tyklip

I don't get this hate to other fans. Their perspectives make the board much more fun and it increases our knowledge. Blurting out pejoratives seems pretty lowly if you ask me. Why not be more welcoming of other fans? why? These annoy me ok? With respect, who has the problem in this scenario? You're annoyed with others and your response is to tell them to gtfo and throw insults their way? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't get this hate to other fans. Their perspectives make the board much more fun and it increases our knowledge. Blurting out pejoratives seems pretty lowly if you ask me. Why not be more welcoming of other fans?

I have watched Villa this season and i agree its shite. But i can't say that i feel personally offended by the whole situation. Im not happy about it but it certainly doesnt drive me to hate the bloke, like i say he has done nothing wrong in my eyes, he's trying to manage the team to the best of his ability which simply isnt good enough. I personally blaim Lerner for the situation we currently find ourselves in. You actually feel hatred towards Alex McLeish? No offence but i find that a little pathetic. He was offered the chance to manage our club, therefore as i said above, i blaim Lerner for it. Each to their own, i mean who am i to tell you how to feel towards someone? I just cant see how you can hate someone for trying to do their best. Maybe i just dont eat, sleep and live Aston Villa like some of you do. Maybe im not as much of a fan/supporter as some of you. I dont know. I think the last 3 words of your post is more accurate. You do realise that you are on a football forum dont you? Doing his best? He is rubbish! if thats his best we should all lay off him and let him do his job to the BEST of his ability. No matter how much we flirt with relegation and boring the fans to death we should just sit back and hold back our emotions! Get real! Shit!?!? This is a football forum!?!? Yes, i know he's rubbish, but do you really think he's not doing his best? Of course he's trying his best, and as ive said before, his best is simply not good enough. No offence chap, but you cannot sit there and honestly tell me you dont think he is trying to do well!? Im not saying hold back your emotions, my issue is with people saying they 'hate' the man. Ive got no issue with people voicing their opinions but when when people start slinging it around that they feel hatred towards McLeish then im sorry, you need to step back and remember this is a game...to listen to some of you you would think the bloke raped your sister!!! Get real??? I think by admitting that football isnt the be-all-and-end-all i am living in the real world. I'm with Wiggy on this one. I cannot wait to see him gone, and am crossing fingers that it will happen ASAP, but to say you hate the man? Well two things: 1) You don't know him. You've never had a conversation with him. You are decidedly ignorant of just who he is. I find it hard to hate in that circumstance. What has he done to earn your hate? To try and fail to be a good manager here. That's it. He sucks as a manager. If you hate him for that, well, that's how you feel, but it seems at best misguided. 2) To get back to the original point: if used in a propaganda campaign, it would backfire. The fans come off as the bad guys when using "hate". Far better to highlight the fact that he isn't good enough, not that you personally hate who he appears to be on camera.

I'm not sure if there is scapegoating, but your analysis points to the fact others clearly share responsibility. That you never wanted him in the first place (like 99% of fans) suggests strongly that the board and Lerner share blame. That, to me, is obvious. Their decision-making abilities, at least as far as I can tell, are far surpassed by McLeish's. That is saying very little, of course. I've said this before, but that they not only chose McLeish, but compensated SHA and then proceeded to give him a lucrative semi-long term 3 year contract is hardly conceivable. What I would give to be a fly on the wall when that decision was made. You talk about risk/reward. HUGE risk, very little reward. Why take such a huge risk when there is so little to be gained? Clearly, they, in my opinion, deserve the most blame.

You have the same thoughts as me but they're too much like commonsense for the board to understand, mate. Your duty, it seems, is to go and get behind the team no matter what decisions they make and the playing tactics that are used. Reminds me of "Into the Valley of Death rode the 600..." Both very good posts. I'm by no means suggesting that McLeish is doing a "reasonable" job, as has just been suggested, but the culprits for this mess are primarily those at the top for his appointment. I'm sure he's doing the best of his ability as manager (which to some extent, you can't really knock), but that isn't good enough, and the board should have known that - particularly given the fact he was probably the least popular manager that could have viably been appointed. You'd have to be an exceptional manager to have come in to the club under the circumstances McLeish did and pull off winning the fans over. The club isn't in a good state, and though Lerner should be praised for pumping money into the club originally, he must hear the criticism when he doesn't get it right, because the McLeish appointment was an utterly terrible decision. That's just it, and clearly he wasn't. So why take the HUGE risk? That is incompetent decision making, plain and simple.

You have the same thoughts as me but they're too much like commonsense for the board to understand, mate. Your duty, it seems, is to go and get behind the team no matter what decisions they make and the playing tactics that are used. Reminds me of "Into the Valley of Death rode the 600..." I get that about what my duty should be. However, perception is reality. If the fans think more of themselves, then that is it. No matter what our duty is. And if I were on that board I would be stating, "you all do realize, however you think it ought to be, that the fans will hate this. And unless he wins straight away, this is going to be a ****. Is there a different option that has a greater degree of success, something not so suicidally crazy??". (yes!!)

....... Right, but I'm actually wanting them to have to address my particular assessment beyond giving what amounts to a press release. It'll never happen, but one can dream.

The thing I keep coming back to is this: How out of touch with reality could those who appointed him be? Surely they must have thought, the ONLY way for this AM experiment to work is for him to get results in short order. They HAD to know that he would not be well-received, that he would be on a desperately short leash, and that, unless he got results quickly, the whole of the Villa fanbase would turn on him. Knowing that, they would have to ask: is this man capable (with the resources, or lack of resources given him) of doing that? His past record suggests not. Knowing that, they went ahead and paid off SHA, and gave him a THREE YEAR contract. I don't care what you think of AM, that is some SHOCKING decision making there. I am desperate to hear what the board are thinking now, and would die to hear their explanation of said decision making.

And then Martin Laursen retired... Even after that, but point taken.

Do you remember the days when Villa used to be lethal in set pieces and fierce in defending them? Those were good times...

I agree with everything that you said, but this is what I'm wondering: Why did it take Man City's recent antics in the transfer market for this realization? Wasn't this always (Premier League at least) the case with the former Top 4? They were always able to way outspend everyone else and that guaranteed their success. It seems that so many slate Man City as if they went about it somehow differently. I suppose they fast-tracked the process, but in the end it's the same: The best players gravitate to a select few clubs who will pay top dollar for them. In that respect, I hate Man City as much as I do every other top club and genuinely wonder if they really enjoy near foregone conclusions. I guess in the end I'm happy that Man City is behaving in such a way because it really brings the problem to the fore. I hope the whole system blows up and is replaced by a model that guarantees some parity in talent. Until then, I will give a big (or should I say small) ho hum to whatever happens with Villa.

he is playing 3 strikers, some out of possistion i know, am sure he wants them to go support bent at every attack, its up to them to use thier noodle and help support bent. i dont think the team is negative at all, just needs the players to do thier bit to make it work The problem is there are no creators, as other people of have mentioned. The strikers are all finishers (that's even generous for Heskey). Who is going to create goals? We will have to hope that somehow Villa nicks a goal.

Yep, agreed. Not much else to say.

This is something I said somewhere else: Your interpretation of the situation is nuanced and has some nice hopeful spin on the situation. But a couple things have been made clear here: Aston Villa clearly lacks ambition. Maybe that's just the way it is, maybe this is the best they can do. But think about that. The best they can do is get a manager who just had his team relegated. Twice in 3 years. No matter what you say, it is inarguable that this appointment shows that Aston Villa is not ambitious. Secondly, I don't expect the board to choose a manager based upon the fans. But I do expect them to know full well the consequences of whomever they choose. Their choice has been distrastrous at this point. It smacks of bad management. A good leader has his finger on the pulse of his supporters and acts in such a way that will get the most out of them. This has done the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. Even if it turns out well in the end (and using inductive reasoning it won't), this decision has created some serious hills for AVFC to climb. It did not have to be. So not only have they employed a manager who looks on paper pretty poor, that decision has in and of itself put that pretty poor manager (heck let's say he's average) as well as the whole club in a REALLY difficult situation. They have isolated themselves and it seems hardly likely that it will get better.

Quick point that will surely be lost in the shuffle: The appointment is a bad one, there is virtual unanimity in that. You can, as a Villa supporter, say "let's get on with it. Support the team. Suck it up." You can say, "well the board know what they're doing..." You can complain about the antics of protesting Villa fans. But to me, good management should have its finger on the pulse of its supporters and be keenly aware of decisions that might inspire huge protests. They need not ask our opinions. They should know what our reaction would be given a certain decision. It's just good leadership. It's also closely aligned with tact. You don't say things that will bring about a negative reaction. My 2 cents.

I fully agree. I understand why they're all organized in that way, I would much rather see a free flowing forum where we're being kep apprised of the latest news.