bobzy

Substitute "winger" for "someone who can cross a ball". I like how Kozak gets himself into position in and around the penalty area and that he's good in the air with a decent touch. However, he doesn't seem to be very quick nor put much of a shift in in terms of harrying possession. I like the guy, but he really needs service. He won't create much for himself.

No you don't play for so long at Utd if you're rubbish, that's why he moved there 12 years ago for £30m, but that was 12 years ago. Ferdinand is now 35, slow, injury prone and no where near as good as he was. Just because Ferdinand was a top, top defender, doesn't mean he is now. I'd rather Senderos now, who is still in his prime, than Ferdinand now, who is completely past it. Keane played for Utd for 12 years and was a top player, should we stick him in midfield instead of being assistant? Actually, that's not a bad shout... At 35 years old - lets say he played 10 games this season and is able to transfer his knowledge of the game etc. onto Clark/Baker/Okore. Would this really be a bad thing?

No - but he gave it his best shot...... ... and couldn't even manage that! So results have been good enough to keep us in the Premier League then? But ok, results say he's "out of his depth".

I've heard this theory from quite a few people now so there could possibly be something to it. 11th June - Villa announce new owners 12th June - World Cup starts This seems too good to be true

And therein lies the problem. He isn't going to be happy being number two for such a shit manager, trying to train such a hopeless bunch of non-footballers. VT; expert football managers, club owners, assistant managers, scouts, chief executives and now "being Roy Keane".

He isn't anything special to be honest, certainly not on par with quite a few of the previous Eredivisie top-scorers. Ultimately he's pretty lucky to play in a gung-ho team who get awarded penalties every other game. I would've rathered someone like Castaignos who is infinitely more talented but it seems like Swansea are closing in on him. Not that I think a new striker should be high on our list of priorities right now anyway. A friend of mine is a Twente fan and is celebrating that they're selling Castaignos.

My point is he's not a decent player. He's a bang average defender at best and that's why he's signed for a club like ours. He is pretty average. I don't think anybody can deny that. He is just better than what we have. Possibly. And again that fact is just depressing. But you've just accepted that we're average. Are you lowering your expectations?!?!£?!£?!"?£$"?$

Come on, why would that ever happen? If a takeover isn't looking likely and they tell us that, the asking price just gets knocked down some more. It makes no sense to relay that kind of information.

Has he got us relegated? Has he ever been relegated from the Premier League?

Err...no, no it isn't actually. Any bad player can have occasional "decent spells" (as you put it) in the same way that very good players suffer the obligatory dips in form every so often. Nathan Baker has had a couple of "decent spells" over the last two seasons too but that doesn't change the fact that overall, he is an utter liability and not good enough to play at this level. What winds me up is when people are coming to the conclusion that he "can't be that bad" based on the flawed logic of who he happened to play for or in your case how long he played in the league rather than his actual performances throughout his career. Though I digress, the usual convenient short-term memory has clearly come to the fore in which him being a complete joke figure amongst Arsenal fans and just last season being let go by a team with the worst defence in the league have been airbrushed. I'm almost 100% confident that most people haven't watched much of Philippe Senderos. This goes for most players in the Premier League that are just in that "meh" sort of field - outside of Villa, most people won't have watched much of Ciaran Clark, Karim El Ahmadi, Leandro Bacuna etc. etc. It's just the way it goes. But if stats are anything to go by... ...before Senderos left Fulham, they had conceeded 50 goals in the league at a rate of 2.17 per game, including a 6-0 loss against Hull (their heaviest defeat of the season) in which Senderos didn't play. After he left, they conceeded 35 goals in the league at a rate of 2.33 per game. Before Senderos joined, Valencia had conceeded 35 goals in the league at a rate of 1.52 per game. After he joined, they conceeded 18 goals at a rate of 1.2 per game. Just a coincidence? Obviously he missed games at both clubs, I can't be bothered to go into that level of detail though

Haha! Yeah, we were nowhere near 10th at any point this season were we....? Oh... right. We started 2nd and won our first game so I guess we can say winning the title was a possibility. Our form over the 2nd half of the season shows it was never going to happen. That part where we had all of our most expensive players injured? Agreed, it was very unlikely to happen.

Results say he's a Premier League manager managing a Premier League team - irrespective of whether or not that is good enough for fans.

Furthermore, r.e: "what does this mean behind the ownership!?!" - surely you have to make provisions anyway? If a new owner doesn't come in before the new season and we signed absolutely nobody, fans would be up in arms. We need to make (likely inexpensive) signings to bolster our team irrespective of a new owner or not.

The flip-side of this being people who want to ignore the nine-seasons he played in this league where he never once looked remotely like a Premier League footballer and pretend that that will suddenly change now. Surely, thus, there is a reason he has played in the Premier League for 9 seasons? I'm not saying he's the best player in the world, but players not good enough at this level get found out and left behind - they don't stick around for 9 seasons (10 now!). Edit: Same point made above :/

finally someone thinking logically It doesn't work that logically imo unless we sell one of Clark/Baker. It's not a first team player (again, imo) coming into a position where we already have reasonable depth.

It is no different to if we had signed somebody like Yaya Toure and I started going around blasting those hailing it as a great signing on the basis that he might suddenly flop and not be good enough. That is the sort of rationale at play here. It's not, though, as Yaya Toure (as per your example) would still be given a chance despite those thinking he might suddenly flop. What's happening here is the complete write off of a player before he's done anything for the club. I'm not saying he's a good signing, by the way. In fact, I don't even see the point in getting him given that Baker/Clark have had quite a bit of first team exposure now.

I doubt people worldwide know this. I agree r.e: moot point, but assuming a Red Bull consortium did takeover Aston Villa, we'd certainly be re-branded. It's the easy identification that companies are after, not a thought process of "wait, Aston Villa? Are they owned by Red Bull or something?".

Who knows; I think it will be allowed in years to come, yes.

I know nothing of NFL but looking it up, that is hardly a relevent example. Someone like Red Bull taking over doesn't involve relocation and the creation of a new franchise. All it involves is a charge of shirt colour and renaming of the stadium. Well, to be fair, the post I was replying to talked about changing the name of the team as well. If Aston Villa were bought, and the team that started next season in place of Aston Villa were called Birmingham R** B**** and they played at R** B*** Park, B6, in their particular corporate colours, then no, I wouldn't regard that as the same team at all, and I wouldn't support them. I'm not sure where people get this idea that it would change to 'Red Bull Birmingham' to be honest. With every other team they have taken over, they keep the general name but add 'Red Bull' before it. So if they had their way it would be 'Red Bull Aston Villa' here which isn't really a change of name but just the insertion of a sponsors' name before it. Obviously though, league rules here would never allow that here so at most it would be 'RB Aston Villa' just as they've done with Leipzig. Now I don't know about you but having two new letters preceding our pre-existing name wouldn't be anywhere near enough for me to relinquish my support of the club. In fact, I doubt I'd barely notice. A new stadium and a team called Red Bull Aston Villa is literally the last thing I would want. It's not the same club, it's a re-branding exercise of a footballing institution. You're taking away the essence of the club and turning it into a subsidiary of Red Bull. **** that. I'm always staggered by how many people want it/would be happy with it if it happened.

I take it you were furious when Lerner bought the club and started spending lots more than most teams? Were you wishing for the days of Doug when Lerner was spending cash fast trying to buy success? No because, much like now, our spending had dried up under Doug (if it was ever flowing ) and we needed re-investment. Exactly the same situation now, we need re-investment because our owner is basically stopping his. There's a vast difference between spending, say, £60m on new playing staff and spending £200m, though. To come from nowhere like Man City/Chelsea or to spend gradually and improve your infrastructure like, say, Arsenal or Spurs. I know Arsenal have won not as much as they'd like, but I'd much rather see that sort of sustainable running of a club at Villa. What city are doing is sustainable though. Which is, of course, why they've been hit with (nonsense, but that's a different point) FFP infringement punishments.

Spurs spent over £100m this summer. Stewart Downing is our second highest ever fee. Spurs have signed at least ten players for the same as or more than that. Arsenal spent well over £40m on one player. Back in 1999 they spent £11m on Thierry Henry. Apart from Downing and Bent that's more than we've ever spent on anyone. And it was 15 years ago. Spurs received £80m+ on one player. Not sure what Stewart Downing has to do with anything. Spurs received £80m+ on one player. Arsenal are a well run club with minimal debt and high turnover - exactly what we should be aiming for. Back in 1999, they received over £20m for Nicolas Anelka and bought Thierry Henry the day after. That transfer window they (apparently) received £29m and spent £23m. In the same transfer window, Villa (apparently) received £4.5m and spent £7.2m. But ok.

Surely success breeds money breeds success? I can't imagine it was an entirely level playing field even back in the Victorian era when we were smashing all-comers to win the league so many times, and the double. I also don't think we'd necessarily see a decline in the youth system. If anything we'd be more attractive because better players want to play for successful clubs, however old they are. If we were a Champions League team would Dan Crowley have left for Arsenal? Look how many academy players feature for Real, Barça, Bayern. Liverpool and Yernited too. Quite how anyone can think that a serious level of investment would destroy the soul of this great club, pioneers of league football across the world, the fourth most successful club in English history (despite winning practically bugger in the best part of 80 years) and one time Champions of Europe is beyond me. We're going against the tradition and foundations of the club right now by being crap. They don't give out trophies for moral victories I'm afraid. And William McGregor founded us to be the best club in the world, not to win debating competitions down the pub. Money breeds success breeds money, really. Look at the variation in league winners before the Premier League came to life. I would hazard a guess at essentially **** all academy players playing for Real, Bayern, Liverpool and United by the way? Not that Liverpool are really in the same bracket as the others despite them having a great season last time out. It definitely happens at Barcelona... but then they poach youngsters illegally and then train them up. Hey, maybe we'd be ok with that too since winning is all that matters apparently

I take it you were furious when Lerner bought the club and started spending lots more than most teams? Were you wishing for the days of Doug when Lerner was spending cash fast trying to buy success? No because, much like now, our spending had dried up under Doug (if it was ever flowing ) and we needed re-investment. Exactly the same situation now, we need re-investment because our owner is basically stopping his. There's a vast difference between spending, say, £60m on new playing staff and spending £200m, though. To come from nowhere like Man City/Chelsea or to spend gradually and improve your infrastructure like, say, Arsenal or Spurs. I know Arsenal have won not as much as they'd like, but I'd much rather see that sort of sustainable running of a club at Villa.

But the reasons for supporting a club are usually sentimental. That doesn't mean though that once you support a club for these reasons that the the basic spirit of sport goes out of the window. There is literally no point in supporting a football club if you are content to accept being perpetual losers just due to some sort of idealism that belongs in the 80's. Whether or not you like it, football has moved on from then and Villa as a club need to also. Not really considering that there are other clubs in the league who spend huge amounts already. If hypothetically we were taken over, spent big amounts and won the league in a few years time, then it wouldn't be because we had grossly outspent the likes of Chelsea and City. It would be because our team performed better and we'd therefore be rightful champions. Second point completely proves that money wins, doesn't it? We would be champions because we're competing in the same financial markets as Chelsea/Man City and, therefore, able to challenge. Ergo, money = win. The bit in bold is certainly fair enough r.e: the football world has changed and Villa must too; I completely accept that. However, I reject that there is no point in being a football fan if you're content not to follow this. What would be the point in lower league football? Why bother having a relegation zone as people just won't support teams? It's nonsense and smacks of gloryhunting to be honest.

This post epitomizes why a lack of success has become acceptable to some of our fans. Its a fine notion to have home grown players in your team but will our academy ever produce enough quality at the one time to form a successful team in the Premiership? a ) People, including yourself, need to **** off with this "lack of success has become acceptable", "lowered expectations" nonsense. We've won 2 trophies in 31+ years - 0 trophies in 18 years. Of course I accept that we're not a top team, for **** sake. b ) Depends what you define as successful. A league winning team, though? No. No academy will.