P3te

why exactly? ireland has been doing quite well imo, getting stuck in and hassling arsenal whenever they're on the ball. got in a dangerous position in the box too where their keeper got to it first no reason to take him off, least of all for delph

are you watching the game? we're playing very well

very bright start which means arsenal should score any time now

cant argue with the team we've put out there at all. eck looks like he knows he's close to the end of his reign, so he's pandering to what the fans want because that is not an alex mcleish lineup

Started by a 12 year old over on VitalVilla so 100% gospel id normally have brushed it aside, but coming with the news of randy buying the last 4%, it definitely looks like there's something going on behind the scenes

makes sense

cant be the crowd the guy seems to think it is since they own psg. that would mean the most they could own in villa is 25% by uefa rules

just another thing that ive remembered actually. citys owners have been ploughing money into the area around the stadium, buying up land and building things and all that, is it possible for them to give those projects to the club, and the club to sell them in a few years and then use that money as part of club income?

*edit: double post*

would it be possible for a new owner to buy the club for, say, a billion quid, with randy getting the realistic price he wanted, and the club getting the rest, bumping up the money available massively? or would the additional money actually have to be for something?

i think, im not sure though, that the rules say if you go over the allowed amount of debt accumulated in the initial 3 year period, it is enough to show that you're doing everything you can to get it under control. depending on exactly how that's worded, a new owner could potentially spend an absolutely massive amount over a year, then pull it back and say "hey look, debt is down 900% in the last 6 months already, we're playing ball"

biggest club in the second biggest city in the united kingdom, arguably villa are a potential goldmine who could easily be more valuable a brand to be involved with than city

if saudis come in we can almost guarantee we'll have the stadium renamed for a huge fee

so a chap on another forum i use suggested that the 4% buy up may have been so that he can transfer debt INTO the club without anyone knowing about it, which was agreed with by an accountant who also posts there. doesn't necessarily rule out a sale though, in fact that line of action would probably make it more likely, as lerner would transfer his own debts into the club and sell the whole thing off as one, probably saving himself some money on debt repayments in the process

Exactly, on the face of it there seems no logical reason why he would do it. As you say there is no benefit to Lerner in buying the remaining 4% if he wasnt going to sell the club or take it off the stockmarket. Coincidence? No smoke without fire and some things do seem to add up, so maybe...just maybe there is some truth in all this. it's possible he wants to sell the club without actually telling anyone how much he got for it. this would allow him to do that right? So im led to believe, otherwise the remaining 4% would have to be notified of a possible sale, sale values etc etc. so he's either about to take a **** massive hit, or he's managed to make himself a lot of money and doesnt want people abusing him over it

Exactly, on the face of it there seems no logical reason why he would do it. As you say there is no benefit to Lerner in buying the remaining 4% if he wasnt going to sell the club or take it off the stockmarket. Coincidence? No smoke without fire and some things do seem to add up, so maybe...just maybe there is some truth in all this. it's possible he wants to sell the club without actually telling anyone how much he got for it. this would allow him to do that right?

We don't need to try to humiliate him, he is doing an excellent job of that himself. At half time and full time the response from the fans will be whatever it deserves to be but during matchplay we must remain supportive (or at the very least non disruptive). if you really want to make a point, i recommend everyone in the ground stand up, face away from the match and sing their **** hearts out itd get a lot more coverage than the usual booing, sure at this stage itd be "there's the villa fans booing again"

but the thing with the movement is its not a mcleish issue, or a houllier issue, or an o'neill issue. all 3 managers had the problem, but the fact that there's been 3 of them unable to fix it surely points at a much, much deeper problem

jesus, just when you think it couldnt possibly get any worse roy **** keane? just get mark hughes in for christ sake

what im finding most disturbing is that we've now had three managers who have had time to change things around on the playing field, and our movement is still completely nonexistent. how does that happen? movement is one of the most important parts of the game, and for the last decade our players have spent the majority of their time standing around static. doesnt matter who the manager is, or who the players are, there seems to be something stopping aston villa players from actually moving around to pick up strong positions when we're in possession it's absolutely baffling how much has the coaching staff changed since 2006? have we still got a core of the same guys there? because if we do, they need to be replaced

says more about the quality of the league than the quality of villa though. the premiership has been on a dramatic slide the last few years. even when we were finishing 6th we werent all that good

an awful lot of people on here seem to think it's easy to sell off underperforming shite it's not

give it a few more weeks and we probably wouldnt need to break the bank for moyes, lots of discontent among everton fans about him lately

cueller would be a thousand steps up from collins, and he'd cost us nothing since he's already at the club

said when mcleish took over that i didnt want him but was happy to give him time given the circumstances he'd been brought in. at this point now though, he's probably got to go, and it's got to be before the window opens. ive never seen a point in bringing in a new man unless he can sign players, so we'd ideally look to get someone in in the next week or so i dont think it'll happen though. a director of football, or decent ceo is desperately needed at the club to give lerner a hand during big decisions. faulkner is a businessman, like lerner, and would know less about football than randy himself. we need a football man in there at a reasonably high level. with mcleish though, it can't go on the way it is. ropey performances are to be expected early on, but the frequency at which we just roll over with no attacking ambition when we play perceived bigger teams is alarming. you don't win football games if you don't score goals, and you don't score goals if you play defensively collins needs to be dropped if the defense is going to do anything. dunne spends more time worrying about covering him for when he inevitably dives in/falls over/loses possession that he can't focus on his own game. so instead of having a focused dunne, we have a disaster of a centre back pairing. dropping collins and bringing in cuellar (assuming he's match fit at this stage) would improve the back line hugely. cuellar at right back may not have been the greatest thing in the world to watch, especially when he had the ball, but by christ the guy can read a game and doesnt have the same tendency to balls up as collins. overall we're quite an attacking team given the personnel we have, so having them playing defensively means that we're not only refusing to play to our strength, but we're doing something we're not very good at. had we gone out and tried to play good attacking football, and had the same results, i dont think mcleish would be seen in the same light. but we're not. we're playing dead as soon as the game starts