briny_ear

Doug Ellis? :shock:

Not sure everyone will see this as a helpful contribution but I couldn't help thinking of this photo which has been doing the blogging amd messageboard rounds recently. That's the Aston Villa "mascot" from the early '50s and it shows we were doing the handshake thingy long before Blatter became a blot on the landscape.

He's apologised...sort of...

Must say I don't recall that bit - the overriding sentiment on here was anti-MON, almost regarding him as a traitor, with Randy cast as the innocent victim who had his money spunked away by a reckless manager. And a brave few seem to be sticking to that view even though it has become increasingly apparent that Lerner/Faulkner's judgement has been suspect throughout their stewardship of Villa. And in denial of the obvious point that any properly functioning organisation needs to monitor and approve its spending separate from the managers who actually do the spending. If Lerner wasn't doing that, it truly was a rubbish operation.

Not sure quite how it's OK to be the chew toy of a billionaire whose daddy earned his money in banking but not the same for an oil baron. And I certainly don't want Villa to live within the means we seem to have available at the moment. Might just as well have supported SHA all my life if that is where we are heading.

Knowing our luck that'll probably be the one he sells to. :shock:

so what, he didnt have a full license? No, thought that was well known though, he failed his test in the summer, isnt his intructor Pat Heard ? It was Weimann that failed, Barry Bannan passed IIRC. well he must of fauiled, he wouldn't have been charged with driving in accordance if he had passed. Unless he was driving a bus that is ! I think this is just a standard charge they throw at people if they can't produce their licence at the scene of an accident. Doesn't mean he hasn't passed his test and has a licence safely tucked in the drawer back at home.

Agh, after reading John's comments, I too have names like Michael Neville, Luke Comer, Nicolas padfield, floating before my eyes. John Lerwill has destroyed sleep. :shock:

That is actually a very good idea if McCormick is ok with it. Was it Alex Rae the club had in a couple of weeks ago to talk about booze addiction? It seems we do act professionally in these instances. Mind you, there has been some bad publicity about McCormick having a cushy time in an open prison that has fantastic sports facilities, so maybe not such a terrifying thing for wee Barry. Better perhaps that he talks to the parents of the two boys killed in the McCormick incident. And has a look at this video clip

Quite why a question about Gardner not playing first team football should become yet another lame old attempt to knock Heskey I don't know. This sort of thing tends to make reading Villatalk a rather desultory experience these days. Gardner isn't in the first team because he is not yet judged to be ready particularly in view of the major injury to his cruciate ligament which kept him out of football for more or less the whole of the last calendar year. Scoring a couple of flashy goals in an under-21 international against a very weak side doesn't necessarily mean he is ready for the premier league yet. However, I would expect him to get his chance before too long. It's clear that the coaching staff rate him and know the value he can have for Villa if his progress is properly managed.

Going off topic but I've got my fingers crossed for Herd and Bannan.

I think that is the view we all had a year or two ago but it doesn't necessarily look like that now. The only way people like the Glazers can achieve their business aims is by having a successful club and that is what they have delivered. Their model may rely on servicing a large level of debt but that hasn't stopped them investing in quality players (including taking away our best player when they chose) and you can't really say we have had the same outcome at Villa, can you?

His almost complete silence and absence from VP this season has cast a new and tarnished light for me on his running of AVFC. It's hard to avoid the conclusiuon that he has just lost interest.

Not sure if this has been posted in this thread earlier, but, for the benefit of anyone who has doubts about the club's attitude to young Gary, have a look at this.

Absolutely. the ingratitude of someone who was supported by the club for over a year to recover from an anterior cruciate ligament injury, only started playing again in January this year, and now apparently is off because he hasn't been parachuted straight into the premier league squad, would be breathtaking. I would be outraged.

disruptive influence? think he just wanted to play football Exactly. He wanted to play first team football week in, week out and that we couldn't guarantee him. We ran out of short term loan options for him and it got to the point where a parting of the ways was the only sensible course.

Granted, the acquisition of Knight (and especially Harewood, though God bless him for that goal against Liverpool) lacked a certain... prestige. Given our relative stature/status at the time though, I'd even go as far as to say it was one of O'Neill's canniest moves. The acquisition of Knight also had dire consequences as it pretty much sealed the departure of Gary Cahill. I think that was a good thing all round. Cahill went off to a lesser club where he could secure the regular first team football he craved, he stopped being a troublesome, disruptive influence at Villa, and we got a decent price for him. Cahill has now turned into a decent centre back but I doubt whether he would have been able to progress in that way if he had stayed at Villa.

The one thing we can all agree on from that second set of figures is surely that GT MkII was by far the WORST Villa manager of Premiership times. By the cringe - barely over 1 point per game.

It's perhaps a bit early to pronounce on his managerial after only 11 league games but I reckon I can provide 2 names who were worse than him: Graham Taylor MkII and Gerard Houllier. In addition, time alone will tell if O'Leary was better or worse than McLeish. it may be early but lets look at his win % in context from a article late into last season (maybe 2 or 3 games before the end of the season i think!) http://twitpic.com/55e1tk hes won 4 in 13. So thats 30.8% So in Comparison he's only "bettered" by Billy McNeill and is by no doubt the worse Prem manager we've had. (p.s. just worked out Hollier reign had 14 wins in 39 so 35% making him the 3rd worse) Ha ha, I must have missed the moment when we started judging the success of managers by their win percentage but, even if I accept that method, your stats are distinctly dodgy. First, Houllier didn't manage us for 39 games. He only managed 34 before his ticker gave out and he won 12 drew 9 lost 13 - NB only 8 of those wins were league games. Also, if you judge a manager to be the "worst we've had" on his first 13 games, your stats need to compare the first 13 games of all the managers you are judging him by. Otherwise the claim is misleading if not meaningless. And, spookily... Houllier's first 13 games rendered him 4 wins (but only thanks to 2 cup wins).

It's perhaps a bit early to pronounce on his managerial after only 11 league games but I reckon I can provide 2 names who were worse than him: Graham Taylor MkII and Gerard Houllier. In addition, time alone will tell if O'Leary was better or worse than McLeish.

That's not really how I saw that game. I thought we came back strongly in the 2nd half and bossed quite a lot of it, after a 1st half in which each side was equally poor. That's what made the last minute goal so galling, although it was not at all a surprise given the state of our defence at that time. It was the first time I thought I detected that our midfield could get a grip of a game, something they seem to be getting better at (in a gradual and rather bumpy fashion).

If you can explain how 5 goals and 6 assists in 11 games adds up to "1 in every 5 games", people might start t0 take your outpourings seriously. :evil:

Not sure why, but that conjured up an image that made me feel distinctly queasy.

3-1 now. Things looking brighter for Wolves! Wigan play lots of fancy football but have very little bite in front of goal. Also their defensive play is interesting. They seem to think the role of defenders is to stand around watching the Wolves forwards taking potshots at the goalkeeper.