Faust

Nothing new there. Miaow! Since Carew, Young and Maloney arrived, I think we've started to look a lot better. Certainly, in spells, we've really put teams under pressure - unfortunately, a lot of possession and neat approach play hasn't translated into goals. I think we'll "click" at some point, though. Across the course of the season, we certainly don't have much to crow about. No-one's received a stuffing from us. West Ham should have. Bolton and Newcastle could have. But it hasn't happened and no-one's going to dispute that: you just need to look at the scorelines. But, I don't think we disagree on this. What we do seem to disagree about is the defensive frailties of last year's team: would you care to explain why you think it's nonsense to suggest that the manager who led us to our worst defensive record in ten years would also have been in charge of a capitulation last night?

thats opinion and not fact, and its also not accurate. When he had an injury free team to pick from the corresponding fixture last season we won 4-0. What's that? My suggestion that we would have caved in and lost 3-0 had O'Leary been in charge last night is not fact? Thanks for pointing that out, mate. You made it sound like it was. As if your word was the only word out there, whatever newspaper you claim to represent. How could my claim about a completely hypothetical situation be anything other than an opinion? Still - if it'll make life easier, I'll add an "IMHO" to any statements of opinion from now on. I think that's a bit of a waste of time, IMHO, and IMHO it shouldn't be necessary, but it's important to try and keep the peace when discussing things online IMHO.

last season we did seem to roll over and die at times and it was very rare that DOL would make tactical changes at half time to have a positive impact so i don't think it's crazy to suggest we would have lost by a few goals last night. You're right - it's not crazy in the slightest. We conceded 55 goals last season. Did you know that's the worst defensive record we'd had since the 94-95 season?

thats opinion and not fact, and its also not accurate. When he had an injury free team to pick from the corresponding fixture last season we won 4-0. What's that? My suggestion that we would have caved in and lost 3-0 had O'Leary been in charge last night is not fact? Thanks for pointing that out, mate.

What absolute rubbish. Really? The way I remember it, apart from in the derby games (where we picked up 10 of our 35 points) we had very little fight at all and looked completely incapable of turning a game round after going behind. There were TEN games last season when we shipped three or more goals - two of those games, unforgivably, were against Wycombe and Doncaster. This season, there have been six games when we've conceded three. More importantly, we've come from behind to win or rescue a point against Reading, Chelsea, Tottenham, Boro, Portsmouth, and Everton - and we threatened to do the same against Reading away and Newcastle away also. With the possible exception of the games against Man City and Liverpool, I haven't seen us just roll over against anyone - we've given everyone some kind of a challenge. But we all see things differently.

Had DOL been in charge, we would have lost 3-0 and Barry wouldn't have been on the pitch. Again - as in the games against Newcastle and Reading - we came back into the game well, pinned the opposition back, created chances and actually kept the ball for sustained periods. Ok - so we didn't convert enough of those chances, but we are playing some good, dominant football at times. We're definitely playing better than we were last season and if Carew, Young and Maloney had all been in the side from the start of the season, I think we'd be further up the table than we are now.

Klose has said that there are only four teams he'd consider signing for - and I don't think I'm being negative if I say that Villa probably isn't one of them.

That's odd, because I distinctly remember reading something else in the lead post. What was it now? Ah yes: The other posts on this thread have done an excellent job of listing the myriad reasons why most Villa fans are willing to give O'Neill time, so I don't want to waste time re-iterating all of them. The critical point, for me, is that we have already improved since O'Neill freshened up our attack in Jan. You ask where we would be if we hadn't beaten West Ham and Watford. You might equally ask where we would be if Carew's goal hadn't been disallowed against Newcastle and if we'd had a bit more luck in front of goal that game - a draw was the least our relentless attacking deserved. Where would we be if one of Young's chances against Reading had been put away? Where would we be if the scoreline against Arsenal had been a fairer reflection of our involvement in the game? That's three defeats - since Jan - which could easily have been draws or (bizarre as it may seem in the face of the Newcastle scoreline) wins. You're writing as though we're being consistently played off the park. We're not. Since the Jan window, we've been playing some very decent football in spells - much better than last season. Sooner or later, results will start to go our way - and if it doesn't happen immediately, I'm confident that the addition of a few more players during the summer will make the difference. In the meantime, I'd prescribe a cup of camomile tea.

I think I can help here. A walk-through of a typical transfer goes something like this: Nov/Dec: Manager of Team A draws up list of possible targets, by position and order of preference, identifying first-, second-, and third-choice options. Early calls are put in to players' agents to see if they might consider moving on. Every agent replies with a "Yes" in an attempt to maximise bidding for their clients and their own commission. Jan 1: Manager of Team A calls manager of Team B, to enquire about availability of player X. Manager of team B asks what kind of offer team A thinks would be fair. Manager of team A says "We were thinking of something in the region of £5m". Manager of team B scoffs at figure and says "Nothing doing." Jan 2: Manager of team B, worried that team A are going to make another bid for player X, decides he needs to have a contingency plan in place and calls team C to enquire about availability of player Y. Manager of team C asks what kind of offer team B thinks would be fair. Manager of team B says "We were thinking of something in the region of £3m". Manager of team C says "Add three million and we might be able to do something." Jan 3: Manager of team C, rubbing hands with glee at possibility of offloading dodgy left-back for bumper fee, calls manager of team D to register firm interest in striker Z. "We have £6m coming in from sale of player Y and we want to spend it all on Z". Manager of team D says that Z is only available for a minimum of £7.5m. Manager of team C says "You're having a laugh." Manager of team D says, "That's my final word on the matter." Call ends abruptly, with manager of team C in foul mood. Jan 4: Manager of team A calls agent of player X and explains that team A is willing to pay up to £6m for X, but will go no further, and asks whether he can persuade X to file a transfer request with manager of team B. Agent of player X says he'll have a go. - but only if wages for player X are doubled from present level of £25k/week. Manager of team A swallows false teeth in shock. Jan 5: Manager of team C calls manager of team B to ask whether he is going to firm up interest in player Y at £7.5m. Manager of team B says "Hang on a minute - you said we could have him for £6m." Manager of team C lies and says that player Y is subject of bidding war involving two unnamed clubs. Manager of team B says £5m is as high as they will go. Jan 6: Having received assurances of a 50% pay increase from team A, player X goes to manager of team B, hands in transfer request and says he understands that team A is interested in buying him. Manager of team B - accepting that player X is almost certain to leave - immediately gets on phone to manager of team C and reiterates interest in player Y: "We'll go up to £6m," he says. Jan 7: Manager of team C faxes firm offer of £6m for striker Z to manager of team D. Manager of team D receives fax, says "I told that joker we'd do business at £7.5m and no lower." Fax is screwed into a ball and lobbed at bin on other side of room. "If this goes in," thinks manager of team D to himself, "we're going to win the FA Cup." Fax bounces off rim and falls to floor. "Best of three," says manager of team D. Jan 8: Agent of player X calls manager of team A to say that X has handed in transfer request and that manager of team B is ready to listen to offers. Manager of team B faxes firm offer of £6.5m for player Y to manager of team C. Manager of team C calls manager of team D to say that he is ready to pay £6.5m for striker Z. Manager of team D relents, having heard that foreign team E is looking to off-load striker 1 for similar sum. "Put it in writing and you have a deal," he tells manager of team C. Jan 9: Manager of team C calls manager of team B to say that he'll accept the £6.5m for player Y. Manager of team B calls manager of team A to say that he'll accept the £6.5m for player X. Manager of team A says he has just signed washed-up international 2 instead and deals for players X, Y and Z all collapse instantly. Jan 10: Repeat above steps until sick. And that's how a transfer works.

So, you wouldn't agree, then, that our current squad should be good enough for a tilt at Europe and the addition of "a few" players during this window and the summer would be enough to be in the European places "all season, without much trouble"? Because I could swear that's what you said on the "MON targets Europe" thread.

Klose said last week that he would only move in the summer and that, when he does move, there are only four or five clubs he'd consider going to. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that we're not one of the ones he has in mind.

In the universe of possible investments, there are more profitable things to do with £100m than buy a football club - but there may not be many better bets if you narrow that universe down to the world of sport. I don't see Lerner as a hard-nosed investor nor as someone who is doing this for fun. I think he wants to make money but also wants to do it by buying an under-achieving team or club and making it both far more successful and far more valuable. That way he gets to enjoy himself, bring a lot of pleasure to a lot of people, and also make a healthy return. There's great potential to do all of that at Villa - and Lerner seems to have all the tools necessary to achieve it. But I still think he'll be looking to sell the club five or ten years from now and realise a big profit. I also don't think that, while he's here, he'll be planning on sinking much of his own money into it. I reckon he might have set aside the £100m I mentioned earlier to cover the purchase of the club, as well as near-term investment on the squad and the club's infrastructure. From next season onwards, we'll have new Sky money flowing in, a portfolio of long-term sponsorship deals, better gates, marketing and merchandise revenues - and I think that's where our transfer funds will be coming from thereafter.

exactly why do some find it impossible to understand that it doesn't matter if MON has found players he wants and Randy has agreed to back him that unless clubs are prepared to sell their players (most clubs don't sell their best players in january) then their is nothing they can do. That's not entirely true. I think, in that situation, a truly forward-thinking club chairman might sanction kidnap as an option. You can see how it might work: after getting the brush-off from Boothroyd, O'Neill and Krulak wait in the bushes outside Watford's training ground at dusk, carrying a sack and a cosh. Lerner has the motor running in an unmarked Transit. Young comes strolling out, whistling ... there's a swift struggle ... the cosh rises and falls once, twice ... Young is bundled into the van and the next day is photographed smiling woozily on the pitch at VP wearing his Villa shirt and a couple of bumps on his head. It's the way all transfers will be done in the future.

Good point. Perhaps a "Jan transfer window bickering" thread would be a smart move!

To keep the analogy going, do you know at this stage what other presents you're going to get?

Why? The only thing he has succeded to do so far, is bringing the excitement and expectations up by talking. Along with his brilliant action of a Man Utd youngster on loan, who's only experience is reserve footy. If you cant do the walk, dont do the talk. Very simple. But we don't know yet what O'Neill will or will not be able to achieve. If he kept his mouth shut all the way through the transfer window, I think it would be disastrous PR. Fans are hungry to know who we're looking at and what chance we have of getting them - and in the absence of that information, they want to know what our ambitions are. You have taken the Bardsley loan signing as evidence that O'Neill's ambitions do not match ours - his comments about bringing in five Petrov-esque players were intended to assuage those fears. Rather than taking them at face value, you just slate him for not being able to deliver. Even a kid at Christmas would have sense enough to actually open all his presents before he complained about not getting the ones he wanted. You don't even seem able to do that!

Hang on - weren't you one of those who was complaining earlier in the window that O'Neill hadn't been positive enough in his public comments? Now you think he shouldn't say anything about his ambitions unless we've actually met them? What are you talking about? Anything ive said seem unreasonable, please link it and il explain in more then one language! On page 16 of the "Strong rumour: Bardsley" thread, you were complaining about the deal and said "Wonder if this is a hint of our ambition." Now, when O'Neill comes out and reassures the fans that he shares our ambitions and is ideally looking to bring in a number of quality signings as well, you complain that it's "silly" of him to do so. Doesn't that seem a little petulant?

Put it in context with the other comments O'Neill has made about the window over the last few weeks, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. He was just talking about his ambitions and hopes. He also warned us that those ambitions might not be realised.

If you boil down O'Neill's comments about this transfer window, you get something like this: - He wants to add players to the squad - He wants those players to be quality additions - Ideally, he'd like to add five or six players - Lerner is keen to back him - Other clubs might not want to sell their best players - We might not get the ones we want I honestly don't see anything to gripe about in any of that. The time for griping will be at the end of the window, when we can look at what's been achieved.

Hang on - weren't you one of those who was complaining earlier in the window that O'Neill hadn't been positive enough in his public comments? Now you think he shouldn't say anything about his ambitions unless we've actually met them?

That's right. I don't recall the exact words, but it was something along the lines of: "Ideally, I'd like to bring in five or six players of the same quality as Petrov". Yes. If it was easy for a manager to bring in the players that he wants during the first 11 days of a window, everyone would be doing that, wouldn't they? Look at Newcastle as an example - they're desperate for new defenders and have been linked to Davies, Distin, Upson, Bale and even our very own Aaron Hughes. But who have they signed? I could understand your frustration if other clubs were making big signings left, right and centre ... but they're not.

If we're going to trust MON's public statements, then presumably that includes his comments about how difficult it could be to sign the players we want in January?

Maybe to Abramovich but not to Randy. Exactly. Lerner may be a billionaire, but does anyone believe he's generously earmarked all of that money to help out the Villa? I've always assumed that, in the long-term, he'll be expecting Villa's spending to be financed by the club's own revenues. In the short term he might be willing to put in £20-40m of his own money, and if that's the kind of budget we have, I can quite imagine that neither O'Neill nor Lerner would want to be paying £2m over the odds on every player we buy.

Right - but how likely is it that Villa could turn profits of £20m year in and year out? I was using that figure to illustrate how difficult it would be to earn back a £200m investment. Only Man Utd consistently earn big double-digit profits. I think Liverpool posted profit of £7m last year.

Randy Lerner has millions to spend. It shouldn't be automatically assumed that Villa have millions to spend. I'd be very suprised if we spent more than £40 million from january till the start of the next season. Randy hasn't got money that expandable, with a fortune of around 800 million, minus the club purchase it soon starts eating away. I'd say Randy has set asside an initial £100 to £200 million to spend on the club to get it turned around (including the purchase) You think Lerner would be happy to see a quarter of his personal fortune spent on Villa? If he's envisaging that amount of initial outlay, how long would it be before he could expect to see a return on his investment? Even if we post profits of £20m a season for ten seasons, with all of that cash flowing into Lerner's account, he'd still only be breaking even. He'd get a better return on investment by leaving the money in a current account! My assumption has always been that, after this coming window, our new management will be hoping to fund everything else from some hefty long-term sponsorship deals, increased TV money, higher league finishes and higher gates. At the time of the merger, I guessed that Lerner might be willing to spend a further £30 million of his own money to get the ball rolling - I still think that figure will prove about right. One thing you aren't taking into account in this summation is the club value. If he gets us to a position where we are posting profits of £20 million + then I think the club would be valued in the hundreds of millions which would ensure he sees a return on his investment. Only if he sells. I'd agree that the simplest way to earn a decent return on the £70 million-or-so that Randy has spent so far would be to turn the club into one with a higher valuation. But the poster I was replying to had suggested that Lerner might pump in up to £200m of his own money - and that just seems way out to me. In order to recoup that outlay, Villa would either have to be raking in huge profit on a consistent basis or Lerner would need to turn us into a club that was worth, say £300m. I don't see either of those things happening, frankly - at least, not within the kind of time-frame that would make it a good investment.