AMc and asks him to stop playing such joyless football.
Most football fans are realistic enough to realise that we're not going to win anything so we - the club and the fans - may as well try and enjoy ourselves.
-
I guess he's reverted to type, but it's depressing, nonetheless.
See, I don't mind him being more defensive against the better teams. In fact, I expect any competent manager to take into consideration the other team's strengths and plan against them. And you could argue the stuff we played against Norwich was a decent step in the right direction.
But then we took huge backwards steps last night and he also gave too much respect to Spurs.
-
If he's going to play dull, defensive football I just wished he'd get better at it.
-
If he's going to play dull, defensive football I just wished he'd get better at it.
Me too.
For an apparent defensive specialist coach (him and Grant) the defence is pretty much back on last season's form as we're shipping two goals a game on average again.
And what's peed me off this season is still conceding late goals and throwing away leads, where SHA as bad at this last season?
-
I'll be the first to say it.
Randy Lerner is worse than Doug Ellis.
I would take common sense over money any day. There's no way Doug would have been this stupid.
No doubt some will flame me for it, but it'll probably be the same hypocritial fans who loved Randy for spending money (despite pissing it down the drain and now wants it back), but wouldn't want to see another rich owner. Not only that, but they disliked Ellis for exactly the same reason what Lerner is doing right now, but throw in the fact Lerner makes the most pathetic decisions in football existence he takes the stupidity cake by a large margin.
-
Ellis for all his faults wouldn't have dared sell the likes of Barry, Milner, Young and Downing in the space of a couple of years and not bother to replace them. Lerner did though, and now we're in the shit.
Last night was one of the most inept Villa performances I've ever seen. It begets belief what Lerner is playing at.
-
I'll be the first to say it.
Randy Lerner is worse than Doug Ellis.
I would take common sense over money any day. There's no way Doug would have been this stupid.
No doubt some will flame me for it, but it'll probably be the same hypocritial fans who loved Randy for spending money (despite pissing it down the drain and now wants it back), but wouldn't want to see another rich owner. Not only that, but they disliked Ellis for exactly the same reason what Lerner is doing right now, but throw in the fact Lerner makes the most pathetic decisions in football existence he takes the stupidity cake by a large margin.
Randy gave it his best shot for 4 years and onlu just failed-however since then it has been alarming and it may be for the best if he sells up to someone who can provide the finance needed to challenge the top 6- easier said than done though as everton have found out.
-
Managing and growing the club properly is not just about throwing money at it - unless you have Man City style cash, and nobody has that kind of money.
It is also about clever management of the club - your long term plan, your risk taking, who you appoint to senior positions, your marketing, how you grow the commercial side, and how everything balances out in contributing to the eventual goal of growing things on the football side.
Randy's undoubtedly well-intentioned, and has put a decent amount of money in, but it is getting more and more clear that, with regard to all the other elements of growing the club, the contributing factors, he is absolutely clueless.
Watching that shambles last night, i kept thinking of his words from the other day, "a very special football man".
God help us.
Incidentally, look at Spurs, a club we were largely on a par with a few years ago, and how they have pushed on. They now look light years ahead of us.
I could put up with that if I thought that our general trajectory was upwards, but currently - and this is not at all purely a reflection of last night's events - it is impossible to see a single way in which we could be described as on an upward trajectory in anything we do.
-
The main problem with Randy and his team is they know nothing about football. Ellis at least knew a bit, and was able to get people with football knowledge around him. I also suspect his ego was far too enormous to go asking high profile managers of teams in the same league as us for advice on managerial appointments, although you could argue there are a couple of leagues between us and Man Utd. Villa need a football man at board level, and quick. The people in charge at the moment are hopelessly out of their depth.
-
I'll be the first to say it.
Randy Lerner is worse than Doug Ellis.
I would take common sense over money any day. There's no way Doug would have been this stupid.
No doubt some will flame me for it, but it'll probably be the same hypocritial fans who loved Randy for spending money (despite pissing it down the drain and now wants it back), but wouldn't want to see another rich owner. Not only that, but they disliked Ellis for exactly the same reason what Lerner is doing right now, but throw in the fact Lerner makes the most pathetic decisions in football existence he takes the stupidity cake by a large margin.
Randy gave it his best shot for 4 years and onlu just failed-however since then it has been alarming and it may be for the best if he sells up to someone who can provide the finance needed to challenge the top 6- easier said than done though as everton have found out.
Everton are a different kettle of fish. They need a new ground and have a much bigger more glamorous neighbour in the immediate vicinity. We've been top dogs in the midlands for as long as most people can remember, and the ground is certainly big enough for the forseeable future, and at worst would need the North Stand rebuilding. Randy got himself a bargain, but then spent far too much on crap players; money that has gone out of the club, never to be seen again.
-
It comes to something when Lerner's stewardship is making people misty eyed for Ellis, but for all his faults, Ellis delivered actual success and some enjoyable football along the way. It's now looking like the 1990s were a bit of a purple patch for us, what with two cups and high place league finishes etc. Plus in Taylor, Atkinson, Little and Gregory, he appointed some fantastic managers who loved the club, and who the fans took to their hearts in return.
Can't see a return to those days under Lerner the way things are going.
-
Not specifically you Eastie, but people often seem to identify Faulkner as being useless, even implying that he has been a catalyst for our demise. On what basis has everyone, well many people, reached this conclusion? I'm not saying they're wrong but I just wonder why he has been isolated in this fashion when so many other things have changed as well?
I've never really been one to criticise him as I've always had the impression that he is a yes man who has been put in place by Lerner who has continued to make the big decisions.
-
I was just thinking that it would be another waste of a couple of million to sack AMc but then realised that it is highly unlikely to happen given that we're pretty much mid-table which is par considering the players we have sold.
The best thing we can hope for is Randy has a word with AMc and asks him to stop playing such joyless football.
Most football fans are realistic enough to realise that we're not going to win anything so we - the club and the fans - may as well try and enjoy ourselves.
This is the problem, people are deceived!
We are not midtable, when we get to Xmas, we will have played everyone and if we are not in the bottom 5 I'll be amazed.
It's really bad that we have a manager is that scared of a defeat he played with no wingers and 6 defenders. What makes it worse is we were 2 down inside half an hour and he still never changed it.
I was at the time gutted Houllier had to go, he had the club at heart and would have improved us given the summer to sell and buy and implement his style of play with a full pre season.
Is there a manager in the world I'd take Mcleish over? Id have taken Curbishly, Jol, Houghton, Hughes, Bentitez, Hoddle over Mcleish and were all available.
Just so depressing.
-
It comes to something when Lerner's stewardship is making people misty eyed for Ellis, but for all his faults, Ellis delivered actual success and some enjoyable football along the way. It's now looking like the 1990s were a bit of a purple patch for us, what with two cups and high place league finishes etc. Plus in Taylor, Atkinson, Little and Gregory, he appointed some fantastic managers who loved the club, and who the fans took to their hearts in return.
Can't see a return to those days under Lerner the way things are going.
Steady on, old chap. I don't know about misty eyed, but we can only use Ellis as a benchmark because that's all most of us can really remember - certainly all we've had to compare in the modern era. But football has changed massively since Ellis. It's even changed hugely during Randy's tenure, and now it takes owners with either masses of money or a keen grasp of the business of football to succeed or even survive. Look at the clowns at Blackburn as an example. I don't want Randy to follow them into the abyss.
-
What I don't understand is that why did Randy let go Gary Mcallister who had back to back wins against Liverpool and Arsenal. When was the last time we've done something like that? We finally had a way of progressing without MON.
Houllier could have worked behind the scenes such as getting the players we need to push forward, give the tactics to Garry Mac and allow GM to coach to the guys and give them a match speech etc.
It's just Randy Lerner decided it was best for them to leave so he paid compensation and then he paid compensation to bring in McLeish who just got his team relegated. All he ever seems to do is piss money away. If he didn't inherit a fortune from his dad there's no way he would be successful in business with his clueless decisions and not knowing how to handle money. He would be screwed if he had to work way his way up a businessman as opposed to getting lucky with a lottery win.
It would be interesting if he actually gave Q and A towards the fans (as well Browns fans who are just as concerned as us) about his radical decision making. It makes no logical sense.
-
I was just thinking that it would be another waste of a couple of million to sack AMc but then realised that it is highly unlikely to happen given that we're pretty much mid-table which is par considering the players we have sold.
The best thing we can hope for is Randy has a word with AMc and asks him to stop playing such joyless football.
Most football fans are realistic enough to realise that we're not going to win anything so we - the club and the fans - may as well try and enjoy ourselves.
the only enjoyable thing about last night was watching the antics of a fat spurs fan with a pink scarf wrapped round his head, and the stewards chasing a Villa fan in a wheelchair up the touchline. The football was shocking.
-
What I don't understand is that why did Randy let go Gary Mcallister who had back to back wins against Liverpool and Arsenal. When was the last time we've done something like that? We finally had a way of progressing without MON.
Houllier could have worked behind the scenes such as getting the players we need to push forward, give the tactics to Garry Mac and allow GM to coach to the guys and give them a match speech etc.
It would have been a mistake giving the job to McCallister just on the back of two wins. You're forgetting we flirted around the bottom on the table for most of last season and by all accounts, he was'nt very popular. He got slated on here enough times as well.
-
What I don't understand is that why did Randy let go Gary Mcallister who had back to back wins against Liverpool and Arsenal. When was the last time we've done something like that? We finally had a way of progressing without MON.
Houllier could have worked behind the scenes such as getting the players we need to push forward, give the tactics to Garry Mac and allow GM to coach to the guys and give them a match speech etc.
It would have been a mistake giving the job to McCallister just on the back of two wins. You're forgetting we flirted around the bottom on the table for most of last season and by all accounts, he was'nt very popular. He got slated on here enough times as well.
It would have been better keeping Houllier/GM than paying stupid amounts to bring in a manager who's a failure at the Premier League.
Actually, it would have been better if we hired someone like Curbishley. Midtable standard sure, but at least he would have been free, play us decent football and keep up safe from relegation.
I still think AMC will relegate us. I really do. There's just too many signs pointing to it. Unless he's sacked (impossible), we'll finish 18th, Blackburn 19th and Wigan 20th.
I also think Randy would be stupid enough to keep AMC in the Championship because of his "excellent Championship record". I think by then the gates will reach sub 20k easily and the whole atmosphere will become hell.
I really despise what's happening at this club at the moment. It's like we're Blackburn, only people can't really see it yet despite the similarities.
-
What I don't understand is that why did Randy let go Gary Mcallister who had back to back wins against Liverpool and Arsenal. When was the last time we've done something like that? We finally had a way of progressing without MON.
Houllier could have worked behind the scenes such as getting the players we need to push forward, give the tactics to Garry Mac and allow GM to coach to the guys and give them a match speech etc.
It would have been a mistake giving the job to McCallister just on the back of two wins. You're forgetting we flirted around the bottom on the table for most of last season and by all accounts, he was'nt very popular. He got slated on here enough times as well.
It would have been better keeping Houllier/GM than paying stupid amounts to bring in a manager who's a failure at the Premier League.
Houiller could'nt have stayed even if he wanted to. He's come out and said himself it's unlikely he'll manage again. I don't think Curbishley will manage again either, his time has gone, he's not managed a club for a while.
-
After last night's game hearing Southgate and Townsend talk about us, it really crossed my mind what these two could do at Villa Park. I know Southgate's record at Boro but sometimes it's simply getting the right people in at the right club.
-
Christ, things are bad if people long for Doug. Turner, McNeill, Venglos anyone?
-
After last night's game hearing Southgate and Townsend talk about us, it really crossed my mind what these two could do at Villa Park. I know Southgate's record at Boro but sometimes it's simply getting the right people in at the right club.
Southgate may have had a rough time up at Boro, that was his first taste at the job, wouldn't be my choice but there is a lot to be said for getting someone that has the vibe of the club and someone like Southgate would certainly have that.
Point is, could he really be any worse than what we have...doubt it.
-
After last night's game hearing Southgate and Townsend talk about us, it really crossed my mind what these two could do at Villa Park. I know Southgate's record at Boro but sometimes it's simply getting the right people in at the right club.
I know what you mean. Sometimes it does need someone who 'gets' a club. Ex-players usually are a receipe for disaster but I'd take those two at the moment. I think Southgate could be very good, but by his own admission - he was pressured into doing too much too young in managerial terms. A few years as a number 2 would have been ideal, but I think he's got the experience to do a good job somewhere.
-
Not specifically you Eastie, but people often seem to identify Faulkner as being useless, even implying that he has been a catalyst for our demise. On what basis has everyone, well many people, reached this conclusion? I'm not saying they're wrong but I just wonder why he has been isolated in this fashion when so many other things have changed as well?
At worst it is coincidences, but since he has been appointed in May 2010 we have had three different managers and sold our three best players of our squad. Obviously the big change has come from Lerner but as it has also come under Faulkners stewardship he gets labelled as useless.
-
After last night's game hearing Southgate and Townsend talk about us, it really crossed my mind what these two could do at Villa Park. I know Southgate's record at Boro but sometimes it's simply getting the right people in at the right club.
I know what you mean. Sometimes it does need someone who 'gets' a club. Ex-players usually are a receipe for disaster but I'd take those two at the moment. I think Southgate could be very good, but by his own admission - he was pressured into doing too much too young in managerial terms. A few years as a number 2 would have been ideal, but I think he's got the experience to do a good job somewhere.
Obviously it's easy to talk good football in a TV studio but I just liked the idea of them together and how they'd compliment each other. Townsend is a strong character, somebody that take no shit and protect the more mindful Southgate. Both 'get' Aston Villa, understand the current restrictions and wouldn't be afraid to tell Randy what's missing without being stupid about it. I always believe it's not just the manager that runs the club but the people he surrounds himself with. That was MON's greatest weakness, Brian Little's greatest strength.
-
That's an interesting theory Mark. At least as you say Southgate would "get" Villa, because even when he wanted to leave us as a player, he still gave his all.
-
After last night's game hearing Southgate and Townsend talk about us, it really crossed my mind what these two could do at Villa Park. I know Southgate's record at Boro but sometimes it's simply getting the right people in at the right club.
I know what you mean. Sometimes it does need someone who 'gets' a club. Ex-players usually are a receipe for disaster but I'd take those two at the moment. I think Southgate could be very good, but by his own admission - he was pressured into doing too much too young in managerial terms. A few years as a number 2 would have been ideal, but I think he's got the experience to do a good job somewhere.
Martin Laursen gets us. Passionate and knowledgeble. Loves the club and I'm sure he feels he has unfinished business here after his career was curtailed by injuries. Guardiola was Barcelona B manager for what, one season before he took over? I'd love to see Laursen do something similar. If nothing else it would unite and galvanise our jaded support.
-
Problem is as long as RL is in charge we'll never get a good manager. I just wished he came out and said he's looking for a buyer instead of coming out with the SAF love fest, some BS about AMC and being here for the long term.
-
Obviously it's easy to talk good football in a TV studio but I just liked the idea of them together and how they'd compliment each other. Townsend is a strong character, somebody that take no shit and protect the more mindful Southgate. Both 'get' Aston Villa, understand the current restrictions and wouldn't be afraid to tell Randy what's missing without being stupid about it. I always believe it's not just the manager that runs the club but the people he surrounds himself with. That was MON's greatest weakness, Brian Little's greatest strength.
The trouble is Townsend has done nothing in the game since hanging up his boots. He has become the ITV version of Andy Gray who decided broadcasting meant more. And would Southgate want to go back into pressures of management instead of the current cushiness of regular TV appearances and with his good work at the FA at the moment?
But I agree that someone who "gets the club" would be better with the clubs current financial constraints as they might instil a fight and at least get the fans onside again. The downside is apart from Southgate, the only other ex Villa player I can think of in current management or with experience is Grayson but I don't think he hits the criteria.
-
After last night's game hearing Southgate and Townsend talk about us, it really crossed my mind what these two could do at Villa Park. I know Southgate's record at Boro but sometimes it's simply getting the right people in at the right club.
I know what you mean. Sometimes it does need someone who 'gets' a club. Ex-players usually are a receipe for disaster but I'd take those two at the moment. I think Southgate could be very good, but by his own admission - he was pressured into doing too much too young in managerial terms. A few years as a number 2 would have been ideal, but I think he's got the experience to do a good job somewhere.
Obviously it's easy to talk good football in a TV studio but I just liked the idea of them together and how they'd compliment each other. Townsend is a strong character, somebody that take no shit and protect the more mindful Southgate. Both 'get' Aston Villa, understand the current restrictions and wouldn't be afraid to tell Randy what's missing without being stupid about it. I always believe it's not just the manager that runs the club but the people he surrounds himself with. That was MON's greatest weakness, Brian Little's greatest strength.
It would be interesting and couldn't possibly be worse than last night. One of the most disappointing things is that when Mcleish came here he said about bringing through the youngsters and he seems massively reluctant to do so. Ok Bannan has played a bit, but what does Gardner need to do?
-
After last night's game hearing Southgate and Townsend talk about us, it really crossed my mind what these two could do at Villa Park. I know Southgate's record at Boro but sometimes it's simply getting the right people in at the right club.
I know what you mean. Sometimes it does need someone who 'gets' a club. Ex-players usually are a receipe for disaster but I'd take those two at the moment. I think Southgate could be very good, but by his own admission - he was pressured into doing too much too young in managerial terms. A few years as a number 2 would have been ideal, but I think he's got the experience to do a good job somewhere.
Obviously it's easy to talk good football in a TV studio but I just liked the idea of them together and how they'd compliment each other. Townsend is a strong character, somebody that take no shit and protect the more mindful Southgate. Both 'get' Aston Villa, understand the current restrictions and wouldn't be afraid to tell Randy what's missing without being stupid about it. I always believe it's not just the manager that runs the club but the people he surrounds himself with. That was MON's greatest weakness, Brian Little's greatest strength.
It would be interesting and couldn't possibly be worse than last night. One of the most disappointing things is that when Mcleish came here he said about bringing through the youngsters and he seems massively reluctant to do so. Ok Bannan has played a bit, but what does Gardner need to do?
To be fair, bringing youngsters in to a struggling side is generally a recipe for disaster and could do more harm to the youngster than good.
AM had disaster written all over him from the off. I personally don't want to slate Randy too much - anyone who's invested the amount of money in to the club he has is alright in my book, but both his managerial appointments have been poor and that's surely the most important thing.
I'm not sure Southgate and Townsend is the right option for all the reasons other people have put on here. That said, a former player who's a fan would be quite nice. Laursen's a nice thought but he hasn't managed anywhere and look what happened when Newcastle gave Shearer his managerial debut.
-
Managing and growing the club properly is not just about throwing money at it - unless you have Man City style cash, and nobody has that kind of money.
It is also about clever management of the club - your long term plan, your risk taking, who you appoint to senior positions, your marketing, how you grow the commercial side, and how everything balances out in contributing to the eventual goal of growing things on the football side.
Randy's undoubtedly well-intentioned, and has put a decent amount of money in, but it is getting more and more clear that, with regard to all the other elements of growing the club, the contributing factors, he is absolutely clueless.
He appears to be a micro manager, focusing on the details rather than big plan, something you'd not expect from your Chairman (read CEO). The one line from the interview confirms it:
"I get it and I understand but my focus is on the nuts and bolts of operating the club and in reality this takes place in the week. Most of my visits in the last two, three years have been digging in with senior management and figuring out how to think through decisions".
Does an architect spend his time with the engineers discussing 'nuts and bolts' or is his focus on the project as a whole, allowing his team to get on with it?
It's a very strange comment from Randy but goes some way to his manager appointment in the summer. Instead of saying "I want a footballing manager that can carry on the ground work made by Houllier, I want attractive football unlike that of MON, he needs to be trustworthy and dedicated to the cause of Aston Villa. Find me the best three candidates to interview", we probably got "Paul, who have you phoned, what did he say, is he interested, well who else is there, call me the minute you've spoken to them".
The biggest mistake was to insist on Premier League experience. Maybe that requirement was to cover up his own lack of experience. Who knows but although I don't doubt for a minute his dedication to Aston Villa, I do have concerns of how he runs the club. I love and admire his vision for the club and that should be his main focus. If he doesn't have faith in his senoir management team, he should replace them, if that's not the case, let them get on with their jobs. In the end, Aston Villa is like any other company, it's a reflection of it's leadership.
Randy has done a great deal for the club, he's got a first class stadium, superb training facilities, the only thing missing now is the team. If we're not able to financially compete with the top 4, at least make Villa Park a place where fans want to go to be entertained. At least let us dream.
-
Managing and growing the club properly is not just about throwing money at it - unless you have Man City style cash, and nobody has that kind of money.
It is also about clever management of the club - your long term plan, your risk taking, who you appoint to senior positions, your marketing, how you grow the commercial side, and how everything balances out in contributing to the eventual goal of growing things on the football side.
Randy's undoubtedly well-intentioned, and has put a decent amount of money in, but it is getting more and more clear that, with regard to all the other elements of growing the club, the contributing factors, he is absolutely clueless.
He appears to be a micro manager, focusing on the details rather than big plan, something you'd not expect from your Chairman (read CEO). The one line from the interview confirms it:
"I get it and I understand but my focus is on the nuts and bolts of operating the club and in reality this takes place in the week. Most of my visits in the last two, three years have been digging in with senior management and figuring out how to think through decisions".
Does an architect spend his time with the engineers discussing 'nuts and bolts' or is his focus on the project as a whole, allowing his team to get on with it?
It's a very strange comment from Randy but goes some way to his manager appointment in the summer. Instead of saying "I want a footballing manager that can carry on the ground work made by Houllier, I want attractive football unlike that of MON, he needs to be trustworthy and dedicated to the cause of Aston Villa. Find me the best three candidates to interview", we probably got "Paul, who have you phoned, what did he say, is he interested, well who else is there, call me the minute you've spoken to them".
The biggest mistake was to insist on Premier League experience. Maybe that requirement was to cover up his own lack of experience. Who knows but although I don't doubt for a minute his dedication to Aston Villa, I do have concerns of how he runs the club. I love and admire his vision for the club and that should be his main focus. If he doesn't have faith in his senoir management team, he should replace them, if that's not the case, let them get on with their jobs. In the end, Aston Villa is like any other company, it's a reflection of it's leadership.
Randy has done a great deal for the club, he's got a first class stadium, superb training facilities, the only thing missing now is the team. If we're not able to financially compete with the top 4, at least make Villa Park a place where fans want to go to be entertained. At least let us dream.
Good post. We can all hope I suppose.
-
That team selection on Monday was nothing short of pathetic. I don't blame the manager for all of it, but he takes alot of the blame.
8 cloggers, a half-fit Gabby, an out of form Bent and Given. While players with a little class like Ireland, N'Zogbia, Bannan and Delph are sat on the bench.
It's exactly like when he used to select Jerome over Zarate or Fahey over Hleb at SHA.
-
That team selection on Monday was nothing short of pathetic. I don't blame the manager for all of it, but he takes alot of the blame.
8 cloggers, a half-fit Gabby, an out of form Bent and Given. While players with a little class like Ireland, N'Zogbia, Bannan and Delph are sat on the bench.
It's exactly like when he used to select Jerome over Zarate or Fahey over Hleb at SHA.
Bent's not out of form, but he might as well have been sat at home watching it on tv for all the involvement he had.
There's no point having a top notch striker up front if all you're going to do is rely on either humped balls from that witless moron Collins or crosses from our new winger Hutton to get him into position to score with any frequency.
if we are like that against Spurs, what are we going to be like against Arsenal and Man United in December? Stick 10 men behind the ball at home, and try to keep it below a three goal reverse?
-
If he tries that at home (which he will) then he's gonna get so much abuse he won't know what's hit him. I'm going to the Man Utd match and if I see 10 men behind the ball, I'm gonna give him stick.
But please fans don't chant "you're gonna get sacked in the morning" because Randy Lerner won't sack him. We gotta make our feelings clear on what we think of his tactics.
-
When Capello played a negative formation against Spain relying on Hoofs from the back to Bent he was hailed for his tactics.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of trying to stifle a more creative opposition, we've seen it often enough from other teams at Villa Park in recent years.
As I've said before I haven't seen the game and don't intend to waste my time with it but when it was explained to me I could at least see why he tried it.
-
If he tries that at home (which he will) then he's gonna get so much abuse he won't know what's hit him. I'm going to the Man Utd match and if I see 10 men behind the ball, I'm gonna give him stick.
But please fans don't chant "you're gonna get sacked in the morning" because Randy Lerner won't sack him. We gotta make our feelings clear on what we think of his tactics.
Great, that'll really help the team. Why don't you just join in with the Manu fans?
-
If he tries that at home (which he will) then he's gonna get so much abuse he won't know what's hit him. I'm going to the Man Utd match and if I see 10 men behind the ball, I'm gonna give him stick.
But please fans don't chant "you're gonna get sacked in the morning" because Randy Lerner won't sack him. We gotta make our feelings clear on what we think of his tactics.
Great, that'll really help the team. Why don't you just join in with the Manu fans?
If we play with the right attitude, it will be easily avoided.
-
When Capello played a negative formation against Spain relying on Hoofs from the back to Bent he was hailed for his tactics.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of trying to stifle a more creative opposition, we've seen it often enough from other teams at Villa Park in recent years.
As I've said before I haven't seen the game and don't intend to waste my time with it but when it was explained to me I could at least see why he tried it.
Capello was wrongly hailed imo, very wrongly hailed. If Spain had played to 25% of their potential in the final third, they'd have comfortably won the game.
-
As I've said before I haven't seen the game and don't intend to waste my time with it but when it was explained to me I could at least see why he tried it.
You didn't even see the game. That's your problem right there.
He used 6 defenders, 3 strikers and 1 midfielder. In the midfield area we had 2 defenders, 1 midfielder and 1 striker.
We was down 2-0 and it was HT. He didn't change anything until the 63rd minute. We was dominated through the entire match. Pretty much every Spurs player (apart from the goalkeeper) was in our own half due to how we was set up. They had at least 4 clear chances in the second half but wasn't clinical enough.
But you can see what he was trying to do without seeing the game so that makes it ok.
It seems you have no problem that AMC is turning us into the new Blues. Interesting.
-
Any manager would find it difficult coming into a club which is selling its best and most creative players and being has lost half its 1st choice players of last season , add to that the fact that he was given very little to spend on new players and its no surprise things are looking so bleak.
-
When Capello played a negative formation against Spain relying on Hoofs from the back to Bent he was hailed for his tactics.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of trying to stifle a more creative opposition, we've seen it often enough from other teams at Villa Park in recent years.
As I've said before I haven't seen the game and don't intend to waste my time with it but when it was explained to me I could at least see why he tried it.
Capello was hailed for his tactics because they worked against the best team in the world. Ours failed against the fifth best team in the Premier League.
-
Any manager would find it difficult coming into a club which is selling its best and most creative players and being has lost half its 1st choice players of last season , add to that the fact that he was given very little to spend on new players and its no surprise things are looking so bleak.
Not any manager would find it difficult because Pardew had it worse and yet he seems to be doing marginally better. If the board carefully planned (they had so many months when GH had his health scare) on a manager who could bring us forward while cutting down on the spending fee then we may have seen something similar.
Even if AMC was backed heavily this summer would it make any difference? Look at the money he's wasted on Hutton and N'Zogbia already. Even if we had kept Downing and Young, he wouldn't know how to use them properly. He's absolutely hopeless in the midfield area. He still can't work out on how to use it effectively despite having a pre season behind him.
AMC is just a rubbish manager and there's no way on earth he'll keep us up in the Premier League if he's here for 3 years.
-
I think the team selection on Monday was his first major mistake in the job. Houllier took pelters for his selection against Man Citeh in the FA Cup which was tantamount to throwing the game. Ditto O'Neill in Moscow (and to a lesser extent in Hamburg) -and that was pretty much at the height of his popularity. Why should Big Eck be any different?
Popularity wise, McLeish rates far lower than them. So if he thought he wouldn't get stick for Monday night he's a tad naive. Also- and for the first time this season- his post match response concerned me. We were unlucky/ 2 bad defensive errors. If we'd scored first it would have been different. He'd do it all again (Hutton and Heskey in midfield) if he had to. No, that doesn't strike the right note at all.
I can (if I'm very generous) see his logic for what occurred on Monday night. He's on a sticky wicket (pretty much was from the get go) and so going out all guns blazing and getting turned over 4 or 5 is the kind of result that would really stick out. Whereas a low scoring defeat might not cause quite the same fallout. After all, would a 0-2 reversal been a shock to anyone here pre kick off? Hence the reluctance to change things too much even when that scoreline was reached. As others have accurately said, it looked like we were holding on to a 0-2 defeat.
If he did think that way, he's misjudged the situation horribly. Other shithouse clubs he's managed might be content to go on the road and merely keep the score down. We aren't one of them.
-
When Capello played a negative formation against Spain relying on Hoofs from the back to Bent he was hailed for his tactics.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of trying to stifle a more creative opposition, we've seen it often enough from other teams at Villa Park in recent years.
As I've said before I haven't seen the game and don't intend to waste my time with it but when it was explained to me I could at least see why he tried it.
And if you did watch it, you'd see that it was embarrassingly bad, and that Hutton at right midfield is even worse than Hutton at right back. If you've got to try and mark somebody out of the game, at least put somebody there who can do a decent job at it, like NRC did against Ronaldo a while back. A dead blind man could see that the team selection wasn't going to work. A midfield of Heskey, Hutton, Herd and Petrov - that's as unbalanced and shit a midfield I've seen since we had Mark Kinsella standing round and pointing at things.
And yes, we've seen teams come to Villa Park and set their stall out for a draw. However, we didn't do it at all well at Spurs with the dog's arse of a team he picked, and Spurs have got the players to unlock us anyway. Far better to have had a go at them, as picking any of Delph, Bannan or Ireland wouldn't have made us any weaker than we were, and would at least have given us a chance of having a go at them. There was a lot of overreaction to the result, but it really was a dismal performance. It should be McLeish apologising, not the players.
-
Agree with all of that, KG.
I noted his post match comments last night. First time I've heard him bullshit, he normally calls it straight but if he couldn't see what we all saw last night, we really are in trouble.
-
If he tries that at home (which he will) then he's gonna get so much abuse he won't know what's hit him. I'm going to the Man Utd match and if I see 10 men behind the ball, I'm gonna give him stick.
But please fans don't chant "you're gonna get sacked in the morning" because Randy Lerner won't sack him. We gotta make our feelings clear on what we think of his tactics.
you aint going to a match are you? And the one you are going to go to is Manure at home. Before you start calling for his head when man U are sticking it to us, remember just how well we have done against them for the last 14 years!
-
Basically I would just like us to take an attacking, ambitious approach to the game. If you provide entertainment the fans will want to watch. Also I don't want to see Clark, Gardner etc thinking they have to leave the club for first team football while we play the likes of Heskey, Collins, Hutton in their stead. We need to give these quality youngsters a chance and just get the team to try and entertain.
-
I hate it when it is obvious to pretty much all and sundry that we send a team out to avoid defeat. It sends a bad message to the fans, and must send a pretty obvious message to the players. We don't currently have the horses to play effective counter attack when playing away. MON was a master at that and it resulted in us having one of the best away records in the league during his tenure. Incidentally, it's also the reason that kept us from being much better at home because he didn't have another strategy at Villa Park.
Spurs are a very good team. It's one thing setting up to play in a manner to nullify their attacking potency as England did against Spain, but entirely another thing when you set up just to survive and get out with a point. That kind of mentality against good teams with 90 minutes to figure things out rarely ever works. I'd sooner we went there with a mission to go at them in a disciplined manner, and if we lost; well then that happens sometimes. For me this doesn't compare in the least with MON's decision in Moscow because there was another goal being pursued. This was a league game in November where we need the points and as importantly the performance ahead of what will be a very tricky month.