Who Should be Aston Villa Manager ? Now with new, revised poll

[Chris Smith]

Neither are my first choice, but what I'm saying is I can't understand those who'd welcome Moyes with open arms but stand bitterly opposed to Hughes.

When you look at the respective records, that's a fair point.

For me the difference is I see a top manager in the making in Moyes.  Well regarded by Taggart, who knows a thing or two about the subject, and has proved by his longevity at Everton that he has loyalty and can build something.  With Hughes, I think he seems to come in and do well, then moves on again.  Bit of a 'journeyman manager' and I think longterm Moyes would be better for us.
   

Bit unfair on Hughes. He did a good job at Blackburn and took a step up in going to Man City where he was sacked through no fault of his own. I don't particularly like him as a person but think that his record is on a par with Moyes.

[eastie]

Hughes got ireland playing like a top class midfielder which suggests he must be a decent enough man manager and he has bought some decent players in his time at good prices, im sure he would get warnock and ireland playing for him and command respect

 Seems a bit hot on discipline and not a man to mess with ,like i say not my 1st choice but certainly not as bad as some portray and a solid enough manager who i think would be here for the long hauL and get us up around the top 6 which is as good as it gets without massive investment these days.

[Merv]

Moyes did what Hughes couldn't with half the money.

Hughes didn't have the benefit of that full season with City, Greg. So yes, he'd spent some money and turned City into CL challengers, then made way for Mancini in, when? December, January? City ended up just missing out - under Mancini. But Hughes had got them heading in the right direction. So I wouldn't just judge the two on Moyes getting into the CL once, and Hughes not getting into the CL halfway through a season. Manager by manager, over the length of their PL careers, there's not much to divide them.

John M - that is a good point on Moyes' longevity, that he might well be willing - and loyal enough - to devote years to Villa.

[hilts_coolerking]

He'd get a better offer because of his previous reputation, what he did while slumming it with us wouldn't come into it.

We're a club that has to rebuild a squad while reducing the wage bill. He's not the man for the job.

I take the point about the wage bill but is he really a chequebook manager only?  I'm not sure that's true.  Again, that restriction would apply to any manager we would appoint.

But the argument that big clubs would jump at the chance to sign him and therefore we should not, seems counter-intuitive.  The big clubs would want him because he's a quality manager why is precisely why we should also want him.

[eastie]

He'd get a better offer because of his previous reputation, what he did while slumming it with us wouldn't come into it.

We're a club that has to rebuild a squad while reducing the wage bill. He's not the man for the job.

I take the point about the wage bill but is he really a chequebook manager only?  I'm not sure that's true.  Again, that restriction would apply to any manager we would appoint.

But the argument that big clubs would jump at the chance to sign him and therefore we should not, seems counter-intuitive.  The big clubs would want him because he's a quality manager why is precisely why we should also want him.

ancelotti would do a great job but i really could not see him lasting more than 2 years at most-he would probably jump ship and go to a bigger club in europe.

[Concrete John]

But the argument that big clubs would jump at the chance to sign him and therefore we should not, seems counter-intuitive.  The big clubs would want him because he's a quality manager why is precisely why we should also want him.

The problem I forsee with it is should this happen, if his signings are here more for him than the club they'll want to bail shortly afterwards aswell.  We have a good owner and youth system, so what we need is longterm building to get us right up there.  2 years of an Ancelotti might then leave us needing to start the process again.  If he was committed to building something and would be here in 5+ years time, then that's a different matter.

[eastie]

But the argument that big clubs would jump at the chance to sign him and therefore we should not, seems counter-intuitive.  The big clubs would want him because he's a quality manager why is precisely why we should also want him.

The problem I forsee with it is should this happen, if his signings are here more for him than the club they'll want to bail shortly afterwards aswell.  We have a good owner and youth system, so what we need is longterm building to get us right up there.  2 years of an Ancelotti might then leave us needing to start the process again.  If he was committed to building something and would be here in 5+ years time, then that's a different matter.

I think either moyes or hughes would see it as a long term project and be in it for the long haul and provide stability at the club.

[jonzy85]

I wouldnt be mad on Hughes either but I think his reputation is a bit unfairly tarnished after what happened at City.

As was mentioned, he had them going in the right direction, with some players signed by the owner, not him. Who's to say that if he had been allowed to stay they wouldnt be in 4th now?? He was also humiliated by City, which hasnt helped his image.

People have also pointed out that he brought out the best in Ireland in one season, but also remember that he was the one that had Bentley playing for Blackburn in a way that had people thinking he was the second coming.

Now im not suggesting that Hughes go buy Bentley if he is appointed, but perhaps he could be the one to bring the best out of the likes of Bannan.

He would be a vast improvement on Houllier.

[mazrimsbruv]

As posted on another thread:

Hughes would be a terrible appointment at a time when, as has been pointed out on here, the Club has an opportunity to make a statement.

Appointing Hughes just says: "We are a club with limited ambition. We are happy to just bob around mid-table, have the odd cup run and avoid relegation."

To the 'want-away' players it says: "You are right to want away. We will never even remotely worry the teams in the Champions League places."

To the likes of Darren Bent it says: "Call your agent and engineer a move away from here at the earliest opportunity."

Looking at the calibre of the managers currently out of work around Europe, as well as those who could reasonably be tempted into joining us, this would be a massive mistake and I really hope the papers have made this up (as in: "Villa have got no money and are a similiar size to Fulham and Hughes would be cheap = Hughes to Villa).

I'm shocked and disappointed at how many people on here would accept Hughes as a decent appointment.

You might as well scrub out the 'Bright Future' and just leave the 'Proud History'.

[hilts_coolerking]

Absolutely, if we can guarantee that he'd be here for 5+ years that would be ideal.  But unfortunately there are no such guarantees and I think 5+ years far exceeds the average tenure of a PL manager. 

I think a lot of these reasons why we shouldnt' appoint someone of Ancelotti's pedigree are potential problems, rather than concrete problems.  He might be headhunted by a bigger club; his signings might want to leave if he moved on; he might only be successful if allowed to spend lots of money; and so on.

It's possible to dream up such scenarios for any manager: our current squad might be underwhelmed by Hughes and want to move on; Moyes might prove that he doesn't have what it takes to get us any higher than we were under O'Neill; either might move on if a bigger club comes in for them; either might continue their current record of never having won anything.

In my view, going down the Ancelotti (or similar) route would be a huge boost for the club, squad and (most!) fans.  It's possible, though far from definite, that he might move on after 2 or 3 years but I reckon that even 2 or 3 years of Ancelotti would leave us in a much better position that 4 or 5 years of Hughes or Moyes.  Because, as I said yesterday, he's simply a far better manager.

[eastie]

Good points hilts but at least the options being mentioned of ancelotti ,benitez, hughes and moyes are far better than last years of sven , houllier, bradley and curbs.

[Merv]

Appointing Hughes just says: "We are a club with limited ambition. We are happy to just bob around mid-table, have the odd cup run and avoid relegation."

No. There are more glamorous candidates out there, I agree, and we should have a wider pool of managers to select from than the manager of the club who finished a place above us in the PL table and is conveniently available for a month due to the terms of his contract... BUT there's no way Mark Hughes would see a move to Villa as 'bobbing along' and avoiding relegation. It would be the big job he's craved since City dumped on him. He's fiercely ambitious and he'd have bigger plans for us than treading water. There's no way he'd walk in through the door and claim 'Villa belong 8th-12th in the PL', as GH did when he arrived. He'd be targeting top six - and up.

[Chris Smith]

Or, 1-2 years of Ancelotti leaves us having to start from scratch again when he fucks off. There's been too much upheaval over the past 12 months to gamble on it it happening again. Of course you run that risk with any appointment but a man who, I feel, will think he's doing us a favour just by being here and is more of a risk than most.

[pablopicasso_10]

i would be most underwhelmed at hughes becoming manager...

i dont rate him at all, and for me, it would be a cheap option and end my small amount of personal optimism left...

[TimTheVillain]

Ancelloti at Villa is about as probable as Messi.

We need to get real - we aren't a big enough club, we don't have the resources to tempt him.