Keener window-cleaner

Selling him for £30m would be bad business as he will be worth £100m in a couple of years.

Jack or babyblue? ?

I agree, and I do think we had interest in attack. My observation and opinion is that we set up defensively, if we scored first we tried to kick on (which was a big improvement from the first season when we reverted to protect our penalty area when we scored), and in some games we scored a lot of goals, as the statistics tell. Those games were really great and I would have liked us to start the games like that. However I understand that it is a quite efficient tactic the way we played.

I would say set up defensively and set up to be hard to beat is more or less the same. I agree that we played more open and attacking in the second part of the season, and much more so than the first season under Bruce. But I would still call it defensively. Playing one striker and Jack, Snodgrass, Albert and CH is not attacking in my mind. It sure is attacking compared to how Bruce set up previously, but not compared to what I think is normal. Snodgrass and Albert are to me normal wingers (not like typical wide forwards) they track back like normal midfield wingers. CH is to me more or less an all action box to box midfielder. Even with the players you mention, we still had one defensive midfielder. Swap that defensive midfielder for a striker and I would call it a normal set up in a traditional 4-4-2. With the players you mention we basically swap one striker for an extra defensive midfielder in a typic 4-4-2, and I would call that to set up defensively. Then of course it's not just about the players and formation but what instructions you give them, but most games I would say that the style of play was cautious. A kind of direct counter attack style. Based on how I regard our tactics, I found that statistic confirming it as it says that in the most games we don't score many goals.

nope not assuming anything, just pointing out that I consider our style of play to be a defensive style of play. It quite often is a good tactic, it almost got us promoted and many teams win leagues with it. fwiw I'm not sure the RDM style was easy to beat, we mostly drew games under RDM.

You don't agree that we for most of the games set up defensively and to be hard to beat?

Until I know more about what's really going on at the club I think I'd prefer Bruce to stay to bring some stability to the mess(?).

It does count, but that statistics confirm that we played defensively in most games.

Ah, so then we don't need to sell Jack after all? Or do we still need to in order to comply with FFP?

So if we are making a loss of £5M a month, and we sell Grealish for £30M, it means it would simply keep us afloat six more months, until december, and then the problem is back.

Ah thanks, then I was mistaken. I actually don't know much about Calderwood or how he is a a coach, but I associate him with dull defensive football and wouldn't want him in charge just based on my prejudice.

A sober thought, could it be so that the gamble we took to try and reach the PL wasn't that bad a decision after all? We had a very high wage bill and would run out of money in two years, so what would be the best approach? A ) Start cost cutting the first year and not invest the parachute money. It would probably mean that we would settle for being a mid table Championship team a couple of years in order to be sustainable when the parachute money ends. Then we could build on that and try to reach the PL in a couple of years B ) Use the parachute money to make a serious attempt to go up the first or second year. If it fails we start the cost cutting and change strategy after two years. Now whilst throwing all money away on trying to reach the PL might seem to be bad decison making, but it was perhaps rather a question of when the serious cost cutting would start, year one or year three. I bet the new owner would have problems selling it in to the fans that we would directly start cost cutting and settle for being a mid Championship team. I think there would have been big discontent amoung the fans. Sure, we could have saved some more money, and we could have spent it more wisely, but the basic strategy of giving the PL a shot at the first och second season was perhaps not such a bad decision after all. And if it is correct that we have lowered the wage bill from £80-90M to arbound £50M and also made profit on player transfers, we have actually both managed to cut costs and make a serious shot of being promoted. I still in the sentiment that I want Xia and Wyness and the others responsible to be hanged, but perhaps the basic strategy wasn't that bad after all?

I think we played some of our best football last season when Bruce was away (because of the sad personal circumstances) and Agnew was in charge. I would be ok with him getting the job. Would give us both continuity, some fresh ideas and probably a cheap alternative, as long as we don't have to pay of Bruce.

At the time it was gooopooooo!

Ok, you are also off the list of new CEO:s.

I've started to like him over the last years, but he still can't pass the ball properly and has a mistake in him, so I'll be happy to see him leave. Best wishes and all the best and thank you for your professionalism, energy and enthusiasm. Bye bye!

I'm all for it, just make sure it's the Mellbergs, Carews and Laursens we get and not the Allbäcks, Hellenius and Enkelmans ?

I feel the same, I can't be relaxed when I don't understand how we are owned and by who. And if we are run by borrowed money, borrowed from who? I've let it be for the last years but now these worries are coming back. It's not any conspiracy crap, it's just simply that I want to understand how we are owned and I want to know what could happen in different scenarios. For example, if something would happen to any of the companies (that do or do not own us), if they go backrupt, if new legislation means they are put out of business etc, what would that mean to us? If something would happen to Tony personally, what would happen to us? I guess it would make a huge difference if he owns us personally (or via his companies) or if it is a company that owns us where Tony is just a director or part owner. That's at least how it is in many western countries, and it would be strange if it isn't the same in China. As has been said, merely the fact that he has managed to loan money (if that is the case) doesn't mean everything is well. That money will have to be paid back in one way or another, and I would bet you can't dodge FFP by simply borrowing money.

Chinese company law must be something monstrous, China seems to really have gone all in for capitalism and business... how about just having a transparent and simple company structure!? Here is my company, I own it.

I think this is really interesting (and I like organisation charts ?), but could you explain how the company structure in blue is connected to the company structure in green? I see that there are two red arrows pointing from Xia to the parent and child co, but I don't get how the child co is connected to the green part. And regarding what you said about this being the chinese companies and not the UK ones, do you know who (one of these companies?) it is that owns the UK firm Recon Football Limited (where Tony, Ho and Wyness are directors)? Thanks!

Ok, you are off the list of potential new CEO:s.

Even if Tony has managed to get a £50M loan, don't we still have FFP problems? I thought the purpose of FFP was to prevent owners from just pumping in money?

How much more of a Villa hero could he be if he, allthough against his will, accepts to be sold and by that rescues the club from going under? (another interpretation could be that he by going rescues Tony, and helps Tony to keep hold of our club...which I'm not sure if I'd want)

Thanks a lot for your posts Deisler, I appreciate them a lot. One thing I find really interesting with this are the "owners" of the parent company, you say they are a lot of holding companies. Is it in any way possible to get information about who owns these holding companies? As I understand it, it's the owner of these companies that really owns us. As Tony is the chairman of the parent company, I guess Tony either owns these companies, or has enough influence on them to be elected chairman? It would be very interesting to know though if someone else also partly owns us.