blandy

Bat for lashes - fur and gold

Get t' buggers back up t'chimneys. Little scrotes. Mind you, 'fat 'uns get more o't coke off t'inside o't chimberly - 'till em get stuck an you 'ave to haul 'em out.

6 - 8th for me. I see the usual top 4 and Spurs as having better squads and depth. Several clubs have similar squads, I feel. A mixture of quality and youth. Everton & Newcastle for definite. If we had more and quality at the back I'd be more confident of a 5/6th place.

Some people's views are more optimistic, others are more pessimistic. Fact. What's the problem in recognising that? And if someone airs a view which others think is too pessimistic (as many have done), they have the right to disagree. Why interpret it as an attempt to impose one view at the expense of any other? Eh? Isn't that point I am making here? If you are, then perhaps you haven't quite put it across that clearly, Ian. You seemed, from what you wrote, to be objecting to Richard's use of "optimistic" and "pessimistic" because you seem to think ". it is labeling which infers that if you dont follow [the argument in his his post] to the letter then you are some sort of "moaner"... (i.e. an attempt to impose a view). Whereas PMS has said "Some people's views are more optimistic, others are more pessimistic. Fact. What's the problem in recognising that?" i.e. you seemed to have the hump with the mention of optimism and pesimism, whereas pms has no problem with recognising that people do have varying degrees of outlook.

Nicely put. I wouldn't say it was optimistic, particularly, just (rightly) trusting.

jerry Burns - Sometimes I'm Wild. Little known scots genius singer. She should be a mega star

maqroll's perspective As this board becomes more and more clogged with hand-wringers, I think it's wise to step back, remember where we were just 18 months ago, and take a measured look at what's going on at Villa Park. I'm beginning to realize that these tentative steps into the transfer market are suggestive of what are the early stages of a well concieved, drawn out master plan for the club. They appear to be buying young, British, relatively cheap players who will want to fight for their place in the team. With more promising youngsters like Osbourne, Gardner, the Austrian twins, this young Dutch kid they snatched up, and a generally robust youth system intact, the foundation is being laid for sustained success in the future. A fiscally prudent approach might be the appropriate course for O'Neill right now. If he can establish a competetive side that shows marked improvement over this upcoming year, throw in a few more quality signings, we'll be off and running. Not challenging for the league or the CL, but building a side similar to Man U circa early 90's, and we know how they turned out. And in time, the top draw players will start to sign for us, as needed, just like United did things, when they bought Cantona to augment the strong side already in place. Maybe bringing in a Bent or Keane or Defoe would have kept Luke Moore from fulfilling his potential, which I believe is huge. And Gabby has a nose for goal unlike any Villa forward in a long time. Why sit him, when he was so good for us? We have money for another RB, which looks to be sorted soon. I'm sure one or two more decent players will come in by September, and then we'll sit back and enjoy the ride. I fully expect Villa to continually improve. The style of play will be fast and direct, the fans will flock back to VP, revenue will increase, player expenditure will go up, and the upward cycle will go on. Will an 8th place finish and no trophies be disappointing? Without question. But I think we will experience some growing pains as we reaquaint ourselves with the giants of English Football that we are. The glory days will be back, it's just going to take longer than we want. But it will happen. Onward and upward, and Up the Villa!

thanks chaps. unwarranted credit perhaps, but nice all the same.

The new online store is much much improved, but there's still the flaw that there's still no facility to get the 10% season ticket discount online. Which to me is a big drop off. For people who can't just nip down to the real world shop(s) it's a discouragement for both impulse buys, and planned shopping. it would be nice if the ability to enter your patron code, or some other "proof" of season ticket holder status were available (perhaps in the gift certificate code box.

I posted this article up on My article storage page and in the mods forum a couple of days ago, but because of all the furore, have left it till now to stick up on here. Anyway, 2 or 3 days or so ago, I read Mike's PR, Promises and Perception article concerning, in effect, the raised expectations of the supporters at Villa park, and wondered whether within it there was perhaps valid criticism of the communication from the club to supporters regarding transfers, or whether it was wide of the mark. So I thought I'd try and look at things partly from the other side, and see how the view panned out, and what (if anything needs to be done) could be done. The club has been taken over by new a new owner and his team, and has transformed itself, with a great deal of time, effort and commitment, not to mention money, from those people into a different club. One that clearly is genuinely intent on returning to the top echelons of the English, and one day, European game. I feel that the club will think (rightly) that the changes in relationships between themselves (players, manager, officials, board) and us lot are much improved. Better atmosphere at games, bigger crowds, more season tickets sold and so on. 2 way dialogue on VT and elsewhere about all aspects of the club except transfers. So far so good - except the transfer thing? Well yes and no. I would imagine that the perception from the club of us lot is slightly mixed. They've had a lot of praise (rightly so) for many of the things they have done. Both publicly and in private, and I believe they genuinely appreciate the heartfelt thanks response they've had for their actions. So that's nice. Transfer wise, up to yesterday, the feedback, too, has been positive, and they'll have been pleased. So this boils down to the reactions to the news of Marlon's signing. Reaction has fallen into perhaps 3 camps a) Good. The manager wanted him, the board backed the signing, we got our man. Bad. Marlon is not the sort of player I rate. We should have signed [someone else] c) We've been lied to, I want my season ticket money back, it's a disgrace. The club is just the same old club it was, talking the talk in the transfer window to get sales of season tickets up. The first 2 views seem fair enough to me, for a fan to hold. The third completely unfair. I would guess the club are somewhat bemused to get such, er, strident, comment back. So is it the fans (well a portion of us) who are out of order? Or is there something in what they say? Mike seems to suggest communication from the club is lacking, and thus contributed to fans feeling strongly that they have been "let down". If he's right, How could this area change? Should or could the club have not said that they want to succeed and "walk the walk"? The answer is they could have said little on their aims and ambitions. But this would have been a mistake. As new and unknown owners, there was a clear obligation on Randy and Co. to spell out to the fans "how it's gonna be". Well should they have been more communicative in this area then? "We want to sign 6 players - a forward, 2 midfielders, a goalkeeper and 2 defenders (or whatever) and we have a budget of (say) 22 million pounds"? There's two flaws with this approach (at least). Spelling out the detail of your transfer plans is not a good negotiating tactic. Spelling out your budget is not a good negotiating tactic Saying exactly what you want and getting it are 2 different things. Clubs may not want to sell, current players may wish to move, or offers might come in, which change your plans - where you end up, and where you started from are often a way apart. Overall result - your negotiating position is weak, you end up giving yourself more chance of failure than success - leading to fans, who you were trying to please, exceedingly unhappy. Well what about regular updates, instead, then? "we're going to be going for a fullback from Europe in the next 10 days" (or whatever). Result, alert rivals to your next move. Get the press tracking your moves and intentions. Outcome - reduced chance of failure and miffed fans and furious manager. Mistake. Compared to the options so far, the one they actually took doesn't seem so bad, does it? Practically speaking, no clubs truthfully say who they are after when they will sign them and what their budget is. They have found over time that the best plan is to keep schtum and try to get on with things out of the glare of the insatiable demand for information from media and fans. But still, there is a part of me thinking Mike's got a point, to an extent. How did we get to a situation where so many normally rational people appear to have lost all sense of proportion? Surely something can be done to address this? Perhaps we should go back to what the General has said? "I'm not going to discuss transfers - that's MO'N's remit" In this case then, maybe MO'N should discuss them just a little bit? I don't mean individual players, targets or fees, I mean where he sees the squad, overall. It's been striking to me having read hundreds of pages of comment on just one transfer that MO'N pretty much universally escaped any criticism, whilst poor old Marlon and Richard Fitzgerald came in for loads of "comment". It seems that the manager, the man who really matters in all this, might be the solution, then. After all Martin O'Neill is a very clever man. Shrewd, great with people. Canny. I think maybe a few words from our leader would be helpful, just from time to time, on how things are progressing. How he sees the squad progressing, where he's still looking and working to improve matters. We got a taste of it towards the end of the season - Gabby will maybe not manage another ever present season and I want to help him a bit" was the gist of one tidbit. And it was good. a couple of lines, job done in that areaa. It doesn't take much to add that he would be looking therefore to add a forward to the squad who would neither block Gabby's progression, nor break the bank and detract from strengthening in other areas. He wants someone fast and powerful as an option, someone with something to prove to people....etc" or words to that effect. Surely there's a positive in there - a popular player in Gabby is helped, and equally expectations (wildly stoked by vivid imaginations) are aligned realistically. Would we (some of us) be going freaky mental if this had happened? This type of thing even now, would be in my eyes a good move. Maybe in respect of the defence and defenders at the club, or another area. No need to spill any beans, but just an inkling? Maybe something about whether there are plans in the pipeline for other notable signings. That's all. Of course if there aren't then maybe the lesson is that what Richard Fitzgerald intimated was out of kilter with what MO'N intended to actually do? And if so, maybe MO'N and Fitz should better co-ordinate what they say and do. In this case, had Richard Fitzgerald said that the new people at the club, including the manager, had reviewed the season, been hugely impressed with the progress made by the youngsters, had identified the need for broadening the squad width, but felt that he introduction of too many new faces in one go would be counter productive, that they felt that 2 or 3 additions or replacements would be necessary but that (for example) Martin Laursen's fitness and form, combined with the progess made by Gary Cahill...etc blah blah meant that major surgery is not needed, that a chance to continue had been earned....etc" then expectations again, would be managed. Of course, there's another aspect. We may yet be adding further to the squad, I believe we will. I believe that Marlon Harewood will be a useful player at Villa Park, I believe that despite the furore the club now is in good shape and good hands. Maybe the lesson is simply that it's the silly season and we all get affected and talk drivel to fill the gap. So to our proud, bemused, but very welcome American board I can only say, welcome to an English Summer. May you experience plenty more.

Yes, I am. Similar ages, goalscoring records, physiques... I think Carew is the better player - better touch and better experience of top level football. My point is that MH would makea good back up for when JC is missing. He won't IMO cause the team's style of play to change drastically. He's big, fast and direct. Like the Norwegian Villans, I've only seen MH play live a very few times on which to judge. I've seen highlights and telly games, too. He struggled last season. He had a cracking season the year before, scoring some quality goals. Including 3 against us in one game (though we stank, credit to MH for his performance in that game). If he costs 3.7 mill or whatever, and MO'N is happy to pay it, then fine. IMO the views on MH are fair enough, of whatever persepctive, but the combined almost vitriol is ridiculous. MH has coppeda lot of stick, fair enough I guess, but the club (Fitzgerald and the board, not the manager, interestingly) has also been slagged off. Bonkers and no perspective, IMO. Totally misplaced and OTT. IF we'd signed I dunno, Crespo, for 25 million people would moan that Gabby and Luke were being pushed out, that the wages or price were too high, that it would be disruptive. It's mental on here today, IMO. Perhaps by getting a forward back up we've more money to cover positions where a player will cost more? We don't know. We can't see the whole picture. No one's seen MH play under MO'N, no one knows who else we're after. What's got into people? I'm baffled.

It's gone mad alright. when we signed that Watford lad - Harry Forrester - no one said "we've ben lied to, or let down or whatever". We just signed a player who might turn out to be good and do well for us. Now we (might) sign what looks like a back up to Carew, adding one body to the squad - a big powerful forward to back up for Carew (I guess) and people go mad. Why? It's got nothing to do with lies, it's just that people making the accusation don't happen to rate Harewood (which is fine). But what they are really mean, surely, is "I think Harewood is pants, even though MO'N thinks he isn't pants". I like Steven Davis, MO'N obviously didn't. So what? Managers pick the team. We struggled last season through not having back ups to players when they got injured or lost form. Now we get a back up and .... I am unsure about Carew's fitness record, but he can be very effective as a big, strong, fast forward. Harewood seems to be in a similar mould, with a less good touch, perhaps, but is more direct in running at goal. I rate Luke Moore highly, and Gabby has come on bundles. So 2 big men, and 2 smaller faster players. looks decent enough to me - I don't see much problem with having Carew and Gabby/Luke (little and Large) as a good front 2, and with Luke/Gabby and another big powerful confidence player in Harewood as a decent front 2 and back up front 2 of similar style. The issue of other positions - right back in particular is more relevant than a back up striker, surely? So why get so worked up about adding a forward? IF we don't get anyone in there at right back, THEN have a moan at the manager. Basically, how can someone moan when the squad is now (or about to be) better than it was yesterday? Other than saying they don't rate Harewood, I don't get it at all. If MO'N wants Harewood, and gets him, why is Fitzgerald's fault, or Randy? for not interfering and saying "no he's not my idea of a good player you can't buy him"? Yeah right. Gabby and Luke are both good young players who I believe and hope will come on next season. They'll get their chance, and can be rested if necessary, now. Competition for places is good. Ashley Young? who'd honestly say they rated him before we signed him? (any who did will have seen little of him, themselves to make the judgement). Yet more will have seen Marlon Harewood play against us a few times. And look dangerous and score a hat-trick in the process. MO'N has seen something in Harewood that he likes. Give the bloke a chance (MO'N and Harewood) neither have let us down. And if Marlon doesn't succeed, we'll get most of the money back anyway. It's not like the entie budget has been blown on him. Some managers pay over the odds for players who turn out to be unsettling for their club, ineffective and underwhelming. Others spend less on players and turn them into supermen - Allardyce for example. MO'N has a similar record for polishing rough diamonds. Judge on the pitch, for Villa. That's what counts.

crown of love - Arcade Fire

Soldiers - Steel Pulse. Spot of Reggae ona friday night. I'm bored.

WE&S

I don't know whether this was covered for the people who were able to take advantage of the cheapest seats behind the Witton end goal, but it ocurred to me that for home cup games, (where the visitors are entitled to ask for 15% of capacity - 6000 ish tickets) it would be likely that segregation would mean clubs that take up that option would need to be allocated the old away end, plus the "new" away section in the Witton Lane stand upper and Lower tiers. Is that right? If so - as a result, people who have season tickets in the witton end (North Stand lower tier) will not be able to buy their normal seats for cup games. So I wondered whether they know this (if I am correct) and if so, what alternatives, have been worked up? Or have I got it wrong and there's a different plan?

It's one of the strange facets of life that if you know you have to get up early - to catch a flight say, you're not gonna be able to get a proper kip in, even if you go to bed early, because you subconsciously know you dare not oversleep. So it was that last night, on the day that it was reported Villa and West Ham had agreed to swap Nigel Reo Coker for a bag of dollars, I was due to fly early the this morning. Unable to sleep, my mind wandered onto the long anticipated signing. I can't say as I've got an opinion on him. I don't remember noticing him stand out any time I've seen Villa play West Ham (perhaps he wasn't in the team - I wasn't going to get up and scour the interweb for confirmation), but it occurred to me that managers tend to pick players they sign, especially when they cost a bundle. So I was thinking - next season's midfield.... Last season's midfield.....got to get up at 6.... Barry and Petrov looked good together in the middle.... is the alarm set?. Gardener developing nicely, but can't be expected to play every game. Luke Young really came on a bundle - where's NRC going to play? It didn't add up in my sleepy head. I mean put Petrov and NRC in the middle and Barry has to go left, and Ashley Young right, but Barry is better in the middle. So if Ash goes on the left, then Barry is in the middle. Turn off brain, and go to sleep. Gah, dammit. Basically, I was confused. Where is the shape? Villa found some form when Gav dropped out and we had more creativity in the middle, but somehow, good as we looked at times, I felt that a strong midfield (i.e. a top 4 midfield) would win out over our 4. The signing of Nigel Reo Coker by MO'N would be to address that, I was sure. Suddenly it's 1 am and I'm still awake. Maybe, we'll play 3-5-2. That way it all fits together. 3 at the back from Olly, Martin Laursen, Gary Cahill, Ridge, Freddie Bouma, Mark Delaney, - defenders all. Mmmm. Seems possible. 5 in midfield centred around NRC as the ball winner, with GB and Stan Petrov either side, and then 2 of Ashley Young, Craig Gardener and a new player to provide the width (GB could go left Young Right and Gardener into the middle as an option). Then up front we've currently got 2 from Big John, Luke and Gabby. That kind of fits. So we need as a minimum another winger/wide player, for the right side, and another forward (please not Germaine Defoe, I can't stand him. Too London for me, too cocky for his ability). And then I fell asleep. The plane was delayed, and I might as well have had a lie in.

Good summary JC. It's down to the manager, and his personality as much as anything - under BFR in 91-92 was it, we hada bloke who just couldn't wait to get spending, and we saw Dalian, Rico and others - Stan Staunton etc come in in a whirlwind of publicity and TV, but undr MO'N now we have a guy who is much more reticent about publicity and "stunts" and razmatazz. But at the end of the day he'll get people in. He just treats it like his own money, IMO, and won't want to waste a penny of it. It'll come. Might take a while, though....(chews nails, hopes for some news soon)

El Perro Del Mar

No Cars Go - Arcade Fire - there's an hour of the genius band on R2 now sweet.

Neither, anymore. Milner if pushed. Ashley Y is more like SWP - we don't need 2 of 'em, and JM is maybe not the ideal, but he could fill the right side quite well, though not for 10 million.

There's some issues getting mixed here, aren't there - the Tevez "punishment" (which in itself has got confused, IMO) and NRC's "price". On the price - it's fairly straightforward - we want him, and are prepared to offer around 7 million or so. West Ham want to sell him and get as much as they can for him - by refusing the first offer, they're acting normally. If they get an extra million, out of us, or someone else, then that's good work from them. If they don't, then they end up with an unhappy player, paying his wages and not playing him. But he is a decent player, and he'll end up leaving I guess. On the trend for bringing the unrelated Tevez thing into it - well it's irrelevant to NRC, but there's so much self interest in it, that it's interesting. SHeff U and the other clubs that were in danger of relegation obviously had huge self interest in getting W. Ham relegated - it boosted their chances of staying to collect 30 million quid. Sheff U, as the ones who lost out are the one making the noise. Co-incidence? I think not. Sheff U have a self interest in trying to get W.Ham down, as much as W.Ham do in keeping it as a financial penalty. It's just that media opinion, keeping a story going has emphasised one side of the story more - it's a better headline "club fights injustice" is better than "nothing more to say here, move along". Whether the punishment or the reasoning was right is kind of lost somewhere. A third party had some element of control over two of their players, which came to light when Maschereno was transferred to Liverpool. West ham's old board had apparently lied about it. The new board were more honest. There's no precedent. A points fine might have been better, but the Premier League's commission bottled it. People say they did so hoping W.Ham would go down anyway, but if that's the case, if they thought W.ham would go down, then they might as well have taken points off - it would have made no difference. In fact, if they had gone down, a financial penalty would have been worse, harsher. But no-one mentions that. Personally I think they got off lightly, as it turned out, but not drastically so, though I accept outside Upton Park, that's a minority view. I don't like that they seemingly lied and decieved the Premier League on the registrations. I don't like their old board one bit. I do feel sorry for their fans, who like us had years of an unpopular chairman and have since been taken over by a foreign investor. I'd be gutted if a (hypothetical) Ellis failing left Randy and us lot to suffer. Who of us lot wouldn't? Having been whacked in the face in the "bad days" by a West Ham fan, I've no affection for them - fans make a big difference to the way I feel about clubs, but I do agree that W.Ham are the current dogs to be kicked by "opinion". It's the silly season though. West Ham won't get 12 million, they won't get relegated and Martin O'Neill won't spend Randy's money carelessly. If anything the board will have to encourage him to spend it, I think. Plenty of fish in the sea.

last goodbye - Jeff Buckley is shuffled on mine atm

It makes you proud, not just that LL114 is completely right, but that Holte Enders have such wisdom and perception. Anyway, it's a spot on article and captures the underlying mood amongst so many of us very nicely indeed. Now post more, Steve, please.

It'll not be long till they start to limit booze, too. Give it 10 years and drinking will be as stigmatised as smoking is now. The amount of crime caused by alcohol, the broken families, violence, illness, mayhem in Casualty departments, drink drivers ruining lives,.... Something must be done about it! Nanny knows best.