Doug or Randy?

[JUAN PABLO]

Its like saying who would you shag?

Susan Boyle or Heather from Eastenders

[JUAN PABLO]

Doug .only because he would not have gave MON the money to waste.

He would. The money wasted by Gregory  was at least the equal of MON. For example 100% losses on the likes of Stone,Dublin,Merson,Stone,Hadgi, Angel, Ginola, Balaban, and Alpay and significant  losses on Thompson, Watson adds up to around 50 million.

This profligacy was the start of our troubles and the reason that there was little money for Taylor and then O'Leary to spend.

If Randy hadn't bailed us out in 2006 we'd have probably been relegated over the next 2 seasons, which would have been Ellis's 2nd relegation from the top flight and 3rd in all.

Not that I've got much time for Lerner, for me these two clowns are as bad as each other. Ellis is still insisting that his sale to Lerner was great for Aston Villa, and he'll keep saying that even if we go down, simply because it was his decision and  with Doug it's always been about self justification first and foremost.

I heard today 2008-2009 , we were the biggest spenders in the whole of Europe.

[JUAN PABLO]

a vote for William Dugdale

[dave.woodhall]

Dave, I know the history.  And the point remains that Ellis originally came into a club that was in seemingly terminal decline - and left it (the second time) as one of a handful of permanent fixtures in the Premier League.  There was some very good seasons during his tenure - and a few best forgotten - but generally the club reached and maintained a level that it has "enjoyed" for most of the last 100 years.  So whilst many of the criticisms levelled at him are, for the most part, probably justified, he didn't really sell us short in running a club that a supporter of the 1920s or 1950s would recognise: i.e. a club that was in the top flight and on an occasional basis challenging for an honour.

And got relegated twice, once from a position of strength unparalleled since 1897.

[eastie]

Dave, I know the history.  And the point remains that Ellis originally came into a club that was in seemingly terminal decline - and left it (the second time) as one of a handful of permanent fixtures in the Premier League.  There was some very good seasons during his tenure - and a few best forgotten - but generally the club reached and maintained a level that it has "enjoyed" for most of the last 100 years.  So whilst many of the criticisms levelled at him are, for the most part, probably justified, he didn't really sell us short in running a club that a supporter of the 1920s or 1950s would recognise: i.e. a club that was in the top flight and on an occasional basis challenging for an honour.

And got relegated twice, once from a position of strength unparalleled since 1897.

I know the demise was rapid under doug but in fairness the team he took over although European winners had just finished 11th in the league before he returned, a drop in league position of 10 places from the previous year.

[Big Dick Edwards]

This question should have been posed on February 1st. Lerner may wake up and pull a couple of season-saving signings out of the hat in the next few weeks.
Mind you, even if he doesn't I still wouldn't want Ellis back.

[Ron Manager]

When Doug and The Doc were in their pomp it was the most exciting time of my life as an Aston Villa supporter

Funnily enough Lerner and Lambert dont have the same effect!

[London Villan]

When Doug and The Doc were in their pomp it was the most exciting time of my life as an Aston Villa supporter

Funnily enough Lerner and Lambert dont have the same effect!

Didn't we get relegated then though.

[claretandbeer]

When Doug and The Doc were in their pomp it was the most exciting time of my life as an Aston Villa supporter

Funnily enough Lerner and Lambert dont have the same effect!

Thank God.Tommy Doc helped to relegate Villa and Wolves to Div3 and Man Utd to Div2 and falling out with an unbelievably talented young squad atChelsea that he had inherited from the previous manager.

[Irish villain]

Dave, I know the history.  And the point remains that Ellis originally came into a club that was in seemingly terminal decline - and left it (the second time) as one of a handful of permanent fixtures in the Premier League.  There was some very good seasons during his tenure - and a few best forgotten - but generally the club reached and maintained a level that it has "enjoyed" for most of the last 100 years.  So whilst many of the criticisms levelled at him are, for the most part, probably justified, he didn't really sell us short in running a club that a supporter of the 1920s or 1950s would recognise: i.e. a club that was in the top flight and on an occasional basis challenging for an honour.

And got relegated twice, once from a position of strength unparalleled since 1897.

Not really like for like though.

And at least when Doug flogged players the money was reinvested (Merson and  Dublin from Yorke being a prime example).

[VinnieChase84]

Doug! For all his faults at least he showed he love the Villa.

[Karlos96]

Can we have a none of the above option?

[eastie]

Must admit i am surprised Lerner has 43% of the vote with the clubs current position.

[Fasth56]

Got to be Lerner. Ellis used AVFC as a vehicle of self promotion and used the club as his personal fifedom. Then screwed the fans for £11 a share when he made himself a fortune first time around and then sold the rest to Lerner for another small fortune. Forgive maybe, but never forget how he screwed us big time.

And you think we're not screwed now?

Tell me how much money Lerner is making out of me and then compare it to the share issue by Ellis that's being screwed. You are not one of the guys who think Ellis actually put his own money into the club are you?

[Fergal]

Dave, I know the history.  And the point remains that Ellis originally came into a club that was in seemingly terminal decline - and left it (the second time) as one of a handful of permanent fixtures in the Premier League.  There was some very good seasons during his tenure - and a few best forgotten - but generally the club reached and maintained a level that it has "enjoyed" for most of the last 100 years.  So whilst many of the criticisms levelled at him are, for the most part, probably justified, he didn't really sell us short in running a club that a supporter of the 1920s or 1950s would recognise: i.e. a club that was in the top flight and on an occasional basis challenging for an honour.

And got relegated twice, once from a position of strength unparalleled since 1897.

Not really like for like though.

And at least when Doug flogged players the money was reinvested (Merson and  Dublin from Yorke being a prime example).

I also believe that Doug never saddled us with massive debt. Is that right?