John_Lerwill

I see that a Scottish manager's team from a lower division today played Liverpool as they should be, and, arguably, should have won the match near the end of 90 minutes. Now, that kind of Scottish manager I don't mind!

Yes, Pelle, it's just a speculative chat and has no bearing on the OP. Nobody's excusing Ellis anything, but there were different economic conditions in the 80s as I've already oultined and which would have had a bearing on the matter.

Yes, fair point, Richard, but £500k was about a quarter of the record UK fee at that time. By that standard and in to-day's cash, Cowan's sale would be a minimum of £7.5m ... or even £12.5m.

Well, it's for me a matter of opinion and nothing else. The major supporters of the opinion of Doug being better don't seem to me to be people who have any "crusade" or other cause. If Doug had supplied money I don't think many would be thinking so badly about him. No way do I think his time was a failure ... a disappointment, yes.

Who we sold to Bari for a pitiful £250,000, which even in those days was a steal. He was an England International before and after that deal, it was a criminally low fee. Had to check this as it didn't seem right to me, I remembered a higher (yet still too small) amount I also recalled he went with Paul Rideout . According to This site it was £500,000 that he went for and Paul Rideout went for 400,000. We bought him back 3 years later for 250,000, then sold him to Rovers 3 years after that for 200,000 For such a good player the transfer fees involved throughout his career did not reflect this Well researched, Richard. I was lazy to check on it as I didn't think it too relevant. However, now you've mentioned it, £500,000 in those days was still quite a lot of money - maybe £5m+ in to-day's cash? We'd like to think that Sid was worth a lot more, I know.

Yes. Nobody said that Doug was marvellous, did they?

Whoa, Richard ... :-) I didn't suggest that you did want Doug back. All I said was that you have come to see that the other side of the fence is not necessarily greener. I wouldn't for a minute think you'd want Doug back - and I'd agree with that as I agree with you that Mr. Lerner does not fit our (yours and mine at the every least) expectations.

I agree - but that's not the point. The point is that value is there and in normal times will only rise in value. A good nest egg that be.

That last bit (Ellis' jealousy) may well be true - but the facts of how the EC team was dismantled need to be looked at much more closely. One concern was the players' high wages (for the time) and another was that by 1983 several were getting to be over the hill. To add to that was the tragedy of Gary Shaw's injury and, indeed, Cowans missed a whole season because of a broken leg. So Ellis did not "tear" any team apart. It just happened. What he didn't do was replace like with like (because of lack of funds), though the signing of Steve McMahon and Paul Rideout (both future stars) were not bad moves -others were not so good. Whatever, if Doug had funds to play with things may well have been different. But with attendances having dipped to the 20k mark, times were bad. And that dip was mostly to do with the state of the economy in the West Midlands - even in the EC-winning season, gates were on their way down. The history (the facts) of it all needs to be looked at without being blinkered by the emotion towards Ellis.

You have to listen to Richard, I believe. He wanted Ellis out (just like about everyone) but can now see that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side. In particular people all too often critcise Ellis for the breaking up of the European Cup side, but in fact a lot of that was enforced on him because of the financial state of things at that time and the high wages those players were on. The key matter was that Ellis did not have cash to inject - if he had then all would have been that much better back in the 80s. To those who say that RL has injected a lot into Villa, they would be right ... but a lot of that investment has been into infrastructure, which has increased the real estate value no end. He bought the club for £62m but could doubtless sell it for £250m-£300m (or more) when the time arrives.

Barry'sboots has put these points well and I think they're worth underlining. However, there's not much chance of the last para being effected, and though Randy has the chance to redeem the situation (as stated by Paul) I think there's more chance that matters may get worse by not doing what Barry'sboots suggests.

Conversely - though the middle paras are mostly brilliant - I feel that the opening and last paras are disappointing!! However, the last para - whilst I agree that nostalgia for Ellis would be misplaced (despite the enjoyment in most of the 1989-1998 years) - gives the idea that Randy had to take credit for the fact that Ellis was replaced. He does not deserve credit for that at all, and, further, has shown that the management under his ownership is based on weak ideas. which you have (commendably) gone into. In terms of the future, there has, in fact, been a fair amount of hype about cash being available this summer and mention has been made that a player or two have been earmarked. But the level of expenditure indicated - £2.5m for a Rangers left-back and 5 or 6 mill for another player whose name escapes me - doesn't indicate that there will be a return to a boom time, not that I would advocate a return to buy then sell. Clearly a team needs to be built and you can only do that if there is a real opportunity for the players to stick together and not be lured elsewhere. That way - and given the right manager - Villa might eventually get somewhere. Thus, there is indeed an opportunity to redeem the situation.

Another Browns' fan states (inter alia): "The Browns have been one of American football's worst teams since 2008 (Cleveland has gone 9-23 in regular season play since 2010), and Shurmur and his coaching staff should be fully concentrating on improving the roster via free agency and the upcoming NFL Draft. Villa, meanwhile, are a punchline at this point of the Premier League campaign. I don't see how meeting with an NFL head coach who hardly impressed in his first year on the job is going to change that fact." http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news?slug=ycn-10974568

Well, yes, if you want to be deeply analytical, Denis! ;-) However, Villa's away wins have come more recently and Villa have lost fewer away.

Let's face it, Brian, Villa's away records has not been bad so I am opti about the Wigan match, especially as Robbie will be playing (I think!). It may well be Villa's away form that saves Villa from having to scrap it out.

Very good! Yes, I like that.

On balance, I'd say Ellis ... but only just, from the point of view he appreciated a lot more about football realities - wearing his-pre-PLC hat that is. My vote is for Ellis pre-1997. I think a third "little difference" option might have been good.

I have to admit I overlooked the 1920-21 season (and 1987-88 - Div 2 - actually 7 matches within the season under a different manager), and I suppose you could say they were also accomplished in periods of re-building, but the very fact that every home match now seems to be approached from the point of view of simply trying not to lose rather than trying to win it, it does not give much hope. It's certainly not a faire I expected to be provided under the 'new' ownership.

Well reported, John. But let's not forget the record that we would prefer to forget (!)... 7 successive home matches without a win. Turner - in the season before relegation (1985-86) - also obtained 7 matches at home without a win. McLeish's record is worse in that in this run there have been 5 defeats against Turner's 4. There was also a 7 game run without a win in the 1973-74 (Div 2) days, but that consisted of just 2 defeats.

Agreed John, that's why I said, "a bad thing has been done i.m.o. to inflict AM upon the fans." ;-)

You say that, John, even when we're probably about to go 7 home games without a win? To argue purely about stats is not addressing the real issues if you don't mind me saying. The underlying issue is that this season's performances have been totally unnececssary and are due to the appointment of AM. Though some financial adjustments may have been necessary for the running of the club, a bad thing has been done i.m.o. to inflict AM upon the fans.

And wot about the defence? ... To win you must score more goals than you concede, right?

Let's get the negatives out of the way ... The first thing is that Villa are on the worst-ever run at home ... 4 defeats and 2 draws i.m.o. is now worse than the 5 consecutive defeats of 1963; particularly as the last 2 games have not been against top-draw opposition. The next thing is something I read in one of the blogs is that the writer believed that AM goes into a game with one prime intent, which is not to lose the match. Not to win it, but not to lose it. Now I vented that opinion much earlier in the season, and I am convinced that is true. Admittedly he has not had the midfield talent to rely on till now (with the resurgence of Ireland and Petrov's form), but the attitude *must* stop otherwise the manager will never gain any respect. And he must surely try other defenders instead of the two full-backs being played? Lichaj for example? The big positive is that It seems that Villa should have won the match based on their play in the last 60 minutes, and 15 shots by itself is not a bad stat. Somehow, Villa must use the performance of the last 60 minutes as a basis for future performances, but also they must be going into matches to win - at home, at least. Surely, if they had started the QPR match in the vein that they finished it then they would have won for certainty? My remaining worry is that Keane has (I think) only 4 matches left. Or is it 3?

1965?? So you're still a spring chicken, Denis? :shock: I shan't tell you my first game, though it was in 1950! :winkold: