Current media comments towards us

[cdward]

Just read that article, who cares what some yam yam writes about us. The thing that people need to remember when reading this rubbish, it is just one persons opinion. If a bloke in the pub said the same, it would be quickly dismissed, and you would move on to another subject, because some journo writes it we should take it seriously?
It is like Michael O Leary of Ryanair, he just comes out with shit so people are talking about his airline, we are now reading the local yam yam papers web site, really, who cares.
What did they used to say, todays newspapers are tomorrows chip papers

Swain is not a Yam Yam, but lets not worry about the chip on your shoulder shall we.


His article above, is pretty much bang on. If in your opinion it's not, well pray tell what you disagree with

Firstly, not sure how me calling someone a yam yam equates to a chip on my shoulder. If i am wrong and he indeed is not a yam yam, then i am mistaken, if in fact he is, then i am right.

Whilst i am not arguing the thrust of the article, there are a number of points i agree with, but some of the points he makes are rubbish in my opinion.

"while Villa are looking more and more like the new Blues. All gaffes and own goals.
Lerner needs to get a grip more quickly than his chosen manager has decided to.
Past evidence does not fill me with much hope he will do so".

I do not agree that GH has been treating the job with disregard.
I also do not agree with the view that Villa are in the hands of " hopelessly naive and ill equipped administrators".
If that is what you think of Randy and the General, so be it, you can carry on reading and agreeing with Swain, i wont, and that is my point, i don't have to agree with one journos opinion of something.

I don't know how i got sucked into this, i should have just said Fuck 'em (the yam yams).

[Lee]

......... if it is written in black and white, it must be true.

Which is not the case with me believe me, I'm too long in the tooth with the Villa for that. However, Swain very rarely puts wild accusations down and has a lot of contacts in Midlands football, so he deserves a little more respect than the lazy Journos from Fleet Street and indeed the Mail and Mercury.

Whilst I don't think that he has all the cast iron facts, I'm sure that he above most would at least try and make sure that what he publishes, can stand up somewhat.

[Lee]

Good article by Swain.

While fresh-faced chief executive Paul Faulkner, recruited from Lerner’s MBNA group where he was previously ‘relationship manager,’ floundered in the hunt for O’Neill’s successor, UEFA have persuaded Stride to interrupt his retirement and take on the role of senior delegate at major European games this winter.

This bit hurts.

Wolves are accused of being the new Stoke. Blues are endeavouring to be the new Villa, while Villa are looking more and more like the new Blues. All gaffes and own goals.

I thought the second bit was a bit of a piss take to be honest. The season is 4 games old

To me it was more a dig at them, 'cos they are past masters at it

[dave.woodhall]

He's from Coventry.

[ktvillan]

I am not sure I agree entirely w/ your scenario of a "football man" and his contacts because who would he have thought to contact that the board did not? Perhaps a promising young manager from a lower league, but would this really have been the appointment to make at this time? Some might argue for this, but I think the stick the board would take for such a move would have been hot and heavy. So, without knowing exactly what you have in mind with this, I cannot refute or agree with it. The usual suspects were contacted but were not interested.

Not being a football insider myself it's hard to be specific about what a football man as CEO might have been able to bring to the table.  I'd imagine many of them would have it in their MO to build a network of contacts throughout the game, at home and abroad, and have access to a grapevine providing info as to who might be available, who might be interested, who might be prised away with the right offer. I suspect that many CEOs and Chairmen foster good relationships with a number of top managers and coaches and along the way maybe drop in the odd "would you ever be interested in managing us if it became available" over a post match G&T in the Boardroom.   I know for example, Liverpool Board members had good links with Houllier before they recruited him, and I understand David Dein and Arsene Wenger were well acquainted long before Wenger was recruited for Arsenal.  The selection and recruitment job was half done before the job was vacant in those cases. That kind of thing can be extremely useful when the shit hits the fan.  Capable and intelligent as Faulkner may be, I doubt he has the background in the game to have built up such a network or the insider knowledge, and it's possible Randy is not around enough to have done so either.  Running a top PL club with, apparently,  little or no experience of the PL and Football in general in the boardroom seems a risky strategy to say the least. 

[hawkeye]

Pelty thanks for being so candid, i understand you are walking a difficult path, Cheers

[Lee]

More upbeat? No. It has been a tough month+. My issue is laying it at the feet of PF with no evidence to back it beyond your own assumptions. PF works hard for the club and has its best interests at heart, to include ensuring the long-term fiscal health of the club. That was endangered by the previous manager who, rather than accepting the limits to which he had previously agreed on MULTIPLE occasions, left the club high-and-dry. For whatever reason, you wish not to believe this. Why you have such a suspicion of the club's owner and board is beyond me. What have they done over the past four years to warrant such distrust? Not a whole lot, but when the going gets tough, you push all the blame on them and look for some sort of conspiracy theory. That is sad.

***I had written a point-by-point refutation of the entirety of your post, but upon reflection I think it would have been wasted on you. You prefer your conspiracy theories, so I will leave you to them. Cheers.***

Which is utter garbage to be honest. A minority have turned on the Board, but there are issues that the Club have allowed to happen in recent weeks, perhaps initially not of their making when "The Messiah" left us, but have not dealt with brilliantly.

Randy deserves our respect for what his done and to an extent, we should trust him. He's earned it, but we are also at liberty to question things to do with the Club that are currently concerning us. Believe me, there are many of us that have earned that right too.

[Villa'Zawg]

More upbeat? No. It has been a tough month+. My issue is laying it at the feet of PF with no evidence to back it beyond your own assumptions. PF works hard for the club and has its best interests at heart, to include ensuring the long-term fiscal health of the club. That was endangered by the previous manager who, rather than accepting the limits to which he had previously agreed on MULTIPLE occasions, left the club high-and-dry. For whatever reason, you wish not to believe this. Why you have such a suspicion of the club's owner and board is beyond me. What have they done over the past four years to warrant such distrust? Not a whole lot, but when the going gets tough, you push all the blame on them and look for some sort of conspiracy theory. That is sad.

***I had written a point-by-point refutation of the entirety of your post, but upon reflection I think it would have been wasted on you. You prefer your conspiracy theories, so I will leave you to them. Cheers.***

I don't wish to believe or disbelieve anything in particular, I want to have enough information on which to base my own opinion regarding the reasons for O'Neill leaving.

You take issue with me laying the blame at the feet of PF with no evidence to back it up and then castigate me for not laying it at the feet of MON with no evidence to back it up. Having you and the general tell me what I should think, without providing any information to back it up is not enough.

I'm hearing a lot lately about the issues related to the long-term fiscal health of the club, I'm not hearing a lot about competing to win trophies and play in the Champions League. Why is that? What happened between Randy's press conference and the posts you and the general made on the first day of pre-season? Randy wasn't talking about focussing on wages and having to sell players. What changed? Why doesn't someone actually explain to us what has been happening at our club?

I have equal respect for everyone who works for Aston Villa, not just the board. I think the entire club, including the manager had done a reasonably good job up till this summer. I'd like to know what went wrong.

If your point by point response contained useful information or explanation then it wouldn't be wasted. If its just more of you offering veiled accusations and telling me what I should believe then yes, it probably would be wasted on me. Cheers.

[Chris Smith]

The problem for Villa is that even if there are very good reasons for everything that has happened (and not happened) the perception in the wider world is that it has been badly handled. We can argue until we're blue in the face that it is unfair but it won't make a bit of difference. If we start winning games when GH arrives then it will all be forgotten but if things go badly then it will come back in spades.

 

 

[pelty]

I am not sure I agree entirely w/ your scenario of a "football man" and his contacts because who would he have thought to contact that the board did not? Perhaps a promising young manager from a lower league, but would this really have been the appointment to make at this time? Some might argue for this, but I think the stick the board would take for such a move would have been hot and heavy. So, without knowing exactly what you have in mind with this, I cannot refute or agree with it. The usual suspects were contacted but were not interested.

Not being a football insider myself it's hard to be specific about what a football man as CEO might have been able to bring to the table.  I'd imagine many of them would have it in their MO to build a network of contacts throughout the game, at home and abroad, and have access to a grapevine providing info as to who might be available, who might be interested, who might be prised away with the right offer. I suspect that many CEOs and Chairmen foster good relationships with a number of top managers and coaches and along the way maybe drop in the odd "would you ever be interested in managing us if it became available" over a post match G&T in the Boardroom.   I know for example, Liverpool Board members had good links with Houllier before they recruited him, and I understand David Dein and Arsene Wenger were well acquainted long before Wenger was recruited for Arsenal.  The selection and recruitment job was half done before the job was vacant in those cases. That kind of thing can be extremely useful when the shit hits the fan.  Capable and intelligent as Faulkner may be, I doubt he has the background in the game to have built up such a network or the insider knowledge, and it's possible Randy is not around enough to have done so either.  Running a top PL club with, apparently,  little or no experience of the PL and Football in general in the boardroom seems a risky strategy to say the least. 

I do not think your post is entirely without merit, but I do think that the expectations you might have re: the differences of having or not having a "football man" in place may be slightly misplaced. Again, there was contact with managers currently employed who were of a proper pedigree from the board's perspective who simply would not walk out on their clubs. I am not sure that having a pal who resides in the AVFC boardroom would make the difference. That said, I cannot say it would not have with 100% certainty. Nevertheless, those contacted felt a real sense of obligation to their current boards and were not willing to leave them in the lurch ala MON. If that is truly their conviction, I am not sure it would be easy to change. The timing of it was a MASSIVE issue for the employed managers, plain and simple.

[dave.woodhall]

The problem for Villa is that even if there are very good reasons for everything that has happened (and not happened) the perception in the wider world is that it has been badly handled. We can argue until we're blue in the face that it is unfair but it won't make a bit of difference. If we start winning games when GH arrives then it will all be forgotten but if things go badly then it will come back in spades.

I agree with ChrislaW9aq5-0a'dw=-#af';=-

Sorry, the world went all funny then.

[pelty]

"I'm hearing a lot lately about the issues related to the long-term fiscal health of the club, I'm not hearing a lot about competing to win trophies and play in the Champions League. Why is that? What happened between Randy's press conference and the posts you and the general made on the first day of pre-season?"

Nothing. The manager knew of ALL the issues, WELL BEFORE May even, and had agreed to address them. The desires of the board to compete for top honors domestically and in Europe have not changed. That said, would you really expect a owner, esp. one as reclusive as Randy, to speak at a press conference about the wage bill? This seems unrealistic to me, but it does not mean that these sorts of conversations had not been occurring in May and prior to May. The public simply were not privy to it which seems to make decent sense, but you might disagree.

[pelty]

The problem for Villa is that even if there are very good reasons for everything that has happened (and not happened) the perception in the wider world is that it has been badly handled. We can argue until we're blue in the face that it is unfair but it won't make a bit of difference. If we start winning games when GH arrives then it will all be forgotten but if things go badly then it will come back in spades.

 

 

Agreed.

[Merv]

Nothing. The manager knew of ALL the issues, WELL BEFORE May even, and had agreed to address them.

That's something I have no doubt about. This media-spun perception that O'Neill quit in a fury because the goalposts moved at the last minute with the Milner deal and subsequent use of the funds... I've never bought that. It was publicly known that City had bid for Milner in May - and that was when it was publicly revealed. They may have signalled their intention or made a bid before then. So, to my mind, O'Neill exactly what the picture was regarding transfers, available funds. My hunch is he still expected to be able to spend despite not selling on those six players identified, and that's what triggered this. We'll (I'll) probably never know for sure but that would be my guess.

Anyway, not long to go now. Roll on Monday and the start of the GH era.

[Shrek]

I heard us described today as an absolute embarrassment, by a journalist on the radio