philthevillan

Anyone with a background in marketing will know this statement is completely wrong. Also why would companies like Nike be putting their names on kits in the first place if the average man/woman/child on the street isn't bothered? Why are Nike the brand leader if no-one is that bothered about who makes their sportswear? Note the number of people on this thread discussing and complaining about what company is going to make Villa's kit. Just because you aren't bothered about it doesn't mean that others aren't either. As for me I think this is the sort of brand we are stuck with until things improve on the pitch. No point having a go at our kit manufacturer, it's the people that run the club that are to blame for pretty much everything. I long for the days of Villa challenging the top four in a decent Nike kit which has Acorns plastered on the front!

What? No they don't? You could put the Arsenal team in **** Primark gear and they'd still play nice football. Relegated because the kit manufacturer doesn't appeal to your fashion sensibilites? What a load of old bollocks. I never said that, please re-read before swearing. I think you probably did........ I think I definitely didn't. I never at any point said the kit we wear has any impact whatsoever on the way we play. I was pointing out that we are now attracting lesser well known brands because our football and potential to do well is on the decline. Arsenal can attract a lot better than Primark because they play good football. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave in the post above. You have confused me now, are you claiming some sort of victory?

What? No they don't? You could put the Arsenal team in **** Primark gear and they'd still play nice football. Relegated because the kit manufacturer doesn't appeal to your fashion sensibilites? What a load of old bollocks. I never said that, please re-read before swearing. I think you probably did........ I think I definitely didn't. I never at any point said the kit we wear has any impact whatsoever on the way we play. I was pointing out that we are now attracting lesser well known brands because our football and potential to do well is on the decline. Arsenal can attract a lot better than Primark because they play good football.

What? No they don't? You could put the Arsenal team in **** Primark gear and they'd still play nice football. Relegated because the kit manufacturer doesn't appeal to your fashion sensibilites? What a load of old bollocks. I never said that, please re-read before swearing.

My personal opinion, which I hope is read by someone important at the club, is that whatever Macron come up with will look awful. Big brands are a huge part of football and, along with a Malaysian casino, we will have a cheap lower league brand as our manufacturer. Casino, cheap Italian brand - that is what our club can attract right now. These deals show that Villa are well and truly on the way down into a long spell of mid to lower table mediocrity, possibly even a shock relegation before too long. Gone are the relative good days; welcome to a time of spending tonnes of money on crap kits and crap football. I am bored already. Faulkner out.

Houllier could have signed Cabaye for £4m. The board vetoed it.

In tems of quality and not looking like a leisure centre supervisor the best kits I have owned as a Villa fan were made by Umbro and Nike. I had the Diadora and Hummel kits of the noughties and to be honest they were all horrid. Brands like those and Macron just try to imitate the brand leaders such as Nike, Adidas, Umbro. You will pay over the odds for an unfashionable, cheaply made kit and I bet that it won't cost any less than you currently pay. Those who think it doesn't matter whether it's Macron or Nike are probably the sorts that will choose a Donnay tracksuit over a Nike one because it's cheaper! A big revenue for clubs is merchandise and I am confident the club has seen a big increase in this since switching from Hummel to Nike. Lets be honest the kids these days want the top brands, I bet some even choose football clubs based on it. I don't see the point in switching to a less popular brand unless you have no other choice or they are offering a ridiculous amount of money. Changing to Macron would be another, admittedly much less significant, step back by this, until recently, progressive and big club.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15999771.stm Frankly it is very believable given what happened and knowing what our board are like given some of the terrible decisions they have made in past 18 months. Oh ok then, must be true. If it's come from Pat Murphy it is very unbelievable. He is paid to get listeners and for people to call in. Right this is the last time I post about Murphy as it is going off topic. He is not paid to get listeners and not paid for people to call in. He is a paid to report on cricket and West Midlands football, sourcing credible stories that can be stood up. The BBC is a public body that has to remain impartial when covering any story, therefore they are not allowed to make things up. There are no conspiracy theories, no agendas. Fact. I would guess his information on Parker came from a source close to MON or the man himself. Choose for yourselves whether you believe it to be true or not but personally I think it makes a lot of sense and it's interesting that no-one has ever accepted the responsibility for signing Ireland after O'Neill had left. Now which people would be likely not to comment on this?

Your basis for this beng? Synicism?

It's amazing really. An on topic posting is made with a hitherto (as far as I know) unoffered theory about Paul Faulkner, with a suggestion that he might just know what he is doing, and it is taken as a reason to stand up for O'Neill and knock McLeish and Houllier. :shock: I think that there are separate threads to comment on how wonderful O'Neill was/is, and how bad McLeish is, which is why I thought it appropriate to stay on topic. A big accusation or 'theory' that is off topic if you are claiming that you are only talking about Faulkner. I defended O'Neill to make the point, that is included in my response, that I believe your opinion of Faulkner is wrong and that he has not been that 'sensible'!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15999771.stm Frankly it is very believable given what happened and knowing what our board are like given some of the terrible decisions they have made in past 18 months. Oh ok then, must be true. If it's come from Pat Murphy it is very believable. He is not paid to sell stories, just to report facts. There is a difference.

O'Neill allegedly wanted Scott Parker for £6m, the club wouldn't let him, so he fell out with them and left. Then the 'sensible' new the chief exec approves the signing of Stephen Ireland for £2m more and he ends up being farmed out to Newcastle. Then our new 'sensible' chief exec follows it up with the £24m purchase of Bent, twice as much money on a single player than O'Neill ever spent. With regards to Lerner's backing of O'Neill, yes he backed him and he got a return. We finished 6th for 3 seasons, reached a League Cup final and FA Cup semi in the final season of his tenure. It wasn't perfect but it was the best spell we'd had for a decade. Sixth is no mean feat, the reality is that Villa had a lot of catching up to do and Lerner couldn't/wouldn't quite compete with the big boys.

This is the bit that I am not sure is so true. I have seen people on here go on an on about Faulkner, normally coupled with some pretty derogatory remarks. I have also seen people go on about how we need someone like Daniel Levy. Levy is a decent bloke, but he is Joe Lewis's man just like Paul Faulkner is Mr Lerner's man. If Randy Lerner is a crap businessman who lets things run away with themselves, and the free rein handed to O'Neill lends weight to that theory, then he made a good decision in hiring a hands on Chief Exec in Faulkner. Looking at the timing it appears that Faulkner realised that the club was being run in a kamikaze fashion, which is when the ultimately unsuccessful reining in of O'Neill started. History will never record it, but Faulkner may just be the man who saved Aston Villa from a much more serious fate. As regards Mr Lerner, he has backed his managers in the transfer market, all 3 of them. That is normally what a football supporter requires of their Chairman/Owner before anything else. Despite all of that backing, none of two previous managers have given him anything like the return that he probably deserves, and as everyone keeps bleating on, the current one probably won't either. I mention this regularly; the manager is not responsible for running the financial side of the club, that is the job of the owner, directors and chief executive. O'Neill was given a budget and used it. He also got Villa competing in the top six and the following appointments, by Faulkner, have arguably been disastrous. Villa were not in such a precarious position that they could have gone into financial meltdown, it's just that the people running the club decided they could no longer afford to bankroll it, although they did find £24m for a panic buy when they realised we were heading for relegation last season. O'Neill had faults, as does every manager on this earth, but he gave me the best years of supporting Villa since the Big Ron/Little/early Gregory era. To keep reading people constantly criticising his tenure just leaves me to conclude that a lot of you 'don't know you're born'.

The board's decision only to target manager's with Premier LEague experience was ridiculous. If only they had widened the net and looked for someone with real talent. It is very rare that you will find a top manager with Premier League experience who is available, hence our list of targets was so poor. I'd rather we'd have gone for an up and coming boss from the lower leagues if we have to make do with being in transition for the foreseeable future.

yes he did Are you sure about that? If so where is your proof? He was manager when we sold Milner and got Ireland plus money in return? No he wasn't. He had already left.

yes he did Are you sure about that? If so where is your proof?

Agreed Big_John_10, they should have said no sooner. But they didn't and if you were manager would you try and strengthen your squad in order to be ambitious or try and balance the books? The books are the jobs of the accountants aren't they? No manager gets to sign who he wants without approval from above.

Yeah....but im pretty sure the money men who sanctioned those deals werent aware that most of his buys were going to be sat on their arses for the vast majority of their contracts. Thats where MoN **** us over big time - signing all that shite and then letting them rot on the bench. STILL rotting on the bench/reserves in some cases!! Beye was regarded as a very good right-back by Newcastle fans, Shorey was highly rated by Reading fans, Cuellar is a good defender who has been under-used, Sidwell was only ever a squad player as at the time we had Barry, Milner, Young, Petrov, Milner and Reo-Coker as options in midfield. The board surely knew he would struggle to be a regular. I think they were counting on us getting in the top 4 and then just when it looked like we were closing in on it along came Man City. The fact is every single manager in the history of the game signs dud players. O'Neill also signed some extremely good players, hence we established ourselves as a top 6 side. Yes he signed the aforementioned few and they also have to share some of the blame for underperforming. I'm pretty sure it wasn't intended that they just rotted on the bench or in the reserves. It's obvious O'Neill fell out with the board and that is why he left. He didn't leave with a wry smile on his face thinking 'those signings will bankrupt Villa, I will get my revenge'. He wanted to be a success. I felt hurt when he left but then I realised that we don't know what goes on behind the scenes and it may just be his close-working relationship with Randy and Faulkner was no more. We should remember him as a manager that did a good job for us. Not a superb job but a good one. Sometimes I wonder if O'Leary had a point, maybe some of our fans are fickle? Before you all argue with me on this one again I will point to the West Ham 0-0 draw and quote a shout from a fan in Trinity Road three years ago who shouted: "Friedel you bald t$%£". Anyone who singles out O'Neill for all of our failings is 100% wrong. He has to take some of the blame but so do the board and so do the fans. Plus he didn't sign Ireland or Makoun did he? Who are you going to blame for those dud deals? Houllier? Faulkner? Randy? O'Neill?! To all those fans who have a level-headed opinion like mine (although you are entitled to your own balanced opinions) all I can say is Up the Villa!

What utter rubbish. O'Neill left in bad circumstances and the wage bill was out of control. But the wage bill abnd transfers were approved by the money men in the club - namely Randy and Faulkner. O'Neill turned us into a consistent top 6 side. He helped turn Gabby into the player he is now. He got us our first win at Old Trafford for over 30 years. He got us wins at Arsenal, Liverpool, an incredible 4-4 draw at Chelsea, we beat Blues 5-1, we beat Everton at Goodison Park in dramatic fashion. We reached the Carling Cup final, we made the FA Cup semis. Yes things went wrong but it took Fergie four years to win a trophy at Man U, O'Neill had five years at Villa and came very, very close. He didn't get everything right but name a manager that does? This comment above is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here. The managers we've had since are nowhere near as good as O'Neill and we will be very lucky to get someone who can guarantee the same stability that we had again. I'll never forget the booing when we drew 0-0 with West Ham and missed out on second place. In my opinion the beginning of the end and a very sad day to be a Villa fan.

Blind faith is not always a good thing. As fans we have a right to question decisions and we would be irresponsible if we didn't. I believe appointing McLeish would be wrong for this club and I feel I have the right to say that. I don't have to keep quiet in case I offend the board. Right now I think they are going about things the wrong way.

If it is true that we are going for McLeish then I actually would have some sympathy for SHA. Do you know how sick that would make me feel?

Regardless of what happens now my respect for the board has been reduced. Villa have known for a long time that they might have to replace Houllier but the excuses I have heard are that nothing pre-emptive could have been done and that we are not a club that taps up rival managers. If McLeish is appointed manager then I will question how it came about? If we don't then why haven't Villa tried to reassure us fans? More importantly why is the General going on the offensive because we question what is going on? His latest comments made me 95% sure that we are interested in McLeish and that the board will not be willing to accept criticism if he is appointed. More importantly, the football under McLeish is likely to be turgid, old fashioned long-ball stuff. How the hell can we go from looking at Martinez to this? Obviously our playing style is not important to the board but when you are looking at two managers that have finished either side of the relegation zone, neither is results? How come Fulham got Martin Jol days after Hughes's departure whilst we continue this haphazard hunt which is currently seeing us linked with a man who failed to win a single derby against us while O'Neill was in charge. He is simply not good enough. Regardless of who has the money it is our club, not Randy's, and we are right to demand answers about what is going on. This media blackout is not good for the club. We are getting bad PR and forgetting that the big money in football comes from the media. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. My blind loyalty towards the board has ended and I am feeling more cynical by the day.

Hi General, Firstly may I say it is great to have a direct contact at the club who us fans can air our feelings to. From following the manager search it seems to me that our next appointment is unlikely to be a particularly high profile one. I do not necessarily have an issue with this but I would like to ask whether it is time us fans accepted that this dream of breaking into the top four is further away than we hoped? There was real excitement during Martin O'Neill's first 3/4 years that it might happen. But since then the emergence of Man City, resurgence of Tottenham and impending resurgence of Liverpool has made it more difficult and it seems the only way we can challenge is to splash a humungous amount of cash or by getting some luck with finding some gems in the youth team. The possible appointment of Roberto Martinez seems to me to be a big gamble. He may have Premier League experience but two 16th-placed finishes do not convince me that he could take us to the level we aspire to be at. We may well have some success with him at the helm but I am confident I would be right in saying that this would be modest at best. During the ongoing manager hunt one thing that has concerned me is that it has been reported that we are only interested in managers with Premier League experience. If this is true, why? Out of the managers that have won the Premier League, only one had previous experience of managing an English top flight club, Kenny Dalglish. Fergie was in Scotland, Wenger in Japan, Mourinho had only been in Portugal and Ancelotti had spent all of his time in Italy. It seems to me we should be scouting the world for managerial talent and not just looking at candidates because they have spent a couple of years in the Premier League. I wonder whether a manager like Martinez needs more time to prove himself before taking over at a big club like us? Or maybe us fans need to accept we are not as big as we thought? On another note, although I have been very impressed by the way the club has changed over the last five years, one thing has continued to bug me. Why is it that Villa have such a bad reputation when it comes to dealing with the press? I understand the need for secrecy when conducting business and that Randy has his reasons for not being too forthcoming with the media. But we must not forget that this is a football club which exists purely for the supporters. And I feel us supporters, along with the press, are always the last to know what is going on. Media coverage of our beloved club is big business, and as someone who works in this industry I genuinely feel we do not make the most of it. Apologies for the long message but I will be interested to hear your thoughts. The board does have my support but please understand it is only natural when changes are going on that myself and other fans question the club's actions. Up the Villa! Phil

He's kept them up by the skin of their teeth, that isn't "reasonably well". And the fact that they pass it around a bit and generally get thrashed isn't excellent football in my book. If this is true, it proves that Randy Lerner hasn't got much of a clue. Several dud appointments at the Cleveland Browns, and two in a row at Villa. Stick to credit cards mate. Didn't Tony Mowbray get complemented on his style of play a few years ago? What happened to him? Results are more important people!

If all you want to see is attacking football then why not get Maradona as manager? It would be one hell of a ride with him in charge!