Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: brontebilly on September 21, 2011, 03:42:28 PM
-
We have better players now than that awful time but our debt and losses for which Lerner is solely responsible are crippling the club. Lets be honest about it, McLeish is a terrible manager. terrible. An unfathomable appointment. I thought he might turn out better than the hapless Houllier but the wimbeldon esque tactics will drive supporters away from the club in their droves. There is a malaise at the club that isnt far off the time O'Leary was writing letters to the papers trying the turn players against the chairman. Back then we were an attractive club for someone like Lerner to take over, now with our debt, losses and an increasingly disillusioned fanbase, Id argue we are in a worse state now as a club than then.
What do you all think?
-
I think there's too many miserable threads.
-
Probably yes as the gap between the top clubs and ourselves has grown even bigger and the present squad is woefully inadequate-add to that the debts and general depression around the club and things look bleak indeed.
-
For the amounts of money spent, in many ways - but not all - we're not much further along than we were when he came, except now we've got enormous debts.
Mind you, I entirely agree with the miserable thread count point made by our Coventry Correspondent above.
Maybe we need to bundle these all up into one uber-thread?
-
We're Brummies, the glass is always half empty. We wouldn't have it any other way......... ;)
-
They break yer 'eart Tone.
-
It's not quite as bad, but it feels worse as a fan, because at least in the last couple of years of Doug there was always the chance he would sell and it would get better. I look at it now and can see no end in sight, just many years of mediocrity and 'existing', somewhat like the Browns. I have to say, only the last 3 or 4 years under Ellis were as pointless and hopeless as things look now. Not that i want him back like, and not that i totally blame Lerner either, it is much to do with the way football is these days. But without money or a damn good plan of how to build a good exciting team without it, he might as well give up.
-
Not by any metric.
I will now have to imagine half the H&V user base as eyeliner wearing, floppy fringed, skinny jeans loving, self harming, Emos!
-
Not by any metric.
I will now have to imagine half the H&V user base as eyeliner wearing, floppy fringed, skinny jeans loving, self harming, Emos!
why imagine? Just look in the mirror!
-
One more year of Doug N' Dave and we would have gone down. So unless you think we will go down this season then I would say we are in a better state. As for the debt, that situation is obviously being addressed.
-
It's all very disappointing, and I don't think that for all the money spent [wasted] that we're any stronger at all.
-
About the same I'd say.
So far as finances go, the club is not better off now as regards revenues than had Ellis stayed. It also has a shed load of debt to Lerner to pay down, and precious little to show for it.
At least if HDE had stayed MON would not have been so profligate, and I still think MON with less money would have had us top half and decent cup runs (managed it with Leicester). Also Ellis would never have appointed McLeish, and would never have put the club in a position where so much compensation had to paid out to MON/ Houllier/ BCFC.
Not that I miss Herbert much, just that I really don't see how Lerner is better these days.
-
heaven knows I think there's too many miserable threads.
Said like a true Smiff fan.
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
-
It's not quite as bad, but it feels worse as a fan, because at least in the last couple of years of Doug there was always the chance he would sell and it would get better. I look at it now and can see no end in sight, just many years of mediocrity and 'existing', somewhat like the Browns. I have to say, only the last 3 or 4 years under Ellis were as pointless and hopeless as things look now. Not that i want him back like, and not that i totally blame Lerner either, it is much to do with the way football is these days. But without money or a damn good plan of how to build a good exciting team without it, he might as well give up.
Nicely point, completely agree.
-
To me it seems, after a period of great optimism, we're now about in the same state.
-
Lets not totally castigate doug, we did finish runner up twice and win a couple of cup finals under his stewardship along of course with some very low points too.
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
Taylor, atkinson , little , villa , -balances out in the end , he did good and bad during his time , as has randy.
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
...we didn't start the fire...
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
Venglos, Gregory, O'Leary, Derby County
-
You would have to have been out of touch then and out of touch now to entertain such a thought.
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
Taylor, atkinson , little , villa , -balances out in the end , he did good and bad during his time , as has randy.
Venglos, GT Mark II, Dolly.
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
Taylor, atkinson , little , villa , -balances out in the end , he did good and bad during his time , as has randy.
Venglos, GT Mark II, Dolly.
I'd never criticise Doug for appointing Venglos - it was a gamble that didn't work, and in a lot of ways Dr Jo was ahead of his time. It also says a lot about the way football changes that when we appointed O'Leary he wasn't far behind O'Neill in the "How did THEY get HIM?" stakes. He was easily the best available candidate.
-
The worst thing since Lerner took over is how he's turned a certain group of our fans from hard nosed, never say die men to a bunch of screamish, spoiled, little girls.
-
Maybe we need to bundle these all up into one uber-thread?
"Villa Fans Worried" has a bit of a ring to it.
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
Taylor, atkinson , little , villa , -balances out in the end , he did good and bad during his time , as has randy.
Venglos, GT Mark II, Dolly.
I'd never criticise Doug for appointing Venglos - it was a gamble that didn't work, and in a lot of ways Dr Jo was ahead of his time. It also says a lot about the way football changes that when we appointed O'Leary he wasn't far behind O'Neill in the "How did THEY get HIM?" stakes. He was easily the best available candidate.
Agreed, o leary was the popular choice at the time and having took leeds to such heights had the credentials-Doug cant be blamed for appointing him.
-
Maybe we need to bundle these all up into one uber-thread?
"Villa Fans Worried" has a bit of a ring to it.
Drama Queens of the World Unite.
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
Taylor, atkinson , little , villa , -balances out in the end , he did good and bad during his time , as has randy.
Venglos, GT Mark II, Dolly.
I'd never criticise Doug for appointing Venglos - it was a gamble that didn't work, and in a lot of ways Dr Jo was ahead of his time. It also says a lot about the way football changes that when we appointed O'Leary he wasn't far behind O'Neill in the "How did THEY get HIM?" stakes. He was easily the best available candidate.
And to think I thought we were about to agree on something for the first time in two years as well.
-
Doubt we would ever have signed a player like Darren Bent under Doug. Can't think of anything else.
-
Doubt we would ever have signed a player like Darren Bent under Doug. Can't think of anything else.
Saunders and Collymore were both just as big names at the time.
Plus when we sold Platt and Yorke the manager got most of the funds to rebuild the team.
I am not a big fan of HDE, but he wasn't all bad.
-
Doug wasn't that bad, don't think learner is that bad but times have changed in football its no longer a sport and its now an entertainment game full of overpaid girls It's just our girls ain't as good as most and were lead by a bull dog
-
Ashton, I think O'Neill only took the job because he knew Lerner was taking over and he had cash to spend. I don't reckon he would have took the job if the previous regime was carrying on running the club.
Agree with you that Old Deadly would never have appointed McLeish and no matter what anyone thought of Doug, his love for the club was never in doubt.
Turner, McNeill, Blues, Wolves.
Taylor, atkinson , little , villa , -balances out in the end , he did good and bad during his time , as has randy.
Venglos, GT Mark II, Dolly.
I'd never criticise Doug for appointing Venglos - it was a gamble that didn't work, and in a lot of ways Dr Jo was ahead of his time. It also says a lot about the way football changes that when we appointed O'Leary he wasn't far behind O'Neill in the "How did THEY get HIM?" stakes. He was easily the best available candidate.
Paul McGrath' account of Venglos's training methods is far from complimentary.
More bizarre than visionary in his view.
-
Paul McGrath' account of Venglos's training methods is far from complimentary.
More bizarre than visionary in his view.
Most of the others have a different view. The biggest problem was that it did seem bizarre then, but it's normal now.
-
I'd never criticise Doug for appointing Venglos - it was a gamble that didn't work, and in a lot of ways Dr Jo was ahead of his time. It also says a lot about the way football changes that when we appointed O'Leary he wasn't far behind O'Neill in the "How did THEY get HIM?" stakes. He was easily the best available candidate.
I have vague memories of a minor internet panic on here when there were rumours that DOL was going to leave Villa for Newcastle.
-
Paul McGrath' account of Venglos's training methods is far from complimentary.
More bizarre than visionary in his view.
Most of the others have a different view. The biggest problem was that it did seem bizarre then, but it's normal now.
Much as he's rightly revered, I'm not sure that I'd set too much store by McGrath's assessment of a training regime in any case.
-
Doug wasn't that bad, don't think learner is that bad
Doug was never that bad, Lerner was never that good. That's not to big up Herbert or to big down Randy, just to point out that the former could do no right in the eyes of many and the latter, no wrong. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.
And we're in about the same state: limbo. Not that that is down to either of those two in particular, just the accidents of the modern game. Agree on McLeish though; A terrible appointment.
By the way, sorry for editing your post out of context Phil from the upper Holte. Just thought it worked to make my point.
-
The problem with Lerner is that he brought a lot of good intentions, but little in terms of footballing and business knowledge. The main reason why we are seemingly in the same position as when he took over, is what is refered above to as 'the accidents of the modern game'.
I also fear that McLeish is a terrible appointment. He seems to me to be a one-trick pony who can do well when everything is going for him, but who can be clueless when things are on the slide. At least Houllier's unsuccessful spell had two redeeming features: (1) he seemed to have an idea what he wanted to do; (2) when we were in the shit (partly of his making, it must be said) he knew what to do to pick us up. I'm not sure if McLeish has got that, and therefore I will become slightly paranoid if we now start losing instead of drawing.
-
NO
-
Now: Massive unsustainable wage bill, massive debt vs Some of the best training facilities in Europe.
Then: Lack of investment, poor training facilities vs little debt, club sustainable.
Both squads comparable.
-
Now: Massive unsustainable wage bill, massive debt vs Some of the best training facilities in Europe.
Then: Lack of investment, poor training facilities vs little debt, club sustainable.
Both squads comparable.
And where would we be without those massive wages and the money spent on players?
-
These overreacting threads are getting a little boring now - I just checked the table on Saturday and had we won we'd have gone 4th.
No, not all is rosie in the garden of reality that is every other team that doesn't have a multi Billionaire owner or Champions League income, but it sure as hell isn't as bad as some of the drivel i've been reading on here the last week or so.
-
I dont think we are in a worse state. When O'Leary was in charge we wouldn't have had chance of signing the likes of Given, Bent and N'Zogbia. We were dealing in cheap cast-offs, exclusively. (I say exclusively because I know Hutton and Jenas fall in that category). We just hadn't the ability to enter the market for sought after players.
The problem now is that we have a chairman who has ripped up the "Proud History, Bright Future" blueprint (if one existed) and seems to be struggling to decide what direction to take i.e. signing Bent for 20+ mill v the frugality of this summer.
It also doesn't help that he or the people around him couldn't pick a decent football manager if Alex Ferguson and Jose Mourinho both decided to simutaneously kick them up the a***.
-
We're in a better state, I think. A more talented squad, with higher valued players, and we're starting from a stronger base than when Lerner took over and O'Neill was appointed - a squad which finished top half, compared to one which just missed relegation.
The main difference for me is that, this time five years ago I had the feeling that the only way was up for Villa, there was genuine optimism. Now, I think our future doesn't look quite so positive.
-
Paul McGrath' account of Venglos's training methods is far from complimentary.
More bizarre than visionary in his view.
Most of the others have a different view. The biggest problem was that it did seem bizarre then, but it's normal now.
Seriously? Running from one side of Bodymoor Heath to the other without breathing....
-
I don't think a comparison with the club before he bought it is a fair one to make.
A much better comparison would be with where we think the club would be today if he hadn't bought it.
-
Now: Massive unsustainable wage bill, massive debt vs Some of the best training facilities in Europe.
Then: Lack of investment, poor training facilities vs little debt, club sustainable.
Both squads comparable.
And where would we be without those massive wages and the money spent on players?
Strange comment considering many on here and elsewhere feel we massively overpaid players and spent to much on shite in comparison to other clubs.
-
We're in a better state, I think. A more talented squad, with higher valued players, and we're starting from a stronger base than when Lerner took over and O'Neill was appointed - a squad which finished top half, compared to one which just missed relegation.
The main difference for me is that, this time five years ago I had the feeling that the only way was up for Villa, there was genuine optimism. Now, I think our future doesn't look quite so positive.
We had a close shave with Relegation last season - I know we finished 9th but people were bricking it up until the last 2 games - we'll finish in the lower half this season which will continue the downward trend. Fact is, the so-called 5 year plan failed and RL and Co have no Plan B. Apart from a few cosmetic changes (Holte Pub and Holte Suite) the ground is still at the same capacity. Yes we have great training facilities, but I'd much rather have a great team on the pitch. Going backwards fast under RL.
-
I'd say the club is far better off.
The things that really endure have all improved markedly. Most notably Bodymoor Heath, but also Villa Park.
I am not overly worried about debt. As far as I understand it (not very far) the monies are owed either to Lerner himself, or a Lerner family trust. As such they are not likely to be called in, and would be rolled into the price should Lerner decide to sell. Whatever sum that would be, I'd guess that we'd still be a fair proposition.
The real questions would be to whom, and where are they getting the money from. That is no bigger a worry under Lerner than it was under Doug.
Managers and teams come and go, in our case usually about every 3 or 4 years. Zero to hero and back again has always been our forte. It is a shame that we didn't quite make hero last time around, but we are still in a better position to go further next time than we otherwise would have been.
We were sinking fast under Doug, and he didn't seem to have a clue what to do next other than sell. Right now we are merely shipping water.
Regardless of Man City's lottery win, I wouldn't agree that the 'top teams' as a whole have forged even further ahead. We may have regressed, but so have Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool, arguably more so than us over the last 5 years.
-
I don't think a comparison with the club before he bought it is a fair one to make.
A much better comparison would be with where we think the club would be today if he hadn't bought it.
Good question, as badly of as Everton finacially but lacking the loyalty to a manager who keeps them above water, is my guess.
-
I don't think a comparison with the club before he bought it is a fair one to make.
A much better comparison would be with where we think the club would be today if he hadn't bought it.
How about another comparison - to where we thought we'd be after five years of Lerner ownership.
-
The Cleveland Browns are 30.4 million under the cap.
That is the third lowest in the NFL.
Looks like we are not the only ones to tighten the belt.
-
For me the difference is under Ellis we had become used to the cheque book being grudgingly opened from time to time, but inexplicably being kept firmly shut when we had a team that perhaps needed that extra splash of cash to deliver something tangible.
Under Lerner the cash was spent, sometimes with gay abandon, and not always wisely, before, perhaps inevitably, once again the cheque book has been shut.
Either way, we haven't won any silverware that matters.
To answer the question, I don't think the club is in a worse state (and as I'd have put as down as one of the favourites for relegation if Ellis/DOL had stayed in sit, we're probably better off), but rather we've reverted back to the Aston Villa of much of my supporting life: one of the also-rans. The difference is that after the promise of the first three years of the Lerner tenure, the palpable sense of disappointment has yet to harden into that dull ache of inevitability that were the overwhelming feature of the Ellis years.
-
We shouldn't be that concerned about debt if they are shareholder loans.... which could even be considered quasi equity. Lerner is hardly likely to send the boys round to collect on his own assets, after all. From some of the earlier comments on here it's as if people are complaining about him putting cash into the club.
-
Bigad82 do those figures you quote mean only too other teams in the NFL owe more money? Does "under the cap" mean that a limit is placed on how much can be borrowed?
-
Bigad82 do those figures you quote mean only too other teams in the NFL owe more money? Does "under the cap" mean that a limit is placed on how much can be borrowed?
No,how much you can spend,I think.
-
I think what we lack is leadership. Randy doesn;t speak and the fans don't see PF as a leader due t his lack of experience.
If we understood what the plan was once we get the wages down then we might all get behind the club. Whilst we jsut see cuts and no sign of anyhting but, we will continue to see mediocrity as the target.
In my view the reason we don't get any of this is because Randy is in financial trouble and they don't wan to admit that. He is obviously battening down the hatched in the hope of recovering his wealth when the financial markets start to recover.
-
Bigad82 do those figures you quote mean only too other teams in the NFL owe more money? Does "under the cap" mean that a limit is placed on how much can be borrowed?
nfl has a wage cap. i.e if the browns are allowed 70million on wages randy has only spent 40million which means they wont be competitive this season. only 2 teams spent less