HolteExile

That job is 90% done though now, a permanent move for Given and Hutton, Zog's contract is up in the summer I think too. So you know, you won't be hearing it for very much longer. You've heard it the last couple of years because, well, that was really what was happening. Nothing sinister about, we were and are cutting wages, now we've nearly finished that part of the process but not quite. And if/when Lambert is handed his cards in the not too distant, the next manager will need to move all the bookends accumilated on the wage bill over the past 18 months. It's like painting the Golden Gate bridge.

Because if we had only offered three years he wouldn't have come? Which with the benefit of hindsight we can all say now 'OK then, see ya.' But at the time we had a Friedel-sized hole in the GK department and we signed a player who many rated as better than Friedel. He'd just moved to Man Citeh for something ridiculous like £9 million little over 18 months previous.

^^This He was probably our best player in his first season, and it would have been reasonable to expect he might have been a first team regular for at least three seasons. Had that been the case, you'd have still been talking about a settlement, but a far smaller one. For someone who looks after himself and who had always been a model pro, carrying on until he is close to 40 in the topflight didn't seem that ludicrous. Ideally, we'd have probably preferred to offer a two to three year deal. But the shortfall in wages on leaving Man Citeh (where he was on £90k per week if reports are to be believed) had to be made up somehow. I actually think he was unlucky to get dropped early last season. True, he did have a bit of a 'mare in the Everton match. But previous form should count for summat, and for 12 months previously, he'd been outstanding. That said, Guzan's form when he came into the team from the Newcastle game onwards made him undroppable. Would be nice if we'd had that level of competition in other positions too.

Makes sense for Norwich to make it awkward for us. For a number of reasons. 1. He's a popular player there, even if Hughton doesn't seem to rate him as much as Norwich fans do. 2. Even if he doesn't always make the starting XI, he still makes the squad. Not many sides would weaken their squad at this time of year for an extra 750k 3. That offer of 750k is derisory. Though I accept on that last point, it is perhaps just an opening salvo from us and we'll naturally go higher. If I was them, I'm not sure I'd even let him go for £3/4 million though. His age might be a consideration, but injuries to current first teamers or the cost of replacing him would be a bigger one.

His spell of good form around the turn of the year was crucial for us. We got a point (and probably should have won) at WBA, at a time when we couldn't manage a goal (or point) for love nor money. He was outstanding in that first half and in a few other games around that period. In the context of our season, his freekick v West Ham was absolutely crucial, as a previous poster alluded to. But those are the things we can blatently see on the pitch. Off it (and I am basing this largely on twitter and heresay, I admit) he comes across as a bit of an arrogant prick. Taking his two and bit years with us as a whole, he hasn't done enough to get away with being arrogant. So if Lambert sees anything remotely like that in training, sees the wages he's on and believes he can get better for far less, it's understandable he might have designs on bombing him out. For the right price, I wouldn't be totally against that either. But his career with us is salvageable with us - if the player himself wants that. He certainly has something to offer.

No. Which is why -when I suggested the comparsion- I purposely didn't mention pace. Thought that would have been fairly obvious, but nevermind.

I really miss being treated like shit I miss kits that don't look cheap. I miss kits you can wash and not worry about any damage. Nike are shit. They didn't give a **** about us, just giving us a colour change template of their bigger contracts and delivering it after the season had started. Macron have done exactly the same in farness. Last year's effort was a similar template to Braga, FC Twente and probably a number of other clubs. They don't have nearly as many clients as Nike, so it's safe to assume they could have given us a more original and bespoke design - had they wanted to. Our training gear was also identical to West Ham's - not good, considering the obvious similarity with the home colours in the first place. Overall, they've deliverd pretty much what was expected, cheap shoddy looking gear. Which is a shame, as when they've pulled the stops out for Lazio and Napoli, they've shown they can produce a nice kit. Our kit and the ones that litter the Championship are nowhere near that standard, unfortuantely. Nike might have had issues with scheduling and distribution with us, but the finished article always looked decent, the training and leisure range was varied and - crucially- it didn't fall to bits after a few months. Apart from the 07/08 kit -which was a similar to the Arsenal one the year before- I don't recall us getting a template 'here's one I made earlier' cast off either.

Crouch looks awkward, but he had/ has quick feet, an good touch and good close control. And he can bring other players into play (though not necessarily as the traditional strong target man). I'll bow to the knowledge of people who have seen more of Maximus Helenius than me though. If he's anything like Tore Andre Flo I'll be happy.

Much appreciated Aalborg BK. Sounds not unlike Crouch when he initially joined us. As a tall player, you'd nearly think it would be a given that they're decent in the air. But Crouch -in time- became a very effective player in the English top flight. Not for us, unfortunately. It was his move to Southampton that seemed to get his career going. Doesn't sound like this is a guy who is going to come in and hit the ground running. But patience is the key. Unlike Crouch, he won't be coming in with the pressure of a big fee, so that's a bonus. He'll most likely be a bit part player at first, with not a huge amount expected of him. But in time he can hopefully grow into the role.

Why? He's a player who plays predominately through the centre -sometimes even as a defensive midfielder. I'd say N'Zog remaining or not would have little impact on any potential deal.

Thing is, if Lambert is a way on holiday and Kendrick is only speaking to club employees lower down the food chain, maybe they don't know? Or have been instructed to stonewall any questions until the boss gets back. It seems a bit elaborate for a club chairman to (a) name us an an interested party ( disclose the actual transfer fee and © say the bid is accepted. On top of that, we have the player talking specifically about us. I'm far from convinced it will happen, BTW. If for no other reason than you don't really turn down the chance to play for the Milan clubs or Atletico. Injuries and suchlike occur, and you may not get another chance.

A refurbishment that was the same -or more- than the initial outlay for the entire stand just six years previously? I think you may have your numbers mixed up. The new restaurant and moving season ticket holders from the best seats in the house didn't cost that much.

The Trinity cost £10-12 million, depending on various reports mentioned at the time. It was funded by a £15 million investment from NTL.

Postive thinking- I would like to think ur right but who knows? I always think Villa should have a bigger away allocation- if we did expand, there should be a 5-6,000 away section. The 'big' clubs would sell this out and you would get a extra 3,000 on the gate already.We are near most clubs and should encourage it as a good away day. Gets a better atmosphere, but I would be careful in a Blues game though. You could also 'tarp' upper sections for smaller teams (eg Fulham, Swansea etc) to reduce the capacity. This probably won't justify building lots of new seats though! To justify a bigger North Stand Villa probably need to have 38-40 k minimum crowds with nearly 50K potential support in the big games. Have we the support for this? Away support for the Sky lot + Newcastle and Tottingham would boost the numbers, for sure, They would be the most likely to sell 5/6000 if offered. Had we the extra space at present, I'd also like to see us make a substantial allocation available to schools and colleges across the Midlands. We pride ourselves on community relations, and we're better than most in that regard. But we can always do more. From what I understand, we're very good at supplying free tickets to schools in the area if they request them. I'd say we shouldn't actually wait for them to contact us. Football is an expensive pastime now, as we all know. Many adults are priced out of it and can't afford to take their children. This means that -for many children- their only exposure to 'live' football is Sky. We don't receive the same sort of prominence with Murdoch's lot as Man U, Chelsea and co -and our lack of success makes us a far less attractive proposition to kids just getting into the game. Sad, but true. The reasons why many on here became Villa fans would no doubt be varied. But I'd wager that most match going fans were hooked after that first visit or two to VP. We should do all we can to make sure we give as many kids in the area as possible that experience. Not purely for altruistic reasons either. Those kids will most likely be the backbone of our support in years to come, or future customers, for the number crunchers amongst us. This, combined with free tickets for active servicemen, generous discounts for OAPS and cheaper season tickets could all boost the average, no question. Sunderland -who often get praise for their high gates despite the team being mostly awful- give away thousands of tickets per game, something seldom mentioned. Their attendance is simply listed as 45/46000. Not 46000 (with x amount of thousand getting in for free). I accept that too many freebies dilutes the value of a match ticket, and that discounts to people who would have paid the premium regardless actually reduces income. As always, it's a matter of striking the right balance.

We *might* have stopped the rot. I'm not sure that we'll be getting close to capacity gates next year though, particularly if we sell our best player again. We seem set up for consolidation at best. Understandable, given the past few years. But not something that sells tickets and generates interest and positivity. Unrecognisable from first 3 years under RL, in other words.

I must qualify that by saying I thought the time was right THEN to extend. Even if we werent selling out every game, gates were increasing and the general feeling about the place was positive and go-ahead. Our graph is going in the opposite direction now.

I get the argument that you should only look to expand when you are regularly selling out. I get it, but I disagree. Once you are at the point that you are turning people away, you've lost that revenue - you don't get it back. Have the facilities in place before you get to that point. Even if it was only the standard 4/5 games per season that seen a crowd in excess of 43,000 initially, that would boost the average attendance across the season. Resulting in a higher average than the season before, and illustrating that there was logic behind the decision. Our average has gone up every time we have undertaken that kind of work since 1993. Naturaly an investment in bricks an mortar to that extent requires a big financial commitment up front. Depending on success, the investment might pay for itself within 3 years/ 5 years or maybe 20 years later. It will pay for itself in time though. Hindsight being 20/20 vision, but what would have been better for our longterm future in 2007-09? Lengthy contracts to NRC, Shorey, Sidwell, Heskey and co? Or extending the ground? The duration of just ONE of those contracts would have paid for the work. Then- even if RL's time at the club was ultimately judged to be a failure, there would at least have been some sort of positive legacy. A top flight club with a 50k+ ground would be a far more attractive proposition to an investor too, when the time eventually comes to sell. Even if that club wasn't selling out at the time, the new investor can see the potential for higher revenue straight away - and doesn't have to sink funds into ground expansion.

That's probably bad enough to be it. Not panning your design skills, BTW. Think you've captured the naffness of macron quite well.

That's great. Except neither their fans or players appealed for it. They were as bemused as we were.

Weren't we in the Deloitte top 20 of European clubs as recently as 2011? Edit: We were:

You have to admire the genius at play, really. Doing that, but keeping a username that can be recognised when he comes over here to stir the pot.

Which links to the point above that on the programme half the men who saw him with an underage girl did nothing and half the girls who he abused knew it was expected of them and continually went back for more because of the benefits (access, tv etc) that being abused gave them. The mistake you are making there is you are expecting the victims at the time of the abuse to be well adjusted, rational people. (a) They were children, so there is a limit to their level of maturity straight off ( Some of them were in care at the time, so they were even more vulnerable. For some of those children, it's quite possible this is the first time someone had ever shown them 'affection,'or taken an interest in them. Maybe they had mixed feelings, uncomfortable with some aspects of Savile's attention -perhaps instinctively feeling it was wasn't right, but happy to be in his company at other times. That might have been because of his generosity, the fame aspect (as you point out) or simply because he had chosen to spend time with them. They might have been so unhinged that they didn't even know right from wrong Or they might -as seems far more likely- been fearful of speaking out against him. Whether they knew right from wrong, had an inkling or the penny only dropped years afterwards is immaterial however. Savile WOULD have known, that's the key point.

Two words: Option file You can download them on various PES forums or get them on ebay for about £2.

But the third biggest spenders in the league during his time with us, outspending the likes of Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Tottingham. So, no. Not fine at all, really. At the time he joined, the likes of Blackburn, Everton and Fulham were qualifying for Europe By the time he left, we had -in fairness- seen of the challenge of Blackburn. And finished ahead of Everton. Once. A fair return, for the money invested re transfer fees and wages?

I can sort of see where the OP is coming from, though I think apportioning blame to any set of fans - ours or anyone else's is folly. Many of the things that used to make Villa special to me have diminished over time. But our lot any worse than Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal or Everton fans for example? Fans want the very best for their club (or perhaps more accurately - for their club to be as good as it can be). Supporters of bigger clubs (which still just about applies to us) naturally have bigger aspirations. Particularly if they've lived through a time where they've seen their side succeed in the past and have a fair idea of (a) what it takes to achieve success and ( when they are being sold a pup. As we are at present, with this 'need to manage the wagebill mantra' which the club have adopted as an alternative club motto for the past three seasons it seems. The aspirations part of the above paragraph is key, I think. It's natural to want to aspire to better things. It's another thing entirely to DEMAND and EXPECT success as Liverpool and their time traveling fans seem to do, based largely on events 20+ years ago and counting. Perhaps part of the reason why a fair smattering of their lot are so utterly hateful. But no question, the last few years have been tough on most of us. And aside from anything else, largely dull and turgid where it matters most -on the pitch. We are a football club first and foremost. I genuinely get that finances are stretched - not uncommon with most clubs outside of the very elite now. But it is a choice, whether we wish to continuously highlight that or not. Everytime Faulkner and co mention that, they make a choice. And that is the image we have now become associated with: "Villa? They are cutting back/ will always sell their best players/ need to slash the wage bill." That perception is now firmly out there as far as the wider footballing community is concerned which -in turn- diminishes the appeal, status and competitive nature of the club. What set of supporters would honestly be happy with that?