villa1968

cost of [player] registrations at 01/07/08 of £121m. cost in the year to 01/07/09 of £119m. Plus approx Crouch (£9m), Bassong (£8m), Kranjcar (2.5m), Kaboul (£5m) and Naughton/Walker (combined £10m). Total = £34.5m" They're the best figures I've got. Taking into account your £50m (what was AVFC comparable amount?), it's still an awful lot more than the cost of the squad at Bodymore Heath isn't it?

Completely disagree, but then I'm sure we've had the discussion before somewhere... I think Randy runs the club perfectly, it's down to the manager to make the most of what he has - which is more than most. It is more than most but most importantly, it isn't as much as our competitiors at the top of the Premier League and he started from a much lower squad base than all of our competitors except Man City. I think we do spend as much as many of our competitors: Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Arsenal. I accept the point about starting off at a lower level than some of them, but that's why he has been given time and its why I think he should have another season. If, after 5 years, he doesn't look like being good enough to be a real top 4 challenger, maybe it's time to move on. Spurs have built a decent squad in recent years but weren't able to mould a fluid team together. Now Rednapp has come in and shown that he could be the man. No-one is saying we have more right to be in the top 4 than anyone else, but if we have a manager who looks unable to do it, why not try somebody else who might, rather than simply accepting our lot for time immemorial? As I said earlier... "Take a look at page 48 of the Spurs accounts. They show a cost of [player] registrations at 01/07/08 of £121m. They show an additional cost in the year to 01/07/09 of £119m. Since then they have bought in Crouch, Bassong, Kranjcar and Kaboul." In what way is that the same as Aston Villa's spend?

Completely disagree, but then I'm sure we've had the discussion before somewhere... I think Randy runs the club perfectly, it's down to the manager to make the most of what he has - which is more than most. It is more than most but most importantly, it isn't as much as our competitiors at the top of the Premier League and he started from a much lower squad base than all of our competitors except Man City.

And that's why I think Randy will get rid. He isn't going to want to see his money being wasted indefinitely. His money hasn't been wasted at all, we've paid good prices for some excellent players. Take a look at page 48 of the Spurs accounts. They show a cost of [player] registrations at 01/07/08 of £121m. They show an additional cost in the year to 01/07/09 of £119m. Since then they have bought in Crouch, Bassong, Kranjcar and Kaboul. All football clubs at this level are spending enormous sums of money but Martin O'Neill has spent nothing like the amounts that our competitors have been spending. Find another stick to beat him, this one doesn't work.

Last 10 seasons, Premier League 4th place 2008/9 Arsenal 72 points 2007/8 Liverpool 76 points 2006/7 Arsenal 68 points 2005/6 Arsenal 67 points 2004/5 Everton 61 points 2003/4 Liverpool 60 points 2002/3 Chelsea 67 points 2001/2 Newcastle 71 points 2000/1 Leeds 68 points 1999/2000 Liverpool 67 points Average 67.7 points, 1.78 points per game *** Last 10 seasons, Premier League 5th place 2008/9 Everton 63 points 2007/8 Everton 65 points 2006/7 Tottenham 60 points 2005/6 Tottenham 65 points 2004/5 Liverpool 58 points 2003/4 Newcastle 56 points 2002/3 Liverpool 64 points 2001/2 Leeds 66 points 2000/1 Ipswich 66 points 1999/2000 Chelsea 65 points Average 63.2 points, 1.66 points per game Current Premier League points per game Chelsea 2.28 points per game Man Utd 2.06 Arsenal 2.06 Aston Villa 1.94 Tottenham 1.83 Man City 1.71 Birmingham 1.56 Fulham 1.53 Liverpool 1.50 I think we learned a lot last season (13 games unbeaten, 7 consecutive away wins, too many home draws, the slump...) and I fancy us to get 70+ points. We'd be very unlucky not to get at least 4th with a total like that.

I'm not even sure what their requirements are. Two points away from 3rd position with a game in hand after quarter of the season, seems decent to me.

I thought the goal we scored yesterday was superb.

Weren't H&V told they mustn't spell it Villan, something about Villa holding the copyright on the word? I'm sure I read that somewhere. In the 70s we tended to talk about Villa, and you didn't hear much about Villains or Villans outside of newspapers. The Sports Argus writers used to keep the Villa(i)ns thing alive in the same way that Albion were always referred to as the Throstles, even though Albion fans to a man called them the Baggies. The only other time I used to hear Villains/Villans in those days was 1. in the voice of the TV commentator Hugh Johns. He used to come out with things like "The Villains of Villa Park". (He also used to come out with a lot of pseudo-American crap about it being "a whole new ball game" and when the ball went out for a corner he would say "Whoa! Corner ball!" Don't know whether he copied Brian Moore or Brian Moore copied him or whether it was ITV policy for everyone to sound "nice and transatlantic".) 2. A song sung by the Holte End around that time. The Dubliners had had a hit with their version of an Irish folksong, Black Velvet Band and to the tune of the chorus of this the Holte used to sing "We are the Villa Villains..." The Villain/Villan, spell it how you will, was pretty dormant around this period and the late 60s too. I often used to wonder where he had got to, because my earliest football memories are of the buildup to the 1957 FA Cup Final and the funny chap on the badge (in briny-ear's post) was in evidence around that time. Though again mainly I think in the Sports Argus and the long, long defunct Birmingham Mail "Blue 'Un". Briny-ear mentions Villa'n as a spelling. I don't remember that but it seems very very likely to me. The Villa ones > The Villa 'uns > The Villa'ns. Makes sense. And it what would also make sense is The Villa'ns > The Villans. FFS someone ask John Lerwill! I wouldn't argue with any single point you made there, just about spot on I think.

at least now we can rest easy that being called Villains isn't equivalent to been called paedos. Agreed?

Invoking Wiki during a debate should be akin to invoking Hitler, whereby you automatically lose the argument. "not as long as I've been a Villan" doesn't carry much currency either, how long is that?

I like to use villainians or villaphrodites myself. I'm no more a Villan than a villain, I'm an Aston Villa supporter. I can understand why someone would call a Villa supporter a Villain, it's a simple play on words. It isn't anything like calling a Villa fan a paedo, it just isn't.

General, do you think Spanish football is a bit dodgy?