Club Statement

[Risso]

When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.)  Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.

But they've done it now, he's our manager and I'm prepared to be open minded about it. He might be the disaster that many of you are convinced he will be or perhaps his positive attributes will come to the fore at a bigger and better club. All I'm saying is that I will make my mind up based on what he does for us not prejudge him on what has gone before.

Well we have no choice but to see how it goes.  However I think he's a poor manager, who buys mostly poor players, who gets his teams playing poor football, and has suffered two relegations in three years.  You could argue that any manager from lower in the league would stand a chance of doing better at a bigger club like Villa.  That doesn't stop their lack of ability from making it unlikely that they'll succeed, which I think is the case with McLeish.

[hilts_coolerking]

With a few weeks to go, if we're not allowed to speculate on what the forthcoming season will hold, especially with a controversial new manager in place and concerns about the level of funding they may be, then when can we discuss it?

And if we're not allowed to point to aspects of that manager's past record in the Premier League as a guide to how we might fare then what are we allowed to point to?

And if we're not allowed to express opinions on whether we think the manager will be a success or not, what are we allowed to express opinions on?

[pauliewalnuts]

When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.)  Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.

But they've done it now, he's our manager and I'm prepared to be open minded about it. He might be the disaster that many of you are convinced he will be or perhaps his positive attributes will come to the fore at a bigger and better club. All I'm saying is that I will make my mind up based on what he does for us not prejudge him on what has gone before.

How can you not have an opinion on somebody based on their previous work record?

You wouldn't appoint Glenn Roeder on the basis that
'All his relegations happened before he came to us.'

Or, seeing as someone made a comparison to the NOTW situation earlier, "Andy Coulson? All his bad things happened before he came to us".

[Chris Smith]

When McLeish's name was first mooted Chris, your reaction was "I don't believe the board would be that stupid" (or words to that effect.)  Well they have, and it doesn't stop being stupid I'm afraid.

But they've done it now, he's our manager and I'm prepared to be open minded about it. He might be the disaster that many of you are convinced he will be or perhaps his positive attributes will come to the fore at a bigger and better club. All I'm saying is that I will make my mind up based on what he does for us not prejudge him on what has gone before.

Well we have no choice but to see how it goes.  However I think he's a poor manager, who buys mostly poor players, who gets his teams playing poor football, and has suffered two relegations in three years.  You could argue that any manager from lower in the league would stand a chance of doing better at a bigger club like Villa.  That doesn't stop their lack of ability from making it unlikely that they'll succeed, which I think is the case with McLeish.

Two relegations in four years, either side of a promotion, their best PL finish and a trophy. This is where the debate started though, it's a mixed record and if you want to you can take that as a sign of potential to do better; I repeat - if you want to.

[Risso]

Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements.  If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed.  Anything else is just pure revisionism.

[Compass]

Is this true? He was slating him before he became our manager? Now he praising him because he is our manager?

One thing that isn't unacceptable and that's hypocrisy.

[Ger Regan]

Is this true? He was slating him before he became our manager? Now he praising him because he is our manager?

One thing that isn't unacceptable and that's hypocrisy.

You do realise that there's a difference between being willing to giving someone you didn't want a chance to prove you wrong and "praising" them, don't you?

Think you've buggered up your third sentence there.

[Chris Smith]

Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements.  If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed.  Anything else is just pure revisionism.

How am I embellsihing anything? I've just stated the facts of his record at the Blues and said IF you are so inclined you can use the positives as an indication of a POTENTIAL to do better.

[kippaxvilla2]

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.

They won their first game away at Spurs.  Normally when a new manager takes over there is an extended honeymoon period.  So it makes the relegation seem all the worse.

[Chris Smith]

Is this true? He was slating him before he became our manager? Now he praising him because he is our manager?

One thing that isn't unacceptable and that's hypocrisy.

I'm neither praising nor slating him, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because I'm a Villa fan and I want him to do well. Is that so difficult to understand?

Isn't that not unaccepable?

[Risso]

Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements.  If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed.  Anything else is just pure revisionism.

How am I embellsihing anything? I've just stated the facts of his record at the Blues and said IF you are so inclined you can use the positives as an indication of a POTENTIAL to do better.

There was a discussion on here when Blues had just beaten Arsenal at Wembley, where you said that if Houllier was to leave, you didn't want McLeish as manager.  There was no sign of you looking for his potential before he was arrived, so this new found desire to have us all look at his positives is a bit strange.

[Villanation]

Is this true? He was slating him before he became our manager? Now he praising him because he is our manager?

One thing that isn't unacceptable and that's hypocrisy.

You do realise that there's a difference between being willing to giving someone you didn't want a chance to prove you wrong and "praising" them, don't you?

Think you've buggered up your third sentence there.

  Ho ho ho!!!! Its the McLiesh effect, the symptoms are mild delusion followed by an overwhelming need to be tolerant followed by hysteria, panic, depression, and this strange syndrome of repeating yourself or finishing every sentance with a  " who gives a phuk".

Treatment: A good long spell in the Championship, if symptoms persist, League 1. 

I'm sorry but how the hell do you get onside with a manager that you wouldn't previously given the time of day to, just because he's the club manager.

Surely the sensible response is to view this has this bloke has to go the extra mile, has to hit the ground running, has to come up with the goods, and the board also, they appointed him, or face summary execution, that's it. 

[Ger Regan]

Yes, he has to hit the ground running (as I think our more "sensitive" fans won't give him any honeymoon period at all), no he shouldn't have to go the extra mile, whatever that means. Coming up with the goods to me means winning football matches consistently, and improving on the previous season. This is EXACTLY what I'm (and, I presume, Chris is) giving him the opportunity to do. What's so difficult to understand about that?

EDIT: I've just realised that using the phrase "giving him the opportunity" sounds a bit pretentious, but you know what I mean. We can hardly start calling for his head when he hasn't even had a chance to start winning matches yet, can we?

[Chris Smith]

Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements.  If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed.  Anything else is just pure revisionism.

How am I embellsihing anything? I've just stated the facts of his record at the Blues and said IF you are so inclined you can use the positives as an indication of a POTENTIAL to do better.

There was a discussion on here when Blues had just beaten Arsenal at Wembley, where you said that if Houllier was to leave, you didn't want McLeish as manager.  There was no sign of you looking for his potential before he was arrived, so this new found desire to have us all look at his positives is a bit strange.

I didn't want him as manager. However, as he is I've tried to look at it objectively and it's undeniable that there are positives there. 

[Risso]

Sorry Chris, but the fact that he's been appointed is no reason to start trying to embellish his achievements.  If he was still at Blues and we still needed a manager, you'd still be slating him as you did before he was appointed.  Anything else is just pure revisionism.

How am I embellsihing anything? I've just stated the facts of his record at the Blues and said IF you are so inclined you can use the positives as an indication of a POTENTIAL to do better.

There was a discussion on here when Blues had just beaten Arsenal at Wembley, where you said that if Houllier was to leave, you didn't want McLeish as manager.  There was no sign of you looking for his potential before he was arrived, so this new found desire to have us all look at his positives is a bit strange.

I didn't want him as manager. However, as he is I've tried to look at it objectively and it's undeniable that there are positives there. 

I want him to do well, but what is undeniable is that the negatives outweight the positives.  He's a bad manager, who may do better at a better club, but his methods and style of play make it unlikely that he's going to bring us success in my opinion.  At best I think he'll make us hard to beat, but the down side to that is that we'll be poor to watch, and I think he'll make safe, uninspired signings that fit in with the new penny pinching views of the board, which can be the only real reason that he was appointed.