allani

The thing is that now Emi can do nothing and people will still think that he's got something going on or is about to do something. When doing nothing is enough to rattle people you've got it made.

He's an annoying b******d who knows how to win a free-kick. But he's a very good player with plenty of room to develop into a great player.

He was AEG like though. Never any question that he wasn't going to stick his penalty in the back of the net. Just like you knew that Emi was going to save at least one penalty but probably more.

I think the bigger issue is that he's having to cover the whole of central midfield because whilst Tielemans and McGinn have plenty of positives points, defensively they are pretty bad (or more correctly they're pretty bad when they are defending close to our own box). He looks so much better when Kamara plays because it lifts that burden off him. So he's doing more of the dirty work and less of more eye-catching stuff. The midfield is less balanced and I think that puts more pressure on Luiz. We seriously need another DCM to cover for Kamara and at times to play alongside Kamara and Luiz so that we can absorb more pressure and then hit teams fast on the break.

Great save by their keep to prevent Jhon being the name on everyone's lips this evening. Thought he did pretty well when he came on - seems to be much more aware of what is going on around him. Not sure how he got booked for the Lille player deliberately not going for a header that he was never going to win. Just one of several strange bookings.

Best keeper in the world. No debate.

I'd maybe drop the second part of the question. Not because I am not intrigued by the answer - but because it might mean that the answer to the first part gets "hedged". Asking about the new directors, their skills and previous experience might (or might not) reveal some insight into why they've been brought in. By asking directly why they've been brought in (especially if there are any commercial or contractual implications to starting a rumour about major works in the pipeline) we might just get a more political response.

I think that's the ideal solution - it means we don't lose any revenue by closing stands, we can make better decisions without being constrained by what is already there and we remain in Aston. I'd also like to see us use a lot of bricks as well - so that the beauty / history of (parts of) VP are not completely cast to one side.

No worries. I agree with the above. I just think NSWE are ever so slightly better than the Conservative government and so less likely to be running round in circles making u-turn after u-turn.

As I said in the post that you've part quoted. The question I asked about that exact possibility were - how can we do that in a way that doesn't adversely impact on our revenues? Can we afford to have 1 or 2 stands closed or partially closed for 3 or 4 years (given that it isn't just the NS that needs updating) with reduced attendances? Is there somewhere else that we can play - like Spurs did - whilst we redevelop the existing site? Can we acquire enough land in Aston to build a new stadium whilst still playing at VP?

Did they categorically say that? I thought it was more like "we have no plans to move" (but I could well be completely wrong ). Which is a very different statement. Plenty of clubs categorically state that the position of their manager is not in question before losing, sacking said manager and recruiting a replacement within a period of time that suggests that they'd already decided who they were going to approach.

Are they? Handbrake turns implies that it is all chaotic. It might just be that the owners are reacting to the fact that we've gone from challenging for 14th to 4th in a short period of time. We've been able to recruit one of the best managers, coaching teams and recruitment teams in the PL. And as a result we've seen "the best sponsorship deal" we could hope to attract be trebled AND our shirt manufaturing deal more than quadruple. So rather than making handbrake turns - maybe they've just been able to release the handbrake and make their plans more ambitious.

It wasn't that long ago that the owners said that their priority was winning promotion. Then they said that their priority was staying up. It is possible that 3 years ago they had no plans to move. It is possible that 12 months ago they had no current plans to move. It is also possible that now they are considering their options. In many ways it could also make sense for the owners to deny that they are planning on moving - for example, Villa signalling that they might be looking to build a new stadium would almost certainly impact on the price of property around the city. The recent appointments suggest that they are planning something and whilst that could be redeveloping VP - the big challenge to that is how we do that in a way that doesn't impact on our revenue figures in the short term? I don't think we can spend 2-3 years with one or two stands out of action and hit our FFP targets. I also don't think that there are many options for us to temporarily move to another 40,000 seater within a 45 min journey. Can we buy enough land around Aston to allow us to build a new stadium "on the same site-ish" whilst still using VP for matches in the meantime? Of course it is also possible that almost all the recent appointments coincidentally happen to have experience in big infrastructure projects and that they've been appointed just because they work well with our owners.

I think this is another example of NSWE targetting the best people they can think of to get the job done that they want to be done. It follows the pattern of Emery, Monchi and (I know so won't like this) Heck, etc. I think rather than lessening their impact it is only accentuating it. They're getting in the best they can to do specific jobs - so that they can spend their time plotting the bigger picture rather than worrying about the little / medium stuff. At least that's the impression it gives me. I've always said that you can tell how good a leader is by how good / strong their "deputy" or exec. team is. Good leaders tend to surround themselves with good people. Bad leaders tend to surround themselves with poor / weak people because they don't want to be shown up. It looks like we're building a pretty elite team on and off the pitch.

Aston Martin?