Now Beye in bust up....

[BannedUserIAT]

Having someone of MoN's vast footballing experience convincing a group of people with next to no footballing experience would have been, for him, like shooting fish in a barrel. How easy would it have been to wax lyrical about a potential signings technical abilities and how he can be moulded into something worth much to the club and many times it's value in the future. Piece of piss.

But when he turned his first major signing in Ashley Young into a player who did exactly as you outline above, why would they have any reason to doubt him? At least for the next few times, anyway. Considering the impact he and Carew had the season after they signed, I would probably have trusted him as well.

If I gave my financial advisor £1,000 which he turned into £3,000 inside a year I'd probably keep giving him a bit more on the assumption he'd do it again. I'd probably need to get burned a few times before I then thought it was a fluke.

That's a very good point, Dave. However, I'd like to think that, regardless of his record, there'd be someone there to ride his arse and make him justify every single signing on the merit of each individual case rather than basing any executive decision on what went before. Yes, he certainly did make some excellent choices but I'd be more likely to give him 100% trust once he'd acheived the kind of record that Arsene Wenger has achieved. And even then, to be honest, I'd hope that there was some kind of firewall to prevent ego/luck/dodginess happening.

If you are to going to judge a manager and allow him latitude based on the quality of his last signing, then the money should stop flowing once a complete muppet has been brought on board. Of course, every manager makes mistakes so that's not a realistic scenario either.

No, I'm convinced that every signing should be questioned by the footballing guy paid to ask questions. If the manager has valid reasons and can back up his arguement enough to convince an experienced football executive, then signatures are put on dotted lines and cheques signed. 

At the end of the day, these players are massive investments for a business - yes, football is a business, no matter how much we like to think it's something much more - and there should be someone there to look at how each investment may or may not perform. At the wife's work, they've got an incredible track record for purchasing quality commercial property. It still doesn't give them carte blanche to go out and buy whatever they like. There are still an awful  lot of checks and balances in place to ensure that this track record remains impressive and to protect the shareholder.

I don't see why it should be any different for a football manager. yes, we'd no doubt miss out on some absolute gems but it would also hopefully prevent absolute disasters. And we've a few of those on board at the moment. I'm not suggesting anything like a Director of Football, just someone who's been in the game long enough to cast an experienced eye over anything that the manager has requested and ask the tough questions.

[dave.woodhall]

Young wasn't his first major signing. Petrov was.

[Dave]

Young wasn't his first major signing. Petrov was.

The point still stands. If you're trying to decide whether it's worth giving the manager more money based on the collective signings of Carew, Petrov and Young then do you give him more to try and do the same with other players?

I would.

I fully appreciate that if the board ask whether they want to give O'Neill more money based on the signings of Davies, Sidwell and Reo-Coker then one might be skeptical, but obviously that wasn't something they could do at the time.

He wasn't perfect, but for the most part I would say he made enough good transfers to keep credit in the bank for the bad ones. And if you are the person dishing out the transfer funds, I think that is going to be the bottom line.

[eamonn]

Young wasn't his first major signing. Petrov was.

Quite. And (blinding debut at the Boleyn Ground apart) his first few months at Villa, before we signed Ashley, indeed his first two seasons, were very, very average. Lerner's first transfer window gave him the opportunity to really back his manager and he did. Young-Carew-Maloney-Bardsley. MON believed the manager is the most important man at the club. Randy probably did too.

[dave.woodhall]

Young wasn't his first major signing. Petrov was.

The point still stands. If you're trying to decide whether it's worth giving the manager more money based on the collective signings of Carew, Petrov and Young then do you give him more to try and do the same with other players?

I would.

I don't think it was a matter of how good the players were. Randy would have given the manger money to spend regardless, just as he always did. What happened last summer, and more importantly why it happened, none of us know.

[Ian.]

I was just looking at Leicester City forum to see how Davies is getting on and there is a topic with Habib Beye as a transfer target. Even there fans see him as a back up right back and probably not worth having.

As regards training ground bust ups, isn't it the norm during a new regime. Some faces don't fit, players getting hacked off as its them who don't like it, players used to having how it was etc.

[Dave]

Young wasn't his first major signing. Petrov was.

The point still stands. If you're trying to decide whether it's worth giving the manager more money based on the collective signings of Carew, Petrov and Young then do you give him more to try and do the same with other players?

I would.

I don't think it was a matter of how good the players were. Randy would have given the manger money to spend regardless, just as he always did. What happened last summer, and more importantly why it happened, none of us know.

Agreed, but that's not really the point I'm arguing. There seems to be a vein of querying whether he SHOULD have been backing him so heavily throughout that time, not on what grounds he would have done.

[eamonn]

You agree that Petrov didn't come good until his third season though?

[Villa'Zawg]

If working for the good of Aston Villa is the minimum requirement why do you continue to blindly defend a man who did more damage to the club in one act than anyone else ever has?

I gave up after the start of your second pararaph. Not even you could possibly believe that.

I'm not trying to blindly defend him, I'm refusing to go along with this pretence that he was given the resources available to Spurs, Man City and the traditional Sky 4 or that he did less than a very good job.

I think his leaving was an effect, caused by a change of board policy from building a CL squad through investment to one of managing our costs relative to our current turnover, which isn't enough to support a CL squad.

[dave.woodhall]

It isn't pretence, it's fact. And you can think all you like, but you still won't alter the other facts that he's gone, he caused us a lot of damage and whatever good he may have done has been wiped out by the manner of his going.

[Villa'Zawg]

It isn't pretence, it's fact. And you can think all you like, but you still won't alter the other facts that he's gone, he caused us a lot of damage and whatever good he may have done has been wiped out by the manner of his going.

I'm losing track of what you consider to be fact but it isn't important what you or I think, facts are facts.

You say you don't know what happened last Summer or why it happened, you just know it was O'Neill's fault. Good for you.

[KevinGage]

A quick scan of MON's first choice XI last year will surely back up VD's claims eh?

Friedel -  39
Cuellar-  29
Dunne-  31
Collins - 27
Warnock- 29

Downing- 26
Petrov- 31
Milner- 24
Ashley Young- 25

Carew -  31
Gabby- 24

Plus the likes of Beye (33) Heskey (32) and Luke Young (31) in and around the squad.


9 players either close to or over 30 featuring regularly in the side might be at odds with any suggestion that MON left us with a balanced, young squad I'd have thought.

Or are we saying he'd have gone against his instincts and given Bannan, Delfouneso, Hogg and co more game time this year, when he previously had no inclination to do so? With a similar spate of injuries (which he may or may not have encountered had he not bailed when he did) his hand may have been forced. But under normal circumstances I doubt the above trio would have been anywhere near the starting XI on his watch.

So whilst they would have *officially* been included as squad members, to include players who have barely featured in first team football before as proof positive that the overall average of the side that MON left was healthy might, just might be viewed as a tad slanted. 

[Greg N'Ash]

bottom line is in real terms and in relation to rivals he had much more to spend than any other villa manager. Claiming its just inflation is plain daft. Even the anomalies of chelsea and latterly Citeh don't alter that fact.  when we were spending 2m on heath and cascarino in 90/ 91, Manu were spending 5M. Now i'm pretty sure last season that whatever we spent Man U didn't double it. or Liverpool, or tottenham.  there wasn't that sort of gap between the clubs in real terms in spending

[Villa'Zawg]

A quick scan of MON's first choice XI last year will surely back up VD's claims eh?

Friedel -  39
Cuellar-  29
Dunne-  31
Collins - 27
Warnock- 29

Downing- 26
Petrov- 31
Milner- 24
Ashley Young- 25

Carew -  31
Gabby- 24

Plus the likes of Beye (33) Heskey (32) and Luke Young (31) in and around the squad.


9 players either close to or over 30 featuring regularly in the side might be at odds with any suggestion that MON left us with a balanced, young squad I'd have thought.

Or are we saying he'd have gone against his instincts and given Bannan, Delfouneso, Hogg and co more game time this year, when he previously had no inclination to do so? With a similar spate of injuries (which he may or may not have encountered had he not bailed when he did) his hand may have been forced. But under normal circumstances I doubt the above trio would have been anywhere near the starting XI on his watch.

So whilst they would have *officially* been included as squad members, to include players who have barely featured in first team football before as proof positive that the overall average of the side that MON left was healthy might, just might be viewed as a tad slanted. 

That's interesting but what does it tell you if you don't compare it to other teams? Do the other clubs not have a tendency to play their more experienced players when they're uninjured?

[Villa'Zawg]

bottom line is in real terms and in relation to rivals he had much more to spend than any other villa manager. Claiming its just inflation is plain daft. Even the anomalies of chelsea and latterly Citeh don't alter that fact.  when we were spending 2m on heath and cascarino in 90/ 91, Manu were spending 5M. Now i'm pretty sure last season that whatever we spent Man U didn't double it. or Liverpool, or tottenham.  there wasn't that sort of gap between the clubs in real terms in spending

I don't know what the traditional sky 4 have spent in the time Lerner has been here but I reckon most people would accept that they had already built their squads by the time we started under Lerner and have been trading rather than building. Most people would also accept that Man City have spent a lot of money. I can't remember the exact figure for what Spurs managers have spent on players, I have posted it previously but I think it was £335m.