Jump to content


Full Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. If we wanted Gary McCallister as a manager at any point, why would we have not kept him on when Houllier was let go, rather than go across to Small Heath and get their manager? No chance of that happening. My money is on Paul Merson.
  2. That may have been me. I think it was reported (or assumed) that he was on about £3m per year. We sacked him with 2 years of his contract left. So that'd indicate £6m to cover his wages for the remainder of the contract. Don't think it'd be any less than his remaining wages, as he clearly didn't want to leave but was pushed.
  3. Stay up. Play sexy. Get wanked off in the toilets. Proud history, bright future.
  4. New season new kit A symbol of a fresh start I'll get "Ole 1"
  5. Of course that'd be amazing. I just don't think anyone sees it happening with this manager. I'd be happy if he made ten changes to the team against Swansea, as I'm not bothered about the FA Cup this season. Far more interested in not being relegated.
  6. Even if MON and McLeish have similar styles, there is a distinct difference. Under MON we were used to winning games, or at least being competitive. We're seeing that far less often under McLeish. You can argue that MON had more time to get to that stage, but I think MON started with a worse squad than McLeish has now. If MON had this squad and got these results at the start of his reign I'd be equally critical of the results.
  7. If collectively as supporters we have a spare £150M plus additional funds to strengthen the team then in theory yes, it's unlikely though i think. I'm sure Tom Hanks could help out.
  8. I don't think we're looking at one season of transition here. I think more likely we're looking at two or three. Two or three seasons to get some of the high earners off the books, to establish some of the younger players as fully-fledged first teamers by giving them extended runs in the first team, and more importantly, two or three years of very limited spending so that the football club is more sustainable or even making a tiny bit of profit. Randy has obvously taken a financial hit over the last two years. And things like that don't just turn around in a year unless you strike oil or something. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Heskey, Cuellar, Beye, Guzan and Marshall leave at the end of the season. We have Delfouneso and Weimann as back up strikers, and Siegriest into the first-team squad as back up goalkeeper. Then we may buy a cheap central defender to replace Cuellar, maybe a cheap right back too, but that'd be it. Then the following season I think would be Petrov's last for Villa as his contract will be up. Might also see some of the defenders like Dunne, Collins and Warnock moved on that point. So that'd be two seasons of little spending, so that by summer 2014 we can start spending a bit of money to replace the defence. Then players like Albrighton, Bannan, Delph, Herd, Delfouneso will have had more regular experience in the Premier League, so we can look at just improving the squad rather than replacing.
  9. I think the reason Bent gets more of a free pass from supporters (myself included) doesn't just come down to effort but also quality and what they offer us. Looking at two potential situations, that being Bent at Villa under a new manager, or McLeish at Villa with a new striker, which is going to offer us the best chance of success? For me it'd be Bent with a new manager. McLeish hasn't had a good start to his Villa career. I don't think people would be as bothered if a) he hadn't come from Blues, or (more importantly) his negative tactics and approached hadn't got Blues relegated last season. If we'd hired Martinez for example, and he'd got 23 points from 20 games, more people would be asking to give him time. But McLeish did send Blues down through negative football, and I fear we could go the same way. If we were to sack McLeish, I believe that Villa can either attract a better manager, or maybe an equally talented manager but one who is younger and looks to play more positive football. Bent too has had a poor season. He has had niggling injuries the last month, but he could have done more for us if he'd put more effort in. I'm not forgiving him for that entirely. But if we were to get rid of him, I don't believe we could replace him with a player who will be better for the club. I don't think McLeish could attract them, we evidently don't have the money to attract them, and I don't think the club has enough pull for players as it once did a few years ago. So in my opinion, if we were to replace Bent, we couldn't get an equal or better. If we were to replace McLeish, I believe we could. And that's why I give Bent less of a hard time.
  10. So let me get this straight? Your happy with our striker, who takes 70,000 of our money each week not being arsed, based on the fact that things arent quite going his way? I'm not happy with it, but I understand why it happens. Yes we all want players to do their best 100% of the time regardless of circumstances, but that just doesn't happen. Compare it to a workplace: if you get certain perks taken away, do you really think every person would continue to give 100% despite seeing no improvement in conditions or the prospect of better things to come? Of course not, and it's the same with footballers. Regardless of the money they earn or their line of work, they're people like you and me. If they get pissed off with things, it affects their performance. And whilst they shoulder part of that responsibility turn it around, so does their employer or boss, in this case the manager. McLeish should be doing everything possible to benefit Aston Villa. Yet he's taking a very good player and giving him no service and no support. It seems ridiculous not to consider how this might affect Bent.
  11. I would say that Bent could have done more to get himself more goals. But if the two best creative players in the team were sold, and a manager comes in who just employs a hoof ball tactic all the time, I probably wouldn't give a shit either.
  12. In the league, twice. He probably would have last year if he'd had a full-settled season (i.e. stayed at Sunderland all year or moved to Villa in the summer). He's into his prime now. This is his real chance to show that he is a top top goalscorer. And we're doing nothing about it.
  13. But he doesnt guarantee you 20 goals a season. Fair play if its Messi, you look to the manager to go to all ends to fit the player in. Not with Darren Bent Im afraid. His goalscoring record speaks for himself. Over the last five seasons he's up there with Rooney and Drogba, two of the best strikers in the world. The before last with Sunderland he scored 24 league goals. At the end of last season he played 16 games and scored 9 goals. That sort of form over a whole season gets you 20 goals minimum. Yet this season he has so far he's got 6 from 16 games. He's also had less touches in the Premier League than any other player. He's the best natural goalscorer we've had since Dwight Yorke and he's being absolutely wasted.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.