Houllier confirms Ireland wants to leave!

[Greg N'Ash]

i was as surprised by GH's appointment as anyone and i'm not sure long term

BUT

coming in like he did after MON's betrayal, with an injuriy situation like he's had, and no options to change it till January.......well, MON would have struggled, and while there is rumours of disgruntlement in the squad we all know people like NRC wouldn't have got near the first team under MON anyway., If anyone froze players out it was that guy.

we were all laughing at the toon for sacking Houghton a week back and yet a few on here want to sack GH after a few months! Not for me personally. One, i'm not convinced we'd get much better in to replace him in January. Two, i'd rather give him at least 1 transfer window to do something. Three, he's had a nightmare with injuries.

If its really not working out by the end of May or we're nailed to the floor of the premiership come March, then maybe i'll panic like some others. Until then...

[Eigentor]

Ireland doesn't want to be at Villa, never wanted to be there and has never made any attempt to change his view.

He's a wate of space and unlike our previous manager who would have fined him and never played him again until his contract is up Houllier fcks him off post haste and rightly so.
Its not only the training regime that is more professional the management of the players has gone the same way.
Now if those Mon lovers could catch up to the real world we might all get on more.

If a professional training regime and player management mean we lose to Blues in QF of the cup, are always in the news with players revolting and oscillating between 15th and 17th rather than 6th excuse me but I'd prefer the unprofessional version.

Like Mon you are thinking only short term, not taking the full facts on board and of yourself I'd guess, as you have ignored the injury list, the disruption caused by Mons manner of exit and the lack of time Houllier has had, to change the squad.

It appears that under MON we had a squad and regime designed to finish 6th. Above that position was a glass ceiling. The question is: could we improve on that with minor tinkering with the squad and the regime, or do we need to break it down completely and try to build a squad that is more competitive and introduce a regime more modern and professional? GH seems to believe the latter.

[lovejoy]

Nothing I've seen since August suggests that we have moved forward since the end of last season. In fact I think we've moved back significantly. The league table and evidence gathered by my own eyes bear this out.

[Greg N'Ash]

Nothing I've seen since August suggests that we have moved forward since the end of last season. In fact I think we've moved back significantly. The league table and evidence gathered by my own eyes bear this out.

right, so if MON had stayed and we had ireland, but the injuries we've suffered were the same we'd be up the top?!! show me the team and remember players like nrc and Luke young wouldn't have got near the first team and don't forget his fobia against the youngsters

[Rudy Can't Fail]

erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know

And they would never mislead anyone would they?

I like this one. Have you ever considered the consequencies of the board misleading or telling porkies to the fans and being found out?
Four and a half years of positive PR and all credibility out the window in one nano-second.

I dont believe for one second the board would mislead the fans, but it does show how naive they were when conducting transfers.
Especially when giving S.O.B.M.O.N the freedom of all things Villa.

I just do not understand this? How are they being "naive" by saying to the manager (whoever that may be), "Go get the players you feel will best take the club to the heights we would like to reach"? I am unsure of what model you would have in mind that would find the board conducting transfer business. At what clubs does this happen with regularity? In all seriousness, is Villa that far out of the mainstream? Sure, there could be a DOF put into place, I guess, who would serve as a go-between of a sort, but I am not sure that this is a better model than the one currently in place. It works rather well in American football, but the ingrained power of the manager found in world football suggests it would not work as well or that it would take a certain type of manager who was willing to follow these ground rules, a type of manager who likely would not inspire the fires of hopes and passions of the fans.

So I ask again, in what way is the board "naive"? How is its manner of conducting business appreciably different than other Premier League clubs?

I think Diceman is referring to giving MON so much control over such issues. You only have to look at the wage bill to see there are plenty of under-achievers/players signed and paid a fortune to make up the numbers, when in reality they were never going to be played.

[pelty]

I think Diceman is referring to giving MON so much control over such issues. You only have to look at the wage bill to see there are plenty of under-achievers/players signed and paid a fortune to make up the numbers, when in reality they were never going to be played.

Fair enough, Mark, but I think it is correct to state that the board did not expect that MON would NOT play those players, that he would leave them to rot on the bench while he wore out the first eleven. The entire time, MON was saying "we need a squad so that the players do not get worn out." The board saw logic in this statement and evidence of its truthfulness on the pitch those first few seasons and made money available. When, however, the same cry was made time after time with no evidence that he would ever actually use a squad given that the squad he had purchased was never actually used, then I can understand why Randy may begin to question the manager's methods.

To go back to your point, though, the board had every expectation that the squad WOULD play? Why would they sanction the purchase of players who they KNEW would never see the pitch? Answer: they didn't; they thought the players might get a match or two. In other words, the very thrust of Diceman's question (as you have interpreted it) is built on a flawed foundation.

[TheSandman]

i was as surprised by GH's appointment as anyone and i'm not sure long term

BUT

coming in like he did after MON's betrayal, with an injuriy situation like he's had, and no options to change it till January.......well, MON would have struggled, and while there is rumours of disgruntlement in the squad we all know people like NRC wouldn't have got near the first team under MON anyway., If anyone froze players out it was that guy.

we were all laughing at the toon for sacking Houghton a week back and yet a few on here want to sack GH after a few months! Not for me personally. One, i'm not convinced we'd get much better in to replace him in January. Two, i'd rather give him at least 1 transfer window to do something. Three, he's had a nightmare with injuries.

If its really not working out by the end of May or we're nailed to the floor of the premiership come March, then maybe i'll panic like some others. Until then...

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

To go back to your point, though, the board had every expectation that the squad WOULD play? Why would they sanction the purchase of players who they KNEW would never see the pitch? Answer: they didn't; they thought the players might get a match or two. In other words, the very thrust of Diceman's question (as you have interpreted it) is built on a flawed foundation.

I'll ignore the first part of your reply as I agree with it all.
I'm not saying the board were niave but as you mentioned earlier, how many clubs would have sanctioned the deals we made without raising a question or two? Not many is my guess, if any, with the possible exception of Man City. Even Chelsea have been tightening the purse strings, making their manager more accountable. Obviously Randy realised the squad needed investment and fully supported the manager, even going over budget in summer 2009 if reports are to believed.

I guess what I really want to know is how long this circus would have continued, allowing the manager to retain players that he had no interest in playing, a drain on club finances and were unlikely to fetch much on the transfer market, whilst at the same time asking for funds to re-enforce the 'squad'? Did the board not dig themselves into a hole by allowing MON to have so much control whereby they were left in a position where the only solution was to continue to back him or sack him? Considering we once again finished 6th, were the board not stuck between a rock and a hard place; a place any club should never find themselves, if possible?

[Villa'Zawg]

I think Diceman is referring to giving MON so much control over such issues. You only have to look at the wage bill to see there are plenty of under-achievers/players signed and paid a fortune to make up the numbers, when in reality they were never going to be played.

Fair enough, Mark, but I think it is correct to state that the board did not expect that MON would NOT play those players, that he would leave them to rot on the bench while he wore out the first eleven. The entire time, MON was saying "we need a squad so that the players do not get worn out." The board saw logic in this statement and evidence of its truthfulness on the pitch those first few seasons and made money available. When, however, the same cry was made time after time with no evidence that he would ever actually use a squad given that the squad he had purchased was never actually used, then I can understand why Randy may begin to question the manager's methods.

To go back to your point, though, the board had every expectation that the squad WOULD play? Why would they sanction the purchase of players who they KNEW would never see the pitch? Answer: they didn't; they thought the players might get a match or two. In other words, the very thrust of Diceman's question (as you have interpreted it) is built on a flawed foundation.

Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before. Did any of them have specific examples of players who should have been dropped and how that would have improved results?

Presumably, if we'd had the injuries we had this season and used the wider squad more often they'd have thought he was doing a better job?

[Toronto Villa]

yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"

I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.

[Villa'Zawg]

yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"

I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.

I liked Doug :-)

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before. Did any of them have specific examples of players who should have been dropped and how that would have improved results?

Presumably, if we'd had the injuries we had this season and used the wider squad more often they'd have thought he was doing a better job?

Imagine you go with the wife to the supermarket and do a big shop, you pay. You don't mind paying as there's next to nothing at home to eat.
Your wife does the cooking and you don't interfere in the kitchen
Every night for dinner it's beans on toast. It fills you up, serves it's purpose. You are no longer hungry. Job done.
One night after another plate of beans on toast you look in the fridge and there are steaks, fish and vegetables rotting way.
Come Saturday she tells you that you need to go with her again to do another big shop. You're expected to pay.
Now you can't cook to save your life but something tells you something is not quite right in the kitchen.

What do you do?

[Toronto Villa]

yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"

I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.

I liked Doug :-)

I wasn't against Doug, but I can't say I was his biggest fan. Though, I certainly didn't see him as the anti-Christ as some. But, Randy's not remotely like Doug in what he has done since he got here, so to even compare him in any way at all is a little insulting in my opinion.

[Villa'Zawg]

yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"

I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.

I liked Doug :-)

I wasn't against Doug, but I can't say I was his biggest fan. Though, I certainly didn't see him as the anti-Christ as some. But, Randy's not remotely like Doug in what he has done since he got here, so to even compare him in any way at all is a little insulting in my opinion.

I didn't compare Randy to Doug, I compared Pelty's description of the problem to the type of justification that Doug would have used.

[Villa'Zawg]

Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before. Did any of them have specific examples of players who should have been dropped and how that would have improved results?

Presumably, if we'd had the injuries we had this season and used the wider squad more often they'd have thought he was doing a better job?

Imagine you go with the wife to the supermarket and do a big shop, you pay. You don't mind paying as there's next to nothing at home to eat.
Your wife does the cooking and you don't interfere in the kitchen
Every night for dinner it's beans on toast. It fills you up, serves it's purpose. You are no longer hungry. Job done.
One night after another plate of beans on toast you look in the fridge and there are steaks, fish and vegetables rotting way.
Come Saturday she tells you that you need to go with her again to do another big shop. You're expected to pay.
Now you can't cook to save your life but something tells you something is not quite right in the kitchen.

What do you do?

Last season was arguably our best for 20 years. It was the beans that were being kept in reserve, we were using the steak.