Mark Albrighton

Batten down the hatches!!!

“In yo face Boulton & Watt” would be my guess. (I actually didn’t know those two were on the current £50 note, I assumed it was still the portly glumness of Houblon....shows how often I see that denomination)

£20m.

But we weren’t “cash strapped” throughout his tenure, which is what some sections of the media are suggesting/implying. It’s certainly the way Bruce would like to tell the tale. He had to sell a few players to buy the players he wanted, anyone would think he was the only manager ever to face such an indignity. Regarding Smith, I don’t know, it’s literally a different league in terms of spending, the club are trying to assemble a squad with quality throughout, filling in the sizeable gaps that have appeared through loan players returning, players out of contract etc. I suspect the majority will be very happy with anything other than a relegation battle. Personally, I’m not fixated on what the figure Bruce spent, net spend or otherwise. My biggest gripe is the pretence his hands were tied during every transfer window. If you can buy Bree for £3m and not play him or if you can offer Bolasie £80 grand a week, etc etc etc then you aren’t exactly on the breadline.

It’ll go the other way. Every time one of our players goes down injured it’ll be “Please be an itchy arse” or “look at the fingers, definitely a scratching motion.”

FWIW I have never heard of Carlos Soler, but his Wikipedia page currently has his birthplace as “Aston Villa”. Welcome home son. Edit - now someone has changed it to “Valencia, Spain” so I don’t know what to think anymore.

It’s an old saying handed down by generations of roadsweepers. Look after your broom.

I’d say they were a bit on the expensive side, all of them with maybe the exception of Elphick and Chester who’s transfer fees seemed relatively sober at the time. Knock off a million for Jedinak, a couple for Kodjia, etc then it’s not as chaotic. But yeah, a lot of them served a function and a lot of them were readily utilised by Bruce and Smith.

I think it does factor in. If the argument is “oh he had to sell to buy” I think it’s relevant to look at who he actually had to sell. Veretout for instance was always going to leave, I don’t believe Bruce or the club were pinning their hopes on a season with Veretout in midfield, having not played a single competitive game for us since we were relegated. However, the money from his sale goes towards the final net spend figure. Essentially we brought in £10m for a player we weren’t going to use again. Great. But it was basically a free hit. A saleable commodity we weren’t ever going to use. When people say “he had to sell to buy” it’s suggestive that there was some reluctance in letting the players sold go, like they were integral to the team. It provokes a sympathetic response. It feeds into this idea that his whole tenure was similar to those few terrible weeks last summer. I don’t think that is the case for a fair few of the player sold. Ergo it shouldn’t provoke such a response. @markavfc40 Yes, fair enough I had completely forgotten Ayew, Gestede and Cissokho (I added Westwood in my edit shortly afterwards). I will concede that those three were probably closer to Baker in terms of Bruce reluctantly letting them go, just about. They’re closer to Baker in terms of whether Bruce relied on them than say, Carlos Sanchez. As I say, my main point is Bruce/we bring in £10m for Veretout or £2m for Gil or £3m for Gollini. Great. But I don’t think it’s particularly praiseworthy, what else were we realistically going to do with them? Let them rot with McCormack? They didn’t want to be here, I don’t think we really wanted them here, so they were sold and those significant funds were used accordingly. And without wanting to ignite the “what managers actually do in terms of transfer fees” debate, I assume Bruce had as much say in how much cash was brought in for Veretout as he did for how much went out for the Hogan deal.

While in fairness, he/the club may have brought in some money through player sales, how many were from players that he actually used? Players that he would have genuinely liked to have kept? Baker, yep I know he was reluctant to let him go. So fair do’s that was perhaps a bit of a hardship, possibly the biggest. Gollini, however it happened, his days here were numbered from early on. I don’t think he played many games under Bruce. I don’t believe letting him go was much of an issue. Gil/Veretout, I don’t believe either played for us in the championship. So again, I don’t think he would have been too downbeat about bringing in cash for those. Amavi, he played a bit, I know you didn’t rate him. I can believe Bruce may have wanted to keep him. Bacuna, a few million there was it? Fair enough, but if Bruce was unhappy about losing him, he would have been one of the few. Did we receive any money for Sanchez? If we did, then ok but again not someone who Bruce would have built the team around. Unless I’ve missed someone, I think these transfers out account for the majority of money being brought in. So does Bruce deserve a bit of credit for his role in some of these departures bringing in the cash? Yes, but by and large these were not players that were used by Bruce or had any real future at the club, so I don’t think Bruce would feel too hard done by for bringing in money for them in order to bring in his own players. Basically I’d be more sympathetic to the “sell to buy” notion if he had been forced to sell the likes of Chester, Grealish, Kodjia etc. Edit - forgot Westwood. Brought in a few quid for him too, and he did play him a bit. So maybe Bruce was reluctant to sell him.

The article says “his unhappy time at cash strapped Villa”, and there’s quote about worries of people not being paid. Yes, that happened. It was a terrible time. I am sorry Steve that you had those testing few weeks to endure. But the article makes it sound like it was like that his entire time here. I would genuinely like to know how Bolton supporters would view that article knowing that paupers Aston Villa were soon able to pay £70/80 grand a week to Bolasie, having already spent several million on Bree and barely played him...we all know the various examples that can be listed. There are valid points from the more pro Bruce voices, some of them well reasoned, but this is exactly the kind of shit that gets churned out that his detractors point to when they say his media pals come to the rescue.

Trigger and his broom sweeping up aboard Theseus’ ship.

Wasn’t Etheridge quoted about £10m? If the options are Butland for £20m+, Heaton for £12m or Etheridge for £10m, I’d go for the last option.

#bruceout is in at number 8 on twitter’s trending list, between “Joey Barton” at 7 and “John Humphrys” at 9. “Rafa Benitez to Steve Bruce” is in at number 10.

They’re really not happy are they? It’s like Pardew’s back. I wouldn’t have expected them to be thrilled at the appointment, but I hadn’t anticipated the vitriolic response. Would be curious what the reaction would have been if they had brought back Big Sam or Chris Hughton.

I’ve seen £7m - £9m quoted.

Welcome to the Steve Bruce thread. You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

I was involved in a minor collision earlier this evening. Someone drove into the back of me. No one hurt thankfully. That didn’t cheer me up, that was irritating. What did cheer me up was the number of other drivers who stopped to see if I was alright while I was standing by the side of the road for the near two hours I was there. Offering to tow my car, asking if I needed water or anything. There was about five or so separate people who asked. My Penelope Pitstop, damsel in distress look must be stronger than I had previously thought. They probably won’t read this, but I’d like to give my sincere thanks again to those who offered assistance. If I see a car broken down I normally think “well, I could offer to help but I’m useless with cars, I’ll just be in the way.” In future if I see someone in a similar predicament, I will endeavour to try and offer any support.

Link

Answering my own question -

He certainty made Wednesday harder to beat, but taking into account who they played I don’t think it was quite the upturn in fortunes that was it being hailed as. I’m sure there are those who will say he saved Sheffield Wednesday. But did anyone really think they were going to be relegated before he took over? Broadly speaking he did there what he did here in his first season, but in a shorter time frame. Even the final position is the almost the same. It was probably slightly better at Wednesday thinking about it, as obviously he didn’t spend in the January transfer window. It was solid, rather than being remarkable, which was what Wednesday needed in fairness.

Oh, I get it. You were lampooning me.

Not quite the same, but there’s that episode of friends where they have two parties for Rachel because her parents don’t get on. Oh and the restaurant bit in Mrs Doubtfire has similarities. There’s gotta be some more, but can’t think of them.