Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[mike]

I'm actually thankful that SB didn't just bugger off - given the financial meltdown & threat of administration that has afflicted the club after the PO Final failure.

Yep. If he is pushed today, i'll always be grateful for his efforts and the way he's conducted himself in his time here. He's actually done pretty well for us on balance, although i'm not completely dismissing some of the arguments against him.

You could argue that he's been the fourth best in my 30 years as a fan after SGT, Big Ron and Little. Either way, i like him as much as any of those and far more than any of the others we've had.

I'd put John Gregory ahead of him.

[olaftab]

HAS HE GONE?

[darren woolley]

If Henry does become our new manager I think it's been done badly by the new owners to talk about getting in a new manager while we still have a manager it could have been handled better but I love Aston Villa and whoever is the manager I will back 100%.

[DB]

I'm actually thankful that SB didn't just bugger off - given the financial meltdown & threat of administration that has afflicted the club after the PO Final failure.

Yep. If he is pushed today, i'll always be grateful for his efforts and the way he's conducted himself in his time here. He's actually done pretty well for us on balance, although i'm not completely dismissing some of the arguments against him.

You could argue that he's been the fourth best in my 30 years as a fan after SGT, Big Ron and Little. Either way, i like him as much as any of those and far more than any of the others we've had.

Well said. He’s had a rough year too.

[puppyfeat]

Whatever happens - and it's looking almost certain it'll be Henry now - this doesn't reflect well on Sawiris and Edens from the get-go. If they wanted to bring in someone like (as suggested by someone above) Benitez, then I doubt that anyone other than Steve Bruce would complain about that.

But Thierry Henry? Not only has he got zero personal experience of managing at any level, never mind the Championship, but he's got absolutely no connection with nor affinity for the club. Of course that doesn't have to be a criteria for choosing a manager if it's someone with a proven track record, but Henry doesn't and it's obvious he sees Villa just as a good starting point for his management career which he'll hope will lead to him managing his beloved Arsenal or some Champs League-level club in a few years time.

At least Bruce really wanted to manage Villa because he saw the club as a desirable prospect in its own right, as a destination that he'd been working towards, rather than as a stepping-stone to somewhere else. I'm no big fan of the football we've played under him, but I do believe he's been totally committed to the job and would have been as gutted as all of us that he didn't get us promoted. So I think that sacking him now would be - and would look - pretty shabby.

There may be some advantages to bringing in Henry, mainly that he might (simply by being who he is) make a difference for attracting some players to the club we might not otherwise get, and might also help us keep one or two as well. And hopefully the football might turn out to be more adventurous and attractive. But the Thierry stardust won't last long if he turns out to be no good at the job.

It's a massive gamble and, given our recent history and current situation, one we can't really afford to lose.

[Walmley_Villa]

A key factor to Henry being a success is his backroom team. Bould only mentioned so far. No mention of Henry in today's BBC gossip suggests there are no legs to the story imo.

[frankmosswasmyuncle]

My opinion ,this loyalty shown by Bruce if anyone thinks Bruce stayed around to stabilise the club, give your head a wobble, one he is only just back from his holiday and two he was not gonna walk away without a payoff, which he knew until last week we could not afford. Bruce is a football manager, not a saviour of clubs or a supporter, he goes to work like the rest of us for the money.

Agreed.
And he came here to do a specific job, used generous resources to try to achieve that - he built a squad to get out of the Championship, not to build on beyond that, had the full support of board and supporters and over a season and a half who mostly believed his vast experience at this level would get us into the PL...and it didn't!
Time for change - he should have gone straight after the PO final.
Henry - if this is in any way true - is not necessarily the answer. I would prefer a much more well-considered, carefully managed appointment of someone with tactical nous and intelligence. And I appreciate there ain't many of them around!

[Smoke]

if this happens, when was the last time we changed manager straight away? i.e. had a new manager lined up before sacking the current guy?

Isn't this the way big clubs operate these days? You don't hear Man City/Chelsea/Man Utd talking about interview processes, Current League experience etc.

[auntiesledd]

My opinion ,this loyalty shown by Bruce if anyone thinks Bruce stayed around to stabilise the club, give your head a wobble, one he is only just back from his holiday and two he was not gonna walk away without a payoff, which he knew until last week we could not afford. Bruce is a football manager, not a saviour of clubs or a supporter, he goes to work like the rest of us for the money.

You could be right about SB's motives for hanging about. That said, I personally think that his early offski would have created additional chaos with the players and coaching staff. It's just my opinion - and you have a different one. Fair enough, but suggesting those who don't agree with you should 'give your head a wobble' belongs in the schoolyard. 'Just saying.

[footyskillz]

Still absolutely nothing to suggest that Henry is replacing Bruce other than Dave woods exclusives daily star article.

No other paper or website has any info or inside knowledge but can only say there is  a known meeting of Bruce having talks with the owners .

 What it shows no one knows anything and Daily star picked up idea of Henry being a manager and villa have new investors  invented a romantic story.

Only reinforces my view it's invented rumour and conjecture for me

[mike]

My opinion ,this loyalty shown by Bruce if anyone thinks Bruce stayed around to stabilise the club, give your head a wobble, one he is only just back from his holiday and two he was not gonna walk away without a payoff, which he knew until last week we could not afford. Bruce is a football manager, not a saviour of clubs or a supporter, he goes to work like the rest of us for the money.

You could be right about SB's motives for hanging about. That said, I personally think that his early offski would have created additional chaos with the players and coaching staff. It's just my opinion - and you have a different one. Fair enough, but suggesting those who don't agree with you should 'give your head a wobble' belongs in the schoolyard. 'Just saying.

When I'm on here, I often hear myself saying to my children 'do you think you could have said that more nicely?'

[Brassneck]

Still absolutely nothing to suggest that Henry is replacing Bruce other than Dave woods exclusives daily star article.

No other paper or website has any info or inside knowledge but can only say there is  a known meeting of Bruce having talks with the owners .

 What it shows no one knows anything and Daily star picked up idea of Henry being a manager and villa have new investors  invented a romantic story.

Only reinforces my view it's invented rumour and conjecture for me

Henry has been continually mentioned for more than a week now.  The first time I saw something was in French on Twitter,  about 10 days ago.  The Mirror have also run stories about Henry joining.

If (when) Henry takes over, hindsight would suggest that someone did indeed know something.  He would have been way too much of an outsider to be linked by guesswork.

[Boz]

But Thierry Henry? Not only has he got zero personal experience of managing at any level, never mind the Championship, but he's got absolutely no connection with nor affinity for the club. Of course that doesn't have to be a criteria for choosing a manager if it's someone with a proven track record, but Henry doesn't and it's obvious he sees Villa just as a good starting point for his management career which he'll hope will lead to him managing his beloved Arsenal or some Champs League-level club in a few years time.

There may be some advantages to bringing in Henry, mainly that he might (simply by being who he is) make a difference for attracting some players to the club we might not otherwise get, and might also help us keep one or two as well. And hopefully the football might turn out to be more adventurous and attractive. But the Thierry stardust won't last long if he turns out to be no good at the job.

The points you make are an opinion, but Derby didn't shy away from Lampard, also with no management experience.

Henry's a risk of course, but if these guys are truly business people with financial clout behind them, IMO, it's time for a risk, whether Henry is the right risk is another matter, but Villa can't go into another season with the Bruce style of play and management.

It's time for thanks Steve, you tried and failed, goodbye.

[villabear]

As someone said on the radio this morning if it is Henry "this is so Aston Villa of the last five years"

Personally I think I'd keep Bruce for now at least because replacing a manager whoever it is ten days before the start of the season is madness.

[mr underhill]

we can go into a third Bruce season - but the end result will be the same.