Next Manager Speculation/Hopes

[Sexual Ealing]

I don't like Sean Dyche. Any success he's had has been built on shockingly bad football and injuring the opposition. And, much worse, he thinks he's a 'character'.

[chrisw1]

How much have we spent during the last 3 windows?

Well I guess it depends if you think actual spend or net spend is what matters. If you're just looking for a stick to beat the owners with then you'll go for the latter and ignore the roughly £160m we've bought in through sales and loans in that time so you can pretend that we've only spent £20m rather than the actually £180m of signings we really made.

Well it's down to whether you are looking at have the managers had money to build a team or have our owners ploughed significant funds into transfers in the last two years?  The anwer to the second is notsomuch on transfer fees if you are looking for a sign on whether their financial support is waning.  Of course wages have gone up significantly but that had to happen if we wanted to be competitive.

The second is a pointless thing to care about though, if the money has been available to make signings that the manager wants and thinks will improve us as a team/squad then does it matter where the funds for that have come from?

It depends what discussion you're having.  If the discussion is are the owners reducing their investment in the team? (losing interest etc or however you wnat t put it) then the evidence of the summer window and the low net spend is clearly relevant.  If we truly had ambitions to be top 4-6 then theoretically we could have done much, much more and still been well with FFP limits.

[paul_e]

How much have we spent during the last 3 windows?

Well I guess it depends if you think actual spend or net spend is what matters. If you're just looking for a stick to beat the owners with then you'll go for the latter and ignore the roughly £160m we've bought in through sales and loans in that time so you can pretend that we've only spent £20m rather than the actually £180m of signings we really made.

Well it's down to whether you are looking at have the managers had money to build a team or have our owners ploughed significant funds into transfers in the last two years?  The anwer to the second is notsomuch on transfer fees if you are looking for a sign on whether their financial support is waning.  Of course wages have gone up significantly but that had to happen if we wanted to be competitive.

The second is a pointless thing to care about though, if the money has been available to make signings that the manager wants and thinks will improve us as a team/squad then does it matter where the funds for that have come from?

It depends what discussion you're having.  If the discussion is are the owners reducing their investment in the team? (losing interest etc or however you wnat t put it) then the evidence of the summer window and the low net spend is clearly relevant.  If we truly had ambitions to be top 4-6 then theoretically we could have done much, much more and still been well with FFP limits.

Nope, because they're still investing a good amount of money into the squad, all that's changed is where exactly that money comes from. From a club and squad perspective that makes absolutely no difference. Would Kamara be a better signing if we'd paid £50m for him because, by your flawed logic, that would show more investment in the squad. Would Coutinho have played better if Chuk hadn't left to pay for him?

Also whilst we could have done more we know that we could have Sarr in the squad right now but Gerrard decided against it so there was clearly more money available. We also have a full squad so, as Purslow is right to have said, we need to move players out to make room for new signings still. That's a big part of the problem when you make 8-10 new signings every season, it very quickly leads to you not having the space in the squad without creating a bomb squad (and all the negatives that come with that).

[PeterWithesShin]

No way can I put up with Dyche until he learns to clear his throat before speaking.

[eamonn]

I don't like Sean Dyche. Any success he's had has been built on shockingly bad football and injuring the opposition. And, much worse, he thinks he's a 'character'.

Was he more of a Roll With It Man than He Thought Of Cars?

[Sexual Ealing]

I don't like Sean Dyche. Any success he's had has been built on shockingly bad football and injuring the opposition. And, much worse, he thinks he's a 'character'.

Was he more of a Roll With It Man than He Thought Of Cars?

Without doubt.

[Jon Crofts]

Dyche would be a massive statement. A statement that say's to the world Aston Villa have given up.

[DB]

Dyche is going to Wolves I reckon.
No way we would be looking at the ginger bouncer.

[PaulTheVillan]

Dyche would fit well at Villa.

He doesn’t need a midfield for his style of play, and we don’t have one. Perfect fit.

[chrisw1]

How much have we spent during the last 3 windows?

Well I guess it depends if you think actual spend or net spend is what matters. If you're just looking for a stick to beat the owners with then you'll go for the latter and ignore the roughly £160m we've bought in through sales and loans in that time so you can pretend that we've only spent £20m rather than the actually £180m of signings we really made.

Well it's down to whether you are looking at have the managers had money to build a team or have our owners ploughed significant funds into transfers in the last two years?  The anwer to the second is notsomuch on transfer fees if you are looking for a sign on whether their financial support is waning.  Of course wages have gone up significantly but that had to happen if we wanted to be competitive.

The second is a pointless thing to care about though, if the money has been available to make signings that the manager wants and thinks will improve us as a team/squad then does it matter where the funds for that have come from?

It depends what discussion you're having.  If the discussion is are the owners reducing their investment in the team? (losing interest etc or however you wnat t put it) then the evidence of the summer window and the low net spend is clearly relevant.  If we truly had ambitions to be top 4-6 then theoretically we could have done much, much more and still been well with FFP limits.

Nope, because they're still investing a good amount of money into the squad, all that's changed is where exactly that money comes from. From a club and squad perspective that makes absolutely no difference. Would Kamara be a better signing if we'd paid £50m for him because, by your flawed logic, that would show more investment in the squad. Would Coutinho have played better if Chuk hadn't left to pay for him?

Also whilst we could have done more we know that we could have Sarr in the squad right now but Gerrard decided against it so there was clearly more money available. We also have a full squad so, as Purslow is right to have said, we need to move players out to make room for new signings still. That's a big part of the problem when you make 8-10 new signings every season, it very quickly leads to you not having the space in the squad without creating a bomb squad (and all the negatives that come with that).

We could, for example, gone and signed Scamacca or Isak (or Bissouma in Jan) etc and still had a pretty modest net spend over 2-3 seasons.  It's not about 8-10 signings, it's about quiality to improve the first 11.  Either Lange isn't doing his job or the owners have reined it it.  Which it it?

[Drummond]

Maybe we're identifying the right players and then being quoted stupid prices which we're rightly not paying?

As an example we got Kamara ahead of others. I'm sure his wages etc are nothing to be sniffed at. We were also after Sarr and had everything agreed, until the manager allegedly pulled the plug. Then there's the outlay on salaries for Buendia, Bailey, Coutinho, Ings and Digne which will not be insignificant.

We don't have a great income stream with no European football, and low commercial revenues. FFP plays a part.

It's easy to tell the club to go out and buy all the best players and money is no object, but it shouldn't work that way.

[Scott Nielsen]

It's easy to tell the club to go out and buy all the best players and money is no object, but it shouldn't work that way.

If we are to compete at "the very top" that is how it works. I think our owners have settled rather than lost interest. They now understand the level of investment it'd take to make Villa a CL-contender and have decided that is not for them. Thus the club now needing to be self-sustainable, get some additional revenue from an expanded stadium to help with that and plod along mid-table (hopefully), over time generating some ROI until they sell for good money sometime in the future.

[paul_e]

We could, for example, gone and signed Scamacca or Isak (or Bissouma in Jan) etc and still had a pretty modest net spend over 2-3 seasons.  It's not about 8-10 signings, it's about quiality to improve the first 11.  Either Lange isn't doing his job or the owners have reined it it.  Which it it?

Did we want Scamacca or Isak? Did Gerrard even think he needed a forward (the evidence suggests not)?

We wanted Bissouma, and bid for him, but he held out and went to a club that's playing in Europe, unless the owners start throwing stupid wages and signing fees at players to try to bribe them into joining us there's not much they can do about that.

You've completely misunderstood my 8-10 signings point, what I was saying is that because we've been making 8-10 signings a season we've hit a point where the squad is full, we have too many senior players on our books right now (27 I think) and next summer that gets worse as Ramsey and Archer (I think) will need to be registered. We can't just throw money at signing, for example, a new striker without recognising that we need to move on one of our current strikers to make space.

As for the last bit, right now you're arguing that:
Many of our players are shit
Our signings are shit
Our owners have given up
Our manager is shit

At most 1-2 of those are likely to be true and the others are a consequence of them.

For example, if Gerrard is shit and has done nothing to improve our players or get them working like a team then, as a consequence, our players will look shit and our signings will look shit and, as a further consequence of all of that, it will look like the solution is that we need to spend a lot more money and the owners are at fault for not doing so.

[frank black]

Ashley Young, player manager. Go on Villa roll the dice, but please not Dyche.

[chrisw1]

We could, for example, gone and signed Scamacca or Isak (or Bissouma in Jan) etc and still had a pretty modest net spend over 2-3 seasons.  It's not about 8-10 signings, it's about quiality to improve the first 11.  Either Lange isn't doing his job or the owners have reined it it.  Which it it?

Did we want Scamacca or Isak? Did Gerrard even think he needed a forward (the evidence suggests not)?

We wanted Bissouma, and bid for him, but he held out and went to a club that's playing in Europe, unless the owners start throwing stupid wages and signing fees at players to try to bribe them into joining us there's not much they can do about that.

You've completely misunderstood my 8-10 signings point, what I was saying is that because we've been making 8-10 signings a season we've hit a point where the squad is full, we have too many senior players on our books right now (27 I think) and next summer that gets worse as Ramsey and Archer (I think) will need to be registered. We can't just throw money at signing, for example, a new striker without recognising that we need to move on one of our current strikers to make space.

As for the last bit, right now you're arguing that:
Many of our players are shit
Our signings are shit
Our owners have given up
Our manager is shit

At most 1-2 of those are likely to be true and the others are a consequence of them.

For example, if Gerrard is shit and has done nothing to improve our players or get them working like a team then, as a consequence, our players will look shit and our signings will look shit and, as a further consequence of all of that, it will look like the solution is that we need to spend a lot more money and the owners are at fault for not doing so.

I wasn't arguing our owners have given up - I was pointing out why net spend was relevant to the discussion being had.  I don't think they've given up, but they do appear to be reining it in which is a shame just as Newcastle are making their move.

I'm arguing that I think Watkins has been pretty shit last season and this.

And as for the other two points on our signings and manager, well quite.  They speak for themselves.