El Segundo

On 02/10/2023 at 19:30, maqroll said:

This is a great badge and a perfect template for us to use. ASTON on top, VILLA on bottom, 18 and 74 on sides, and a shield with a highy detailed lion and the Prepared motto under it.

 

I like the idea of having a link to Birmingham in the badge - not necessarily the word "Birmingham" but in a split shield design like this you could have the Lion where the castle is, a Bull/Bull's head representing Brum where the harp is and maybe something else where the ship is - perhaps a bear with a ragged staff to represent Warwickshire. Maybe a start where the ball is too.   Edit- just added a very rough example as my personal icon

7 hours ago, DCJonah said:

We had fans wanting MON sacked for daring to get more points each season. 

I've no doubt they'll turn on Unai at some point. 

I wanted rid of MON because I could see he was an outdated, limited egomaniac and could tell he would never get us higher than 6th despite (mis-)spending the family silver.  Unai is nothing like him.

I've not been impressed with this bloke at all.  Even in the early games where he got some goals and assists he didn't strike me as great, just ok.  His decision-making, crossing and passing are generally  woeful and he's too easily dominated and marginalised. 

But Monchi must have seen something in him to so hopefully it's a Bailey/Luiz type situation and he will eventually come good.  For now though we might as well play Kellyman or pretty much anyone else, they could barely be worse.

I think  Howe and Newcastle deserve credit for that.

They not only pressed us intensively very high, but also backed it up by man-marking our four midfielders so there was no easy out-ball. We had to resort to long punts up to Ollie or out wide which were too often either inaccurate or easily turned over.   

It was crying out for a defender to step out beyond the high press and bring the ball out, like Torres would do and Mings used to.  Moreno did on occasion but not often enough or effectively enough.   Konsa seemed afraid to try. 

We compounded that by defending like novices - Schar allowed a free shot for the first,  Cash at fault for the third.

The high line defence needs protecting with a really good press and we are not pressing anywhere near as well as required. They had time and space to pick out multiple long balls to expose us.

I know Emery likes us to control the game and draw the opposition out before trying to play through them but it needs a bit of tempo and zip at times and we were so slow and ponderous in our build up.  Even with 5 minutes left and two goals down we seemed to be still trying the patient approach – surely that’s the time to go shit or bust and get it in the mixer?

When Baily came on and started running them ragged Howe brought on Livramento to double up on him and it stifled him for a while.   Bailey sending Burn out for the papers was genius but ultimately led to nothing.    

Newcastle  were  “clever “ in getting “injuries” to stop our momentum when pressure was building.

I’ve not been Diaby’s biggest fan this season and tonight convinced me he’s  £35m-£52m of lightweight mediocrity.   Wild stab in the dark but I doubt any of the add-ons have kicked in yet.  Bailey did more in his first 5 minutes. But then I guess Bailey was just as bad 18 months ago.

Might be just a glitch but I’m concerned too many coaches have sussed Emery out and he could do with a  plan B and C. 

The ref, as usual, seemed too ready to deem our fouls as yellows, while they got away with it until very late on.  Yet another on the PGMOL conveyor belt of clowns.

Poor since the City game, need to snap out of it soon. 

I'm also not massively confident about this one, mainly because our last two home games were rather lumpen performances against the two bottom sides and Newcastle are better than them despite their injury list and we need to step up again.  Form in general seems to have taken a real dip since we beat Arsenal. 

Diaby owes us a performance if he's selected, and it's about time Ollie got back on the scoresheet.   Despite wanting desperately to put 3 or 4 past this lot again I'm going for a narrow win 1-0 or 2-1 but a draw would not surprise me. 

For those who believe in omens, it's our 150th anniversary and 150 in roman numerals is.......CL.  It's written in the stars I tell ya.

4 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

I think we will pretty much mirror the end of last season this season, no reason not to believe

 

I hope you're right but I think a few things are a bit different to the second half of last season.  One, our away form isn't as good both defensively and attacking wise.  Two, more teams seem to have cottoned on that we can struggle to break down a low block and we seem to be missing the extra bit of creativity that Buendia/Coutinho were bringing to the final third in the second half of last season.  Maybe Tielemans can fill the gap when fully fit.  We also have more injury and poor form issues than last year. 

4 hours ago, bobzy said:

Refs have no chance.  I'd love to see retrospective action on feigning of injury but it will never, ever happen.

Agree with what most of you said but for the refs having no chance is down to them.  They have brought the going to ground and rolling around thing on themselves because players have learned it's often an almost guaranteed way to get a foul called and the opponent into trouble.  Refs are giving fouls based on the consequences of an act, rather than the act itself.  So with Cresswell, if the consequence of him getting a swipe round the back of the head was him not going to ground, it's not that bad.  If the consequences were that it felled him (whether genuinely or not) the Pavlovian dog with a whistle would have taken more serious action.   Similarly I'm pretty sure Diaby would have got a pen on Sunday had he gone down after Mykolenko clipped him (although you never know with David Coote who seems to have his own personal levels of ultra-incompetence).  I'm pretty sure Duran wouldn't have got a pen against Sheffield had he stayed on his feet, which he probably could have done.  The game has gone that way because refs have allowed it to.  You can't really blame the players for playing the game that gets the rewards. 

8 hours ago, TRO said:

.but you still have to have a destroyer in the ranks, they are just stealthier with it, as Tarkowski, can testify.

You think that performance by Tarkowski was stealthy?  Just because the officials couldn't see how out of control he was doesn't mean it wasn't blatantly obvious to everyone else. 

I think a draw would suit us best here.   Spurs are probably our biggest rivals for a CL place but I can see United improving second half of the season with their injured players coming back, and Hojland now knowing where the net is, also being a rival for top 4.   

14 minutes ago, Sulberto21 said:

The best pressing teams in the league are Man City, Liverpool, Spurs, Brighton, Arsenal and Newcastle. Unai Emery has beaten them all. 

The problem today wasn’t physical it was technical.

Don't think we've beaten Liverpool since Emery took over.

20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, that's absolutely true. But like, what can be done about it? Unfortunately we can't travel back through time and do it differently. 

My suggestion was to base these teams' FFP restrictions on the revenues of clubs of a similar size and stature who did not benefit from doping.  So for example base City's and Chelsea's FFP criteria on the revenues of the likes of Everton, Newcastle or Villa.     

37 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Newcastle had lots of FFP headroom because Ashley had managed them conservatively. They are now limited because they haven't been able to grow their revenue at the pace they would need to to match any further spending. That's the rules working as they are supposed to. The reason 'big 6' clubs can spend more is because they have higher revenues; of course it is true that 'having more money' is beneficial, but it would be beneficial under any plausible rules. 

The one club who genuinely could simply run at a massive loss forever without ever having to consider increasing revenue is of course Newcastle, but it's an argument in *favour* of FFP (as you acknowledge) that it has prevented a nation state from buying a football club and then never having any financial restriction at all. 

 That's because they make lots of money. See above; clubs that make more money will be able to spend more money under any plausible rules you can think of. FFP/PSR makes no judgement about whether clubs spend the money wisely or not, so that's not very relevant to the discussion.

The second sentence disproves the first, that *is* the system working as intended, because 'regularly qualifying for the Champions League' = greater revenue. 

As I've said on the transfer thread though,  certain clubs only have higher revenues and regular CL qualifications (which perpetuate each other) because they were allowed to financially dope prior to FFP.   So while FFP is sort of working as intended, some clubs - PSG, Chelsea, City - were allowed to slip through the owner investment net and gain a massive unfair advantage.  

1 hour ago, duke313 said:

How is that a good thing for us?  The longer Newcastle are held back the better.  As rich as our owners are, we aren't outspending oil backed state sponsored sports washing clubs.  

It's not good for us unless of course NSWE were willing and able to pump as much into the club as Abramovich did at Chelsea and Sheikh YaMoney did at City.  It would at least make it a level playing field for all clubs, and allow those with newly adorned with rich owners to do as they did. 

That would not be good for the game though, but neither was allowing some clubs to spend freely and then stopping others from doing so, thus distorting genuine competition. 

My point was more about bringing the likes of Chelsea and City back within the limits that other clubs of similar size and history have to deal with,  rather than the artificially inflated revenue streams they now have.   

8 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Without FFP, City, Chelsea and United would have been able to spend even more money than they already have. So would make no difference. 

You're missing the point.  They may have been able to spend even more, but Newcastle could have come along and still blown them out of the water.   And we and others may have been able to spend as much too.  i.e. we may have been more able to catch up and compete, or even overtake.  FFP has protected the likes of City and Chelsea from that scenario while still allowing them to spend much more than most based on the increased revenue bases - which they only managed to generate because of financial doping.   

7 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

It has a big impact. 1)years?  Loss of revenue from reduced attendance. 2) Reduced Villa Park atmosphere means potentially less home wins. A win in CL is worth £2.4m. 

Wouldn't loss of matchday revenue from our smallest stand be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things? Even over two years? (And I Still don't understand why it would need two years to build a new stand).   The opportunity cost - loss of potential increase in revenue in the long term - would surely dwarf it. 

As for point 2 I think it's pure speculation that the atmosphere and results would be adversely affected.  I don't recall much in the way of drop-off in either when we replaced the Trinity.  And the Holte generates most of the noise anyway.

19 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

The fact us and Newcastle have to be very careful in regards to FFP just shows how bad Cities financial doping for a decade is. 

It's allowed them to dominate. Imagine if they'd actually followed the rules. 

It just shows how FFP has helped the richer clubs.  It basically  "pulls up the ladder behind them" to prevent anyone else crashing the party.  Teams like Chelsea and City have much bigger revenues than us because they were able to financially dope to reach and maintain the  highest levels.  Which effectively allows them to continue to financially dope, to an extent.  It's going to be very difficult for even Newcastle to catch up because all the money in the world does not help if you can't spend it. 

What I would like to see happen is that FFP limits should be applied to teams like City and Chelsea based on their likely revenue bases if they hadn't doped for years.  For example their FFP status should be assessed on the revenue bases of clubs that were arguably of similar stature before the doping started.  Teams like Villa, Everton and Newcastle.  Or, when you consider they were not even in the top flight for much of their pre-doping eras,  maybe even clubs like Forest or Palace.   Of course that will never happen, but it would be a lot fairer than what is in place now.

I didn't think we were that bad, we increased the tempo second half and created a fair few chances.  We were unlucky with the one that hit the post, the ref got the penalty call badly wrong and Moreno and Diaby missed fairly easy chances.  The bit of luck in the end made up for that.   Boro are a decent team with a good coach and no pushover.   Not just the ref but the linesman nearside did not seem to know what a foul is.  Bloody awful.  Tielemans and Buendia are players we miss against low blocks.

1 minute ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Why is it every cup game we have to bring on the big guns even though the team should be more than capable of disposing the opposition. 

TO be fair we've hit the post, should have had a pen and the keeper has saved a couple.  

The pen call looked like a clear trip to me, caught his one leg and caused him to catch the other and go over.  Not sure why anyone wouldn't think it's a foul.  VAR gives that 100%

This Ref is appalling even by usual PL standards.  He's either blind or simply doesn't understand what a foul is.

This is like being asked to describe your best ever blow job.  Very hard to choose.  We'd probably miss Watkins and Luiz most if they were out.  Digne has stepped up brilliantly but a slight drop off recently.  Pau started slowly but is now a key player. McGinn has been brilliant at times but with one or two AWOL performances.  Bailey now looks more of a £50m player than Diaby does and his goals and assists per minute played are probably better than Watkins.  Emi has saved us multiple times.  Kamara has been missed and makes Dougie better.  Konsa has turned into a Rolls Royce of a defender and should be a shoe-in for England. 

I think Luiz just edges it for me as he is the tempo-setter and the main cog in Emery's machine, defends, creates, scores and great pens.   

8 hours ago, Mic09 said:

It's an assumption he hasn't got any football knowledge. The Red Bull thing happened 10 years ago. 10 years ago, Jacob Ramsey was a shit footballer. 

People learn and I don't even mind him not coming strictly from a football background. Again, his job is to bring money, something he seems to know a fair bit about. 

And "pissing off the fan base" is veeery subjective. Personally, I'm not pissed off. 

Yet.

For me it takes a bit more to get pissed off. I am going to give him some time to make an informed decision - maybe the new stand wasn't the best way forward? No one knows the ins and outs. I'd like a new stand as much as my 4 year old wants a new toy. But the parents know the financials behind it, and maybe want to save up to get him a better toy. 

Terrace view happend in the holte because that was the best place for it with our current stadium situation. And that revenue could get us a new Douglas Luiz extension. It's a price I'm willing to pay. 

I doubt JJ was a shit footballer 10 years ago and he's since spent 10 years training to be a very good footballer.   Heck has been in Basketball. 

Heck clearly knows about the money side, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. 

Ok you're not pissed off, and I dare say others aren't either.  But plenty are.  

Indeed maybe the new stand wasn't the best way forward. - but then why not explain why? Surely he knows the ins and outs if he's made the decision?  Why spin a load of garbage about it?

You may be happy to be treated like a 4 years old, I'm not.  I fully understand the financial situation, the need for increased revenue.  Because I'm not 4, I can cope with being told the numbers don't add up or a new stand.  What I don't understand is why he has to ride roughshod over fan preferences whilst claiming we want what he has decided,  and lie about the justifications.  Why can't he just be honest with us and maybe we won't be so pissed off?