Return of O'Neill - divided opinion

[Dave]

We weren't exactly successful either, merely competent, and only exceeding what Gregory and O'Leary had managed by being more consistent at reaching 6th place. But with loads of money spent.

I have no facts to back this up and it's nothing more than a feeling, but I'd say in comparison with what other teams were spending Gregory would have been spending similar levels to O'Neill.

[dave.woodhall]

What I've recently become curious about is how much, if any, of their spending was based on the assumption of regular sell outs at Villa Park and increased commercial activity. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the plug was pulled as the gate receipts etc weren't as hoped for or required to continue the level of spending?

This is what I've always thought - and the general's most telling comment was his "4,000 empty seats - what more can we do?" They thought, and so did many of our fans, that a Doug-free and successful Villa would sell out every game.

We weren't entirely Doug-free, he's still haunting the place (although we could do with a bit of his deadliness at the moment).  We weren't exactly successful either, merely competent, and only exceeding what Gregory and O'Leary had managed by being more consistent at reaching 6th place. But with loads of money spent.  The "more they could do" would have been to buy some bums on seats players and play some entertaining football at VP.  If the General couldn't work that out, perhaps it's best that he's no longer involved.

I don't know if you were on the mailing list, but there were several comments on there back in the day of "What happens if I can't get a ticket for the first game after Doug goes?" and let's be honest - he effectively had gone once Randy arrived. There was a general (sorry) belief that the Americans would get the marketing right, fill Villa Park, and that anyone who disagreed was a typical Brummie pessimist who should stop moaning. The one thing I think, and this is only a guess, that the general didn't understand was the difference between our football supporters and American Football supporters. They have less games so every one's an event, sold out to people who whoop, holler, cheer their team and are less concerned about the result. At least once he commented about the difference between their atmosphere and ours.

I totally agree about the bums on seats players, but the reason for that seems pretty obvious. 

[PeterWithe]

You've mentioned that before about the Gridiron fans but whenever there are links to their message boards they seem as gloomy as we do. Do they still sell out every game then?

[dave.woodhall]

You've mentioned that before about the Gridiron fans but whenever there are links to their message boards they seem as gloomy as we do. Do they still sell out every game then?

I'm not sure but I assume they do. 32 teams and eight home games in a season. Is that right? 

[PeterWithe]

Do they only play certain teams every other year then, like we do with Blues?

[dave.woodhall]

Do they only play certain teams every other year then, like we do with Blues?

According to wiki:
The league uses a scheduling formula to pre-determine which teams plays whom during a given season. Under the current formula since 2002, each of the thirty-two teams' respective 16-game schedule consists for the following:
Each team plays the other three teams in their division twice: once at home, and once on the road (six games).
Each team plays the four teams from another division within its own conference once on a rotating three-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (four games).
Each team plays the four teams from a division in the other conference once on a rotating four-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (four games).
Each team plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves the previous season, not counting the division they were already scheduled to play: one at home, one on the road (two games).

[pauliewalnuts]

Do they only play certain teams every other year then, like we do with Blues?

Ha ha, very good.

[PeterWithe]

Do they only play certain teams every other year then, like we do with Blues?

According to wiki:
The league uses a scheduling formula to pre-determine which teams plays whom during a given season. Under the current formula since 2002, each of the thirty-two teams' respective 16-game schedule consists for the following:
Each team plays the other three teams in their division twice: once at home, and once on the road (six games).
Each team plays the four teams from another division within its own conference once on a rotating three-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (four games).
Each team plays the four teams from a division in the other conference once on a rotating four-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (four games).
Each team plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves the previous season, not counting the division they were already scheduled to play: one at home, one on the road (two games).

And they've the nerve to say cricket is confusing

[dave.woodhall]

No wonder they only play 16 games. They must need about eight months to work out the fixtures.

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

I was overjoyed when we appointed O'Neill. Ecstatic. I really thought we were going places. After a while I began to get rather bemused by his signings, tactics, starting line-ups and substitutions. Once Moscow came and went I went right off him but was still prepared to back him as our manager. When he left us in the lurch and dropped us right in it five days before the start of the new season taking almost the entire backroom staff with him, I despised the bastard.

Pretty much how I feel. I would have forgiven MON for Moscow if the team had beaten Stoke in the next league match and finished more strongly in the league. As it turned out Stoke's late equalizer effectively ended the season righ there.

Was it his fault that Stoke scored two late goals? Personally, I blame the players (was it Dunne who cocked it up, possibly?).

[joe_c]

Baseball might have been a more useful comparison model than gridiron, they have 81 home games a season in stadia more similar in size to those we have in the Premier League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures

[ktvillan]

What I've recently become curious about is how much, if any, of their spending was based on the assumption of regular sell outs at Villa Park and increased commercial activity. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the plug was pulled as the gate receipts etc weren't as hoped for or required to continue the level of spending?

This is what I've always thought - and the general's most telling comment was his "4,000 empty seats - what more can we do?" They thought, and so did many of our fans, that a Doug-free and successful Villa would sell out every game.

We weren't entirely Doug-free, he's still haunting the place (although we could do with a bit of his deadliness at the moment).  We weren't exactly successful either, merely competent, and only exceeding what Gregory and O'Leary had managed by being more consistent at reaching 6th place. But with loads of money spent.  The "more they could do" would have been to buy some bums on seats players and play some entertaining football at VP.  If the General couldn't work that out, perhaps it's best that he's no longer involved.

I don't know if you were on the mailing list, but there were several comments on there back in the day of "What happens if I can't get a ticket for the first game after Doug goes?" and let's be honest - he effectively had gone once Randy arrived. There was a general (sorry) belief that the Americans would get the marketing right, fill Villa Park, and that anyone who disagreed was a typical Brummie pessimist who should stop moaning. The one thing I think, and this is only a guess, that the general didn't understand was the difference between our football supporters and American Football supporters. They have less games so every one's an event, sold out to people who whoop, holler, cheer their team and are less concerned about the result. At least once he commented about the difference between their atmosphere and ours.

I totally agree about the bums on seats players, but the reason for that seems pretty obvious. 

I wasn't on the mailing list, but I shared the optimism when Lerner and co. came in.  I'm one of those that have always believed that Villa have the potential to draw in 50-60k every game if run well over several years.  That's based on our catchment area,  lack of heavyweight local rivals within 80-100 miles, etc.  We've had short bursts of looking really good but have been been far too badly run and mismanaged for it to have ever been sustained and built upon.  Part of that sustainability is having a football philosophy geared up to not only getting results, but of entertaining the fans as well.   I'm not sure why the General didn't seem to understand there might be a link between entertainment and filling the stadium.

[ktvillan]

We weren't exactly successful either, merely competent, and only exceeding what Gregory and O'Leary had managed by being more consistent at reaching 6th place. But with loads of money spent.

I have no facts to back this up and it's nothing more than a feeling, but I'd say in comparison with what other teams were spending Gregory would have been spending similar levels to O'Neill.

On transfer fees alone, you possibly have a point, he spent big on Merson, Stone, Dublin, Balaban and a few others.  But I wonder if wages were anywhere near 80% of turnover back then? a And his performance of 7th, 6th, 6th , 8th and 8th and anFA Cup Final compare reaonably well with O'Neill's 11th and 3x 6th place cna cup performances.

[dave.woodhall]

I honestly don't know how much of the "If only we were better run/more successful" idea is unique to us and how many other clubs could say exactly the same. What I do know is that Villa have a massive proportion of passive fans to active supporters and I've always said that whoever can crack the problem of getting them into the ground will have done more than anyone else ever has. Randy got closer than most; we'll have to see what happens in the future.

[Concrete John]

We weren't exactly successful either, merely competent, and only exceeding what Gregory and O'Leary had managed by being more consistent at reaching 6th place. But with loads of money spent.

I have no facts to back this up and it's nothing more than a feeling, but I'd say in comparison with what other teams were spending Gregory would have been spending similar levels to O'Neill.

On transfer fees alone, you possibly have a point, he spent big on Merson, Stone, Dublin, Balaban and a few others.  But I wonder if wages were anywhere near 80% of turnover back then? a And his performance of 7th, 6th, 6th , 8th and 8th and anFA Cup Final compare reaonably well with O'Neill's 11th and 3x 6th place cna cup performances.

Gregory was with us for 3 seasons, not 5.