Transfer Speculation / Gossip

[hilts_coolerking]

Hilts brought up the point about a couple of games, albeit to show how things could have gone worse than they did and how others (i.e Stoke) out performed us. I am merely pointing out that it cuts both ways and that it also shows that as little as 180 minutes of football would see us claw back on Stoke and that they're not insurmountably in front of us.

The point I was really trying to make was not that Stoke, Palace or Swansea were insurmountably in front of us, simply that they *were* in front of us.  Stoke and Swansea you might argue were a decent chance to finish in front of us anyway (leaving aside how that has come to pass); Palace on the other hand, as I said, were dead and buried and yet ended up 7 points ahead.

It's one thing to say 'we have no divine right to finish ahead of Everton and Southampton', another to say 'we have no divine right to finish ahead of Stoke or Swansea' but Palace?

[Ads]

I will clarify what I meant by my comparison with 2010/11 and last season

I didn't think we would go down on either occasion, which proved the case. Under Houllier we were poor up until February thereafter where things started to click and were more or less safe (if not mathematically) a good while before we beat Arsenal.

Last season we didn't have the brush with the bottom three as we had under Houllier and were largely bang mid-table for the entire campaign, ironically until we had (unknowingly) secured survival, whereby we promptly collapsed and made real heavy weather of the next 7 or 8 games.

Neither seasons were a total struggle but contained flashed or utter ineptitude.

[RussellC]

So, in other words, they 2 completely different seasons....?

;-)

[Ads]

Hilts brought up the point about a couple of games, albeit to show how things could have gone worse than they did and how others (i.e Stoke) out performed us. I am merely pointing out that it cuts both ways and that it also shows that as little as 180 minutes of football would see us claw back on Stoke and that they're not insurmountably in front of us.

The point I was really trying to make was not that Stoke, Palace or Swansea were insurmountably in front of us, simply that they *were* in front of us.  Stoke and Swansea you might argue were a decent chance to finish in front of us anyway (leaving aside how that has come to pass); Palace on the other hand, as I said, were dead and buried and yet ended up 7 points ahead.

It's one thing to say 'we have no divine right to finish ahead of Everton and Southampton', another to say 'we have no divine right to finish ahead of Stoke or Swansea' but Palace?

In case of your second paragraph, I would agree to a point. While talk of devine right smacks of the sort of thing Wolves' fans come out with, I personally think in the grand scheme of things that only one of those clubs should be capable of competing with the Villa and that it should be at the business end of the league.

The idea that we're incapable of competing with clubs like Swansea, Palace or Stoke, who put together still wouldn't be half as big as us, is baffling. But I do understand just how difficult a set of circumstances we have been operating under these past few years which has hamstrung us.

[hilts_coolerking]

The idea that we're incapable of competing with clubs like Swansea, Palace or Stoke, who put together still wouldn't be half as big as us is baffling. But I do understand just how difficult a set of circumstances we have been operating under these past few years which has hamstrung us.

I'm not sure that suggestion is being made; certainly not by me.  In fact I agree with you: we are, or should be, well capable of competing with those clubs.  So why aren't we?  We've had injury problems, it's true, but so have Swansea.  Having said that, almost all of our problems have been self-inflicted, the financial ones in particular.

[Ads]

The idea that we're incapable of competing with clubs like Swansea, Palace or Stoke, who put together still wouldn't be half as big as us is baffling. But I do understand just how difficult a set of circumstances we have been operating under these past few years which has hamstrung us.

I'm not sure that suggestion is being made; certainly not by me.  In fact I agree with you: we are, or should be, well capable of competing with those clubs.  So why aren't we?  We've had injury problems, it's true, but so have Swansea.  Having said that, almost all of our problems have been self-inflicted, the financial ones in particular.

I think it is the financial aspect above all others, which as you say, are entirely self inflicted.

[Mister E]

Hilts brought up the point about a couple of games, albeit to show how things could have gone worse than they did and how others (i.e Stoke) out performed us. I am merely pointing out that it cuts both ways and that it also shows that as little as 180 minutes of football would see us claw back on Stoke and that they're not insurmountably in front of us.

The point I was really trying to make was not that Stoke, Palace or Swansea were insurmountably in front of us, simply that they *were* in front of us.  Stoke and Swansea you might argue were a decent chance to finish in front of us anyway (leaving aside how that has come to pass); Palace on the other hand, as I said, were dead and buried and yet ended up 7 points ahead.

It's one thing to say 'we have no divine right to finish ahead of Everton and Southampton', another to say 'we have no divine right to finish ahead of Stoke or Swansea' but Palace?

Which just goes to show how bad last season was, when we accrued 3 points from the 18 available against Stoke, Swansea and Palace.
The issue for next season is simple really: if the clubs around us invest some of their c.£60m Premiership booty sensibly we're in trouble; compounded by the continued uncertainty over ownership.

[Toronto Villa]

The reason to same clubs are at the bottom despite the immense levels of PL money available is that invariably none of them invest the money wisely or sensibly. Any club that figures out the magic formula tied to increased PL money, player purchases and sales and player wages can get out of the rut. We've burnt our money in the past few years. We'll get out of the cycle of misery if the next cheque is spent better and with considerable thought to the future as much as the present.

[pauliewalnuts]

What we need to do is simple. Buy decent players, players better than the ones we already have, in the positions in which we are weakest.

If we fail to do that, we will struggle again. If we fail to do it and the other perennial strugglers do a better job of it than we do, we'll go down.

If the current approach goes on for too much longer, then it is going to end up with us going down at some point.

[Mister E]

What we need to do is simple. Buy decent players, players better than the ones we already have, in the positions in which we are weakest.

If we fail to do that, we will struggle again. If we fail to do it and the other perennial strugglers do a better job of it than we do, we'll go down.

If the current approach goes on for too much longer, then it is going to end up with us going down at some point.

Yeah, the point I was making because we are probably not going to be spending much until the ownership issue is settled.

[pauliewalnuts]

What we need to do is simple. Buy decent players, players better than the ones we already have, in the positions in which we are weakest.

If we fail to do that, we will struggle again. If we fail to do it and the other perennial strugglers do a better job of it than we do, we'll go down.

If the current approach goes on for too much longer, then it is going to end up with us going down at some point.

Yeah, the point I was making because we are probably not going to be spending much until the ownership issue is settled.

That's my concern. It's one thing to put us in financial deep freeze while we are for sale, or being bought, but what happens if it drags on - as it could?

[Villa in Denmark]

What we need to do is simple. Buy decent players, players better than the ones we already have, in the positions in which we are weakest.

If we fail to do that, we will struggle again. If we fail to do it and the other perennial strugglers do a better job of it than we do, we'll go down.

If the current approach goes on for too much longer, then it is going to end up with us going down at some point.

This was from a thread half way through McLeish's season.

Next Season though, with AM at the helm and he'll have his hat-trick.

My main hope against this is we've reached where we want to be wages wise now, so once the likes of Heskey, Ireland and Cuellar go they can be replaced with players who give us more for the wages. 

The only problem here is you can easily end in a viscous downward spiral if the target is a percentage of turnover rather than an absolute number.

As the wage bill comes down, if the standard of football comes down with it, less people turn up spending less money and turnover is down, so the wage bill has to come down even further - repeat until relegated unless you've got a manager who can genuinely get mediocre players to overperform for the majority of the time.

The only part of the equation that we know has changed, is that turnover must be up by virtue of the insane Sky deal.

However, if Randy is using it to try and claw back some of the losses (not the same as taking money out of the club or asset stripping), then the same problem remains, and the question reverts to have we got a manager who can genuinely get mediocre players to overperform for the majority of the time?

[Villafirst]

To cut to the chase, Villa will not progress with RL at the helm - he's held the club back since 2010 - I can't wait to see the back of him - not that we've seen much of him lately anyway.

[Dlp]

To cut to the chase, Villa will not progress with RL at the helm - he's held the club back since 2010 - I can't wait to see the back of him - not that we've seen much of him lately anyway.

Totally agree. The simple equation is: No takeover = Relegation

[Steve67]

To cut to the chase, Villa will not progress with RL at the helm - he's held the club back since 2010 - I can't wait to see the back of him - not that we've seen much of him lately anyway.

Totally agree. The simple equation is: No takeover = Relegation

Surely that depends on the players that we are looking to get in this summer? Better to wait til September 1st to make a more informed forecast?