switters

At least he said 'start of season' rather than 'end of transfer window'. Squad is much-weakened from last season & that wasn't exactly the most successful season of all time..1 outfield signing would not be sufficient, unless we truly have a early-90s Man Utd-type crop of kids coming through.

Sounds to me very much like Whelan is just making a show in the press so he can say he played hardball and got the best price possible, it actually makes me more confident the deal is already nearly done. When he was making a big show of announcing he was letting Martinez talk to Villa, he did so when he already knew Martinez was staying, to get the kudos. So if Whelan is saying "It’s £10m or there is no deal" to the press, it's probably because he knows we've already offered that much.

2 years. Signed for 4 in summer 2009.

Baker? Though I've never been sure if he's more LB or CB..

It's tapping down, not tapping up. :winkold:

How about an even more scary theory: they were going to talk to McClaren but then got tipped that McLeish was quitting Birmingham and decided they didn't need to talk to anyone else..

have to agree here - IF this happens it's the sheer stupidity and sheer bllodymindedness of it. if it was McLaren - a lot of peopel would've been unhappy - but you can understand teh logic behind it - did well at Twente - involved in the 1999 man u teble. Uninspiring at Boro &Wolfsburg & pretty awful at England... but you can at leats undertsand some logic - but this - I jsut can't see it. Perhaps after l;ast season when he ghot them t 9th - but he's spent fairly big bought in (on paper) decent players and basically surrendered the league position. He tried to draw vs Fulham and Spurs knowing a win would keep them up. I won't watch games where we set out to draw hoping for a wn. We've proven we can give anyone a game so let's try to win everygame. We could ignore everything else and that Spurs game would be enough evidence to not hire this guy. Setting up to try and eke out a draw when you need to win to stay up is so horribly cowardly that it got exactly what it deserved.

No, there is no reason to limit the search like this. Football is global, we should be looking at the best players wherever we can get them and the best managers wherever we can get them. The current most experienced Premier League managers are already at clubs that they wouldn't leave for Villa (i.e. Ferguson, Wenger, Redknapp, Moyes). If we're down to flinging ourselves at a relegated manager the moment he quits his club, we really must accept how limiting this criteria is. I mentioned yesterday on the big thread that the worrying thing for me was that they had 4 criteria listed and none of them were primarily to do with skill/knowledge in football management - no mention of tactics, coaching skill, etc. They seem to be approaching it as a corporate appointment - the man who fits the company - rather than a footballing one.

Doesn't actually say anything new, though it's the first major paper I've seen to use the General's facebook quotes. Talking of which, I look at this bit with interest: "Check with Sir Alex [Ferguson, the Manchester United manager and McLeish’s mentor at Aberdeen] and ask him about the man. You will get an entirely different sense." Have the board naively thought 'Ferguson is the most successful manager around, therefore let's ask him who we should hire'? Ferguson is a very calculating manager. He has a little clique of managers in the league who love him: e.g. Bruce, McLeish, Allardyce. And these are very useful 'cause they nearly always roll over for United when they play. Ferguson probably just recommended McLeish to Villa to keep his nice easy 6pts a season & maybe get some cash for players he doesn't want..

I go back to the club statement again. "From the beginning of our search, we have set out criteria based on proven Premier League experience, compelling leadership, an ethic for hard work and, most importantly, sharing our vision for Aston Villa" The really worrying thing here is football itself doesn't seem to be a category in what they're picking the manager on: -Premier League experience - McLeish getting a tick means the nature of this experience, in terms of type of football played or success, is wholly unimportant -Compelling leadership - plenty of people are compelling leaders, it's a good trait when you manage people, but it wouldn't make them any good at managing a football team. -Ethic for hard work - again, it's a good trait, but very little to do with skill at managing a football team. -Sharing our vision for Aston Villa - vague corporate nonsense. -- Now I'm not so unreasonable as to think that they won't be considering the footballing aspect when interviewing, etc., but it does disturb me that none of the things they list as crucial have a direct bearing on football itself. Why is 'excellent tactician' not a category? Or 'clear footballing ethos'? Or 'high standing in world football'?

That would be the most embarrassingly cringeworthy awful thing ever.

"From the beginning of our search, we have set out criteria based on proven Premier League experience, compelling leadership, an ethic for hard work and, most importantly, sharing our vision for Aston Villa as we know that without a shared vision any appointment, however attractive, will ultimately fail." When they talk about 'shared vision' here, surely they should realize the same counts just as much between the fans and the club. Hence, they should see that as this appointment (if it happens) will be incredibly alienating for a great many fans, it will ultimately fail. The only way it can succeed is if he has immediate success on the pitch. Fickle is quite an emotive term here, but all football fans are fickle when it comes to winning - they will forgive almost anything if the team is winning. But the chance of quick success is made all the more unlikely by a) an unhappy fanbase likely to jump on any slip and hamper confidence, and the amount of rebuilding the team needs, which will almost certainly take time to work. There's also a massive contradiction in the statement that they are talking to McLeish because they are seeking "proven Premier League experience" as all McLeish has is failed Premier League experience - relegation 2 out of 3 attempts and a low-scoring bore to 9th place in the other. But they're not even going to consider this anyway because "We are determined, still, not to allow that three-and-a-half year post to disqualify him." What in God's name have we done to make the board hate us so

People are at different stages from: 1-Denial 2-Anger 3-Bargaining 4-Depression 5-Acceptance Some in the acceptance category are trying to find good things about McLeish. Many are still in denial and anger. My anger has passed. I am now sacrificing a goat as an offering to the Lord almighty to stop this travesty

Even if you try and look at McLeish objectively and ignore the issue of fan discontent, this makes no sense. He might well be a straight-up character & strong personality, which would be traits the board are after, but is he known for: -developing youth? -success in the Premier League? -good football? -being able to attract top players from around Europe? This is a manager who has a team that lacks creativity and goals, who then takes the one talented footballer they had (Hleb) and sticks him on the bench all season. A manager who plays for a draw in a game they needed to win to survive. How can he possibly be the best candidate? Even if we've been turned down by several better candidates, there are always more. McClaren was a better candidate, Jol was a better candidate and they've both gone to less attractive jobs. I cannot accept that aren't potential managers out there who aren't at least as qualified as McLeish but without the baggage. It shows either limited thinking (i.e. ignoring anyone who doesn't have Premier League experience) or limited ambition (unable to tempt likes of Benitez).

And Rangers, where he managed to do quite well. Even made it to the Final 16 in CL, which is no small feat with a SPL team. This would seem to be a natural progression in his career. He's pretty much proven himself everywhere that he can win. I meant Scotland in general! He's yet to prove anything outside Scotland from what I've seen. I don't see the 'natural progression' from relegation to an ambitious top 8 side.

The one slight shred of hope we have there is that the only direct quotes are from....Dwight Yorke. -- McLeish has managed two places: Scotland and Birmingham City, i.e. his only experiences are the utter lowest forms of football known to humanity. This appointment would make no sense on any level.

Still refuse to believe that McLeish is possible, though if that is really the General's post, it is the single most convincing bit of evidence yet. Certainly has his style. Did MysteryMan post anything more on H&V today? I saw this morning he gave a clear 'it's not McLeish'. Anything after that?

Thankfully not, according to MysteryMan

Billy Davies does have Premier League experience, I suppose...sacked by Derby on their way to the lowest points tally ever. Let us not seriously entertain for a second we'll be going for him or McLeish ffs!

I posted pages back that the same guy the General's son, said Low, Van Gaal and Ancelotti were not interested. Read that post again. He makes clear the names listed are purely hypothetical: "a Low" or "an Ancelotti". "Interestingly, it takes two to tango, so what if certain individuals are identified but do not wish to come. Is that a lack of ambition on Villa's part? Let's say, hypothetically (seriously), a Low or an Ancelotti or a van Gaal is approached and he says, "No thanks." Does that mean that Randy is not ambitious or does it mean that a manager has his own agenda or reasons for not accepting the offer?"

I'm starting to lean towards it being more likely to be a non-PL candidate, e.g. Rijkaard, Flores. As we've seen with Wigan, if you contact PL clubs, it most likely gets leaked. We may well have made early stage enquiries for Moyes or Coyle, but I don't see either of them happening. I think it'd be in public sphere by now if we'd been allowed to talk to one of them, as you'd assume we contacted them same time as Wigan for Martinez. That would leave either a free agent (i.e. McClaren, Hughes) or someone from further afield. I think it slipped under radar, but seemingly someone linked to the board was posting on Heroes&Villains earlier. He wasn't saying much but someone asked if Premier League experience was an absolute requirement in manager search and the answer was "Not this time around, as far as I know". Reliability of source? Seemed like he was known on that message board and had posted there before. His answer wasn't definitive but it did suggest the possibility we are searching wider this time. This would also tally with media knowing nothing about who we after & just jumping on whatever half-rumour they can find. All very tenuous stuff, I know!

Don't think Jol did much of the player recruitment at Spurs. Damian Comolli was mostly in charge of signings there (as he is at Liverpool now). Jol's a good manager though. I think he'd be a choice most would get behind, far less divisive than someone like Benitez. One surprising thing to bear in mind though: when managing Ajax, Jol was beaten to the title by Steve McClaren's Twente :shock:

Tell you who else Duverne has worked with: I believe he's available

Just a guess, but could Hughes be headed back to Blackburn? Steve Kean not exactly been brilliant success and they have ambitious owners. Bring back someone who was pretty popular there, put Kean back as assistant. Their new owners have not been very impressive so far, but they could offer Hughes a big transfer budget which might be enough tempt him away from Fulham. -- I think the choice of Houllier last time (very much an outside bet at first) shows that we may have a target who no-one is really talking about yet. Club has shown enough times that it can do things quietly - see Bent transfer. Ancelotti might be red herring, but that isn't to say that we haven't got an interesting target.

Are we supposed to be voting for who we want, or who we think it will be? Sadly, I think it will be Hughes. But I'd prefer any of the established names on that list to him (i.e. Ancelloti, Moyes, Jol, Benitez, Deschamps) or one of the less experienced like Coyle/Martinez. Hell, I'd even prefer McClaren. Hughes is just so, so uninspiring; too often he just sets out to avoid defeat - he had all the money in the world with City & built a team that drew all the time. And he spends every post-match interview whining about referees. Fulham had an okay season (though spent the first half of it drawing with everyone), but a late run of form put a gloss on it, much like ours. And he basically just continued with Hodgson's team. People talk like we are in a dire situation where safety & stability is paramount, but the season is finished and we've got a whole summer ahead to start fresh. The squad is going to change considerably whoever we get, as we've already lost several squad members. Now is the time to get someone who has a real idea about how to re-shape a side over time - not just settle for a 'safe pair of hands' to settle us down into stable midtable mediocrity. Someone mentioned Klinsmann (and he's been linked in the past). That would be a far more exciting choice. Someone who wants to play attacking football & build an ethos into the team. It might take longer & be riskier, but at least it should lead to more excitement about the club..