Club Statement

[Eigentor]

Can't see the board sacking McLeish after half a season after all this trouble unless he proves to be a complete disaster. I doubt that he will.

[Greg N'Ash]

It will be out of their hands. Thats what the board don't seem to have grasped in relation to british football managers in comparision to their area of expertise abroad.. If we're bouncing along the bottom of the premiership come November then the DOL shitstorm will seem like a slight disagreement. Most of us don't rate him, a large minority don't like him because of where he's from. He better get off to a flyer or he will be targeted bigtime and if the board ignore it, they will be targeted.

[Brend'Watkins]

As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.

RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed.  Then there would have been no complications.  As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation.  For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.

There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.

[Greg N'Ash]

As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.

RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed.  Then there would have been no complications.  As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation.  For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.

There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.

mebbe but i've yet to see any convincing arguement why Lerner would rate him. If there was, more people could get behind him even if they didn't want him because of his blose links. Thats the problem really, no-one can work out why he would be Lerner's first choice.

[adrenachrome]

As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.

RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed.  Then there would have been no complications.  As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation.  For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.

There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.

mebbe but i've yet to see any convincing arguement why Lerner would rate him. If there was, more people could get behind him even if they didn't want him because of his blose links. Thats the problem really, no-one can work out why he would be Lerner's first choice.

One theory which is rarely mentioned is perceived integrity. AM has this in abundance, and his conduct in his relations with our club in some very difficult circumstances has probably reinforced this in the minds of RL and the board. Compare and contrast with Rafa, whom I along with most other fans would have preferred.

[cdward]

I think some Villa fans are suffering from bluenoseitus,

It's a pity the chairman/board didn't get a dose...

[Risso]

As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.

RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed.  Then there would have been no complications.  As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation.  For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.

There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.

mebbe but i've yet to see any convincing arguement why Lerner would rate him. If there was, more people could get behind him even if they didn't want him because of his blose links. Thats the problem really, no-one can work out why he would be Lerner's first choice.

One theory which is rarely mentioned is perceived integrity. AM has this in abundance, and his conduct in his relations with our club in some very difficult circumstances has probably reinforced this in the minds of RL and the board. Compare and contrast with Rafa, whom I along with most other fans would have preferred.

If our board are valuing "perceived integrity" over and above actual managerial ability, then they really are living in a different world.  Anyway, McLeish broke his contract, whereas another available manager in Mark Hughes merely activated a mutually agreed break clause in his contract.  I'd say Hughes acted with far more integrity than McLeish, who on taking Blues down jumped ship for a bigger club rather than honouring his contract and trying to get them back up again.

[Merv]

There are plenty of (relatively) sane Villa fans who think appointing McLeish was a bad decision, not because of where he has come from but because of his PL record, because of who else was available, because he plays mostly shit football and because he represents an opportunity missed. 

If he's under pressure from the word go that's down to Lerner for making such a bizarre appointment.  They've taken a big risk on McLeish which just adds to the pressure.  I'm sure the vast majority of Villa fans, including me, hope he succeeds but some, including me, won't be at all surprised if he doesn't.

I'll be one of those fans then. Well said.

[Brend'Watkins]

As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.

RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed.  Then there would have been no complications.  As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation.  For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.

There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.

mebbe but i've yet to see any convincing arguement why Lerner would rate him. If there was, more people could get behind him even if they didn't want him because of his blose links. Thats the problem really, no-one can work out why he would be Lerner's first choice.

RL and Faulkner must have been in the company off/spoken to/ spent time with McLeash in some fashion over the last 3-4 years.  They will know the man a lot better than any of us.  They will also know the restraints he was working under, firstly, with Gold, Sullivan and Brady and then with Yeung and Co.  He still did a job, kept his integrity never blamed anybody for his failings when in reality he had the club punching way above it's weight when you consider who was in charge.  Yes, he got them relegated in the end by a whisker but still managed the club's first meaningful silverware in 135 years. 

I'm not saying AM will get us to the Champions League in 3 years but I will expect steady progress and hopefully a cup or two on the way.  I also think he will make us more solid.  We will actually be able to see out games with just a goal advantage, that in itself will make a refreshing change.

[Concrete John]

Can I ask a question?  And before I do just to reiterate my own position, I'm in the  "I didn't want Mcleish, but will give him a chance" camp.

What would people's opinion of him have been if we had gone after him when Houllier first got ill?  Around that point his PL record was much better with them as he had taken them to 9th, their highest ever league position, and won a trophy.  The first relegation was largely deemed to be something he couldn't stop as opposed to something he caused.  So, if we're honest and say that then he would have been a much better candidate, are we thinking that much has changed since?  Relegation is always a big blemish on any manager's CV, but enough to label him with the Curbishley's and Dowie's of this world?

I can't see him being anything special for us and have my concerns over the defensive nature of his sides, but also can't see him being the total disaster others predict.  Although it's hard to judge until the summer dealings are done, but I'd expect to be 7th or 8th under him.  Not good enough for Villa in my own biased view, but there you go. 

[Eigentor]

As for reports that Lerner has been a fan of McLeish for a long time: it smacks revisionism. If it was true, the club would not spend weeks roaming around before appointing him.

RL/AM might have thought he was to get the push once Blues' fate was sealed.  Then there would have been no complications.  As he wasn't, the next move was his resignation.  For all anyone knows they may have had AM lined up once they decided Houlier was going.

There was no particular need to appoint him the minute Houlier went as you've sort of suggested.

I just find it difficult to believe that AM was the first name on the list, as it was reported that we were considering the likes of Ancelotti, Rafa, McLaren and Martinez long before AM resigned. I don't know for certain, it just seems highly implausable.

[Villa'Zawg]

Can I ask a question?  And before I do just to reiterate my own position, I'm in the  "I didn't want Mcleish, but will give him a chance" camp.

What would people's opinion of him have been if we had gone after him when Houllier first got ill?  Around that point his PL record was much better with them as he had taken them to 9th, their highest ever league position, and won a trophy.  The first relegation was largely deemed to be something he couldn't stop as opposed to something he caused.  So, if we're honest and say that then he would have been a much better candidate, are we thinking that much has changed since?  Relegation is always a big blemish on any manager's CV, but enough to label him with the Curbishley's and Dowie's of this world?

I can't see him being anything special for us and have my concerns over the defensive nature of his sides, but also can't see him being the total disaster others predict.  Although it's hard to judge until the summer dealings are done, but I'd expect to be 7th or 8th under him.  Not good enough for Villa in my own biased view, but there you go. 

So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?

You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)

[Eigentor]

Can I ask a question?  And before I do just to reiterate my own position, I'm in the  "I didn't want Mcleish, but will give him a chance" camp.

What would people's opinion of him have been if we had gone after him when Houllier first got ill?  Around that point his PL record was much better with them as he had taken them to 9th, their highest ever league position, and won a trophy.  The first relegation was largely deemed to be something he couldn't stop as opposed to something he caused.  So, if we're honest and say that then he would have been a much better candidate, are we thinking that much has changed since?  Relegation is always a big blemish on any manager's CV, but enough to label him with the Curbishley's and Dowie's of this world?

I can't see him being anything special for us and have my concerns over the defensive nature of his sides, but also can't see him being the total disaster others predict.  Although it's hard to judge until the summer dealings are done, but I'd expect to be 7th or 8th under him.  Not good enough for Villa in my own biased view, but there you go. 

So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?

You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)

I think you're onto something. If you ignore his relegations and that he finished third in a two-team league, then his record is decent. Give him credit for his modest successes and blame his failings on other factors and you can justify his appointment. I think that's what the board have done.

[hilts_coolerking]

So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?

You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)

I'm glad you've cleared that up because whenever anyone has said "You can't blame the first relegation on him" I've just assumed that he took over late on in the season, say March time; if he was there in November then it's a piss-poor excuse, frankly.

[Concrete John]

Can I ask a question?  And before I do just to reiterate my own position, I'm in the  "I didn't want Mcleish, but will give him a chance" camp.

What would people's opinion of him have been if we had gone after him when Houllier first got ill?  Around that point his PL record was much better with them as he had taken them to 9th, their highest ever league position, and won a trophy.  The first relegation was largely deemed to be something he couldn't stop as opposed to something he caused.  So, if we're honest and say that then he would have been a much better candidate, are we thinking that much has changed since?  Relegation is always a big blemish on any manager's CV, but enough to label him with the Curbishley's and Dowie's of this world?

I can't see him being anything special for us and have my concerns over the defensive nature of his sides, but also can't see him being the total disaster others predict.  Although it's hard to judge until the summer dealings are done, but I'd expect to be 7th or 8th under him.  Not good enough for Villa in my own biased view, but there you go. 

So if we ignore the team he relegated 1st time around, even though he took over in November when they were in 16th position. And we ignore the team he took down last season by concentrating on a point in the season before it ended. He isn't such a bad candidate?

You're right, he does look much better from that perspective ;-)

It may have been November when he joined, but what was the strength of the squad he inherited and what did he have to spend in Jan?  And it's not a matter of excuses, just pointing out that a relatively short time ago the perception of his appointment may have been different.  He may have finsihed 3rd in a 2 horse race in Scotland, but he also finished 2nd in it managing one of the non-starters.

This isn't about defending him or his record, but about looking at it as objectively as possible.