blandy

Seeing as I've got the thread to myself - "laser beam" by Low. Best listened to in the dark, undisturbed.

Big drum and guitar riff-tastic intro for "dancing the night away" the Motors. does anyone still scrobble

I've still got the double LP of that somewhere. Vinyl days. Hardly ever listen to it, but just sometimes... "there there (the boney king of nowhere)" by Radiohead was my just finished as I type this listen. next "c 'n' c-s mithering" by the Fall, I think

"let the bells ring", by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds

When I read about the harm that alchohol does, and that fast food does, and that smoking does, it scared me I tell you. I vowed immediately, there and then to give up....reading

No. The cluture of this country is being damaged by Government f*ckwittage. Pubs in villages and towns are closing because of the level of tax on beer and the smoking ban. Meanwhile Tesco is knocking out alcopops and tramp juice at discount prices for kids to drink in bus stops. And people can go to France and get drink at half the price. There may well be a drinking problem in the UK, but tax is not the way to solve it.

Love Bomb - Grinderman.

The home office is using and recommending that coercion be used. It was supposed to be voluntary. In this big debate, there are "for" and "against" - one source or the other has to be used. I'd have thought home office documents should support and explain why it's such a "good" thing. But they don't. That's be casue it isn't and they therefore can't.

Sorry, General, but I don't agree that nothing has been proposed. It has been proposed to look at adding an extra game to each team's fixtures, to be played abroad, with the ties to be drawn out of a hat. In the same way the league is looking at it (with a view to what? actually proceding, I presume, or else why bother) we as fans want to voice our disapproval of the CONCEPT. When you say you "will not play" that's fine. No one is having a go at you, or your communication with us, quite the opposite, but if this thread is to be of use to us, we have to be able to say what we think, respectfully. There are some people whose faith in the way the Premier league is run are perhaps not so, er, trusting as yourself. We're the ones who travel up and down the country at inconvenient times for us, at the behest of the TV fixture people, we're the ones who would see (or not see) our English League games be moved abroad. This move is clearly about "exploring" how much money could be made for the league. Is it likely to be profitable. It's not about sporting integrity. The fans who go to games contribute to the coffers of the league and the clubs, and we would, again, lose out. I believe it will be clear that fans of all clubs would be overwhelmingly opposed to what is potentially a massive move. To me at least this is a big issue. More important than pies or toilets or car parking or signage. Part of the "looking at" that the league will do needs to tke account of fans views on this, and this place is not such a bad place to start off voicing those views, whether supportive of or against the "idea".

I have to say it makes perfect sense to me, General. The English Premier League, should, in my view, be played exclusively in England between English clubs. That's all there is to it. Yes. Either the premier league is thinking about playing games abroad, which is wrong. Like fraud is wrong or "passing off" is wrong, or or it isn't thinking about it. It's just weasel words - "Exploring" or , "talking about contemplating exploring" not keeping it that way is to me either a) pointless or a betrayal of the traditions and ethos of the game by the Premier League. One of the very few clear black and white issues.

'bout right, I guess. 'nuff money for me, anyway. I try not to get things wrong and to get things right, and If I don't get things wrong, and do get it right, I'm worth it ( I think).

It's a good post because it captures the issues, IMO, as does the other one quoted below it. People all reach their own conclusions from the circs, and fair play on that. Personally, the only other thing that comes into it, for me is "expectation". people all expect different things from the club and the team. So the way I see it is that my expectation this season was that the club and team would improve over last season. Somehere around a top 7 finish, better players and signs of progress being sustained into the future. So despite playing not that well in recent games - 2 points from 9 is about what we've deserved, to be honest - I don't feel that we're failing, overall, to meet what I'd see as realistic expectations. I'm not bothered about whether anyone else has got better or worse, or done better or worse in the window. Just Villa. And I think that the co-incidence of the closure of the window, with just one in and one out, and the defeat has amplified people's reactions. The window itself was a bit disappointing, both in that a player I really rate left, and that only one came in, albeit in a position we need someone in at. I accept, personally, that the club tried to get who they wanted, but (like a lot of other clubs) were thwarted. I don't like it, but I understand it and accept the reasons given. Now we're where we're at, it's just a case of re-focusing on what has got us to the decent position we're in and eliminating a few of the mental errors that have been creeping in. Unlike LV, I'm in the first camp put it down as 'one of those things', 'typical Villa' and 'oh well it's a hiccup in the long term' and move on is pretty much my view. I just can't see the point in getting too bothered about it. It's not like we can do anything about it, as fans. Finally, I think that Manager, players, fans, everyone should almost ban this "small squad, need to strengthen" talk until we're in a position, as a club, to do something about it. And we should ruddy make sure we DO take action when that chance arises. Enough "excuses" just get on with it.

sha. Newcastle might be a bit of a comedy in terms of how it's been run, but they have great support, a big ground, and it's a decent away trip. I don't like the media love in, and the Geordie nation guff, but then weighed up against sha, well....

It's an interesting comparison, particularly in the approach the team takes as much as the types of players/comparisons. I guess it shows that some of the basic principles of good teams remain the same and you're spot on about the 80/81 team being far better than the sum of it's parts. The mix was perfect. Nice change from the frenzy about nothing on some of the other pages.

They're probably glad to delay it. It was a move for the sake of courting an opinion poll rating, not for any genuine well thought out reason, IMO. Now with all the exposure of how unsafe "our" data is, it's (unsurprisingly) a vote loser overall. Result - bin it, but don't actually say so. Absolutely inevitable. It might get dragged out again at some point, but the practice and the theory are miles apart, and the theory isn't exactly lacking in flaws anyway. The more you find out about how it all works, the more sceptical, even cynical, you become of the whole rotten system. As you say, burn them all.

Aston Villa, so long a by-word for instability and plotting and internal politics is now ultra stable. Liverpool, England's most successful club, and for so long so stable is now anything but. Who'd a thunk it? They have my sympathies. This is, by the way, not so much a match report, as a bunch of random thoughts. The first of several things that struck me on the way to the game last night was that of the role reversal that is taking place. In recent years, for far too many years, it has been us Villans unhappy with the way our club was run, in a ferment as we railed against what many saw as an owner more with his own interests at heart, than those of our club. Joyously that sad situation is now well and truly in the past, both Mr Ellis and the fans have moved on, to hopefully happier futures - certainly more optimistic from the fans perspective, at least. Our new-ish American owner is quite rightly hugely appreciated. He says very little, publicly, preferring to let the manager do the talking, and to let Martin O'Neill run the playing side of the club exactly how he sees fit. He preserves and cherishes the traditions of our club, and is building upon them. Quite remarkably, it's now Liverpool with the angry fans, protest, unpopular owner(s) prone to saying things that they really should keep to themselves. Their manager is blatantly undermined, though he's also been "playing games" himself, complaining about the owners, lack of money and so on. It's all so eerily familiar. Some of their players speak codedly about how things are not right at the club, others say nothing. There are grand plans announced, and then they seem to fade away to nothing. Deja vu, for us lot. A new and unpleasant shock for the scousers. Another contrast is that of the records of the two clubs. Not such a big contrast admittedly, as we both have the same number of points, but Liverpool draw far too many home games to have any chance of winning, or even challenging to win, the league. Villa on the other hand, as this was an away game for us, have now gone almost 12 months with just a single away defeat - exactly the sort of form which, if built upon, could lead to "getting up there" in the not too distant future. That there is much building to be done is apparent when looking at the squad size and depth of the two clubs. Villa missing Gareth Barry and the on-loan Scott Carson had to recall a raw but promising young player with just a handful of games, back from loan to sit on the bench. Liverpool, as is their wont, change their team every week, picking at random from a profusion of internationals. The way I see it, then, is that their expectations and hopes are not anywhere near being met, ours are for the most part, more than being met. The game itself was one in which Liverpool could and perhaps should have gone more than one goal up, had their finishing been half decent. But it wasn't. They did though certainly have much the better of things for all of the first half, and the start of the second half. Sami Hyppia, though ponderous in comparison to Gabby, was able to nip in time and time again, to take the ball before Gabby could get away. He matched Carew in the air, and with both teams' passing at times being very careless, the forwards were not getting much to feed on anyway, particularly our two. We certainly missed GB. The counter point to the absence of Gareth was that Nigel Reo-Coker really raised his game. His tackling, closing down, blocking and intercepting was high class, as we know he's capable of. Giving the skipper's armband to him seemed to lift his performance. If only he could, on occasion release the ball, simply, a little sooner, and pass with a bit more penetration, he'd be the complete player. What I do feel though is that he is improving. He's less careless with the ball now that he was earlier in the season. Nigel had, a very good game. Our other players who get talked about in terms of being called up for England weren't nearly so effective. Ashley Young was frankly poor last night and also unluckily seemed to pick up an injury to foot or leg that hampered him. Gabby, as already mentioned was well marshalled and had little service. His pace was still there, of course, and but for a failure to pass at the right time, a break could well have led to a 3-1 lead for Villa. Along with NRC, I was again really impressed with Curtis Davies. He seems to get better every game. He was our best defender by a distance, and also late on also made one storming run through the centre in support of a fast break, not a common sight for any team. Sadly no pass was forthcoming, but the intent and will was there. Of the rest of our team, there were decent performances from Stuart Taylor, Olly, Freddie Bouma, Craig Gardner and but for 1 mistake, Martin Laursen. Our passing and ball retention wasn't up to greal deal, but there was a bundle of energy, application, desire, resilience and so on. These things are all intangibles, but they don't appear by luck. Luck did play a part in our second goal. Both the goals came midway through the second half, within a couple of minutes of each other - first a Marlon overhead kick from a nice knock down by Martin Laursen and then a ball actually handled into his own net by a Liverpool defender, deflecting an "Olly Volley" over and past the goalkeeper and defenders. Marlon's goal came after he'd only been on the pitch for 5 minutes, and he'd already caused on scare for Liverpool, beating a fullback and pulling the ball back across goal, whereupon Carew took it away from the onrushing Petrov (attended by a defender) and then turned and shot weakly at the keeper. To show how little i know about things, I was only just done bemoaning that Craig Gardner had been subbed for Marlon - I'd thought Craig was doing fine, and wondered whether Marlon would hold the ball up that well. He did. He was, in his short spell on the pitch, excellent. A final thought for the supporters. The tickets were £36 each. The match was on the telly, away, on pretty grim monday evening. And 3000 Villans sold out our part of the ground. Which by my judgement is not only a damn good effort from all concerned, but an indication of the faith we have in our team, our club and our manager and owner.

No chuffin' idea. As a complete guess 2 or 3 out and a similar number in. Resulting in (obviously) a similarly sized squad, but with better balance, perhaps?

voted 3

These reports are Marvellous.

General, at the risk of labouring the point, I think there's more to be said. I accept that the ticket prices for League games at VP are not as high as some other clubs, and for that I am grateful. However, I do think that CUP games are a different matter. Particularly cup games which are televised on national (rather than satellite) TV. Simply put, whilst you say the game was a category A game, that was a decision made by Villa&/or Man Utd. which in my view was not the right one. It should not have been. I do not really accept that "subsidising" is the right word to use regarding the game. Whatever price was charged, that ticket price, plus TV money (£150,000) is essentially "bonus" income for the club above and beyond league ticket revenue and Premier League TV revenue. To me the equation is simple. 33,000 people at 32 quid a shot = just over 1 million 25% more people (41,000) people at 25% less ticket price (£24) is the same ticket revenue. - That's no subsidy, it's just filling empty seats and continuing the good feeling that fans get from the club, that the team gets from playing in a full stadium and so on. It's not a criticism of Randy, or a request for "subsidy" - it's about both the fans and the club getting the balance right. I cannot know that more tickets would have been sold had the prices been lower, but I sure as heck believe they would have been. It just seems a shame to me, that IF it was Villa who set the pricing, it didn't tally with all the good things that have otherwise been done with and for the fans, to the benefit of both the fans AND the club.

They say God is omni-present. This of course means that he could not play football. Why? Because if he is omni-present, then he is everywhere. And if he is everywhere, then he's offside. Oi, Lino! OFFSIDE! I hope this has added something beneficial to the theological/bonkers cult debate.

General, I too think the prices were too high yesterday, and so didn't go. I have a question regarding TV games and prices For the forthcoming Liverpool game the Club too the 3000 allocation, as it was due to be played on the Saturday. That was absolutely right. Now it has been moved at short notice it is unlikely we will sell all the tickets, as we would have done. Will the club have to pay for the unsold seats, as is normal, or has an arrangement been made due to the TV company moving the game? ANd finally, as we saw last season, when a monday night TV game at Sheffield Utd was priced sensibly (£15 a ticket) we sold out, as did Sheffield Utd. The demand is there for football, but I feel that Clubs need to price games more fluidly according to the TV schedules - All clubs get a huge amount of money from the TV deal I feel that Villa should really consider greater flexibility to help fans attend and support the team. I urge you and the board to consider whether future Televised games could be priced more sympathetically, and to communicate any idea you might have along these lines with other clubs. Thank You .

I don't think it's Newcastle - here's why. They do have a huge fanbase and excellent attendances. That ought to give them an advantage over, for example, West Ham. Additionally they have played in the Champions league as a result of some top 2 finishes a while back. So for that reason, to me, they are not all that deluded. They know they could do well - they have theoretically the possibility to really well. Spurs, too, have more fans than their ground can hold, so again, with the level of support they have they can rightly feel that success ought to be achievable. To me they are a bigger club than Chelsea. Only Arsenal down South is a bigger club with more fans and more success. West Ham on the other hand, don't have the same size support. Until recently they didn't have any money either. They don't have a history of major success in the same way that Spurs do, or the support that Newcastle do. West Ham fans perhaps don't make the same claims for a "right" to success that Newcastle and Spurs do, but for me they are the fans who most over-expect comparitive to what they are really capable of doing. They're all good clubs, all proper Premier League teams, and Spurs and Newcastle are top 8 clubs, IMO, with West Ham a way behind them.

Sorry Ian, and such gorgeous girls too. I'm ashamed.

^^^^ that's absolutely brilliant.