steaknchips

What was the league record signing when Viera was bought for £3.5m? £12m? £15m?

What wages did he offer him when he signed? How does that compare to other clubs? To our wage structure now let alone back then?

Wenger is good, I dont dispute that but he's still paid decent money for players either in fees or wages, money that Villa doesn't have right now.

SO to use Wenger as the basis for the argument that Deschamps could turn Villa into a dominant team in Europe doesn't wash with me.

The production line in France for quality players is the best on globe. Deschamps would have the edge on knowing and ability to sign such players...Just like the position Wenger was in when he 1st landed on our shores.. McLeish v Deschamps = Deschamps can bring alot more to the table. 4m for Hutton? Or 4m for a top 4 quality player? Which would you prefer?

We are still discovering species of animal in remote rainforests and other areas these days, but some bearded 400 year old managed to get all the world's species into one boat? I have to say it doesn't sound very plausible. And while we're on the subject of religion, is there anywhere I can complain to about Jehovah's Witnesses. We're being absolutely plagued by them, and seem to be getting the door knocked and/or literature shoved through the door every single day.

There were two qualifications for the animals on board the Ark: they not only had to be those which moved about on the earth, but also those that had the breath of life, or "nephesh." The word "nephesh" refers to those animals with soul: or, if you like, "responsive personality." Thus, you would have all mammals that lived on land, reptiles, and birds. Amphibians did not need the Ark, and insects, worms, bacteria, etc., do not have a nervous system which is complex enough to mark the animal or organism as having a uniqueness and the trainability which "nephesh" implies. Thus, these organisms were preserved in various ways outside the Ark through the flood.

Regarding the food situation, if you read Genesis, you will notice that no one disembarked until the dove brought back an olive shoot. Olives do not grow as quickly as grass, and so there is the indication that the vegetation was quite adequate for survival immediately after release from the Ark.

As far as the cultures are concerned, you will find a very accurate and widely-referred-to Table of Nations in Genesis 10. It is used by archaeologists, historians, and linguists to help trace the roots of various ancient cultures and has proven to be quite accurate. As far as repopulation of the earth is concerned, not much time was needed for the early civilizations. In Genesis 11 you will read of the long ages (although only half of what they were pre-flood), which then went down again after the event of Peleg's time and gradually, after that, to what we know today as the upper limit on human ages -- about 120 years. In the early generations, we read of families being rather large, and when the average family has about six children or more, the population can grow quite rapidly.

there are numerous sedimentary deposits world-wide which suggest a universal flood.

name one please

There are countless fossil deposits world-wide (fossilization occurs when organisms are buried rapidly within sediment.). Every major culture has a flood legend.

Fossilisation take's 10,000 years minimum, name me one of these countless deposits please I'd be greatly interested

Fossilization requires rapid burial and removal from oxygen. 95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates.

Fossils of marine creatures are found all over the world in different altitudes and climates.

Sedimentary rocks cover 75% - 80% of the Earth's land area and include chalk, limestone, dolomite, sandstone and shale.

Limestone is made up largely of calcite, the primary source of which is commonly marine organisms. Unless buried rapidly these organisms would degrade.

Fossils of marine creatures including brachiopods, ammonites, belemnites, foraminifera and radiolarians have been found in limestone beds around the world.

Massive chalk deposits are found in the White Cliffs of Dover, White Rocks of Ireland and in France.

Fossils of trilobites are on top of Mt. Everest though they are supposed to have been extinct 250 mya. The Himalayas have one of the greatest rates of erosion in the world and it is estimated that two to four miles of rock have been eroded every million years.

There are ammonite fossils at the 12,000 feet level on Mt. Everest.

There are fossils and marine sediments on mountain ranges all over the world including the Himalayas, Alps, Andes, Ural, Altai, Appalachian and Rocky Mountains.

Coal is full of carbon 14 which has a half life of 5,730 years.

Bituminous coal reveals traces of wood, bark, leaves, spores and seed coats.

Fossils of marine creatures such as brachiopods, fish, and molluscs, have been found in coal.

Fossils of Spirorbis tubeworms have been found fastened to the outside edges of mussels in the coal measures of Nova Scotia. Their presence is strong evidence that much of the coal is allochthonous; originally transported from a different location.

Coal balls are very well preserved masses of vegetation found in coal seams and often minute details of plants including cellular structure can be observed with a microscope. Such preservation indicates rapid formation.

Fossils found in the sediments above coal layers containing dolomite coal balls were found to be of marine origin.

Fossilized coprolites similar to those from mites, collembola and millipedes have been found in coal balls indicating rapid burial and removal from oxygen.

Carbonized impressions of plants or their parts are common in coal measures.

Marine roof shale sometimes occur above coal seams and contain goniatites, an extinct ammonite and layers of limestone are interbedded in some coal seams.

Fossils, animal tracks and raindrop impact craters have been found in shale indicating that they was formed quickly under enormous pressure.

The Burgess shale formation in the Canadian Rockies contains many fossils of soft bodied organisms including sponges, various worm-like phyla (annelids and priapulids), brachiopods, echinoderms, chordates, and mollusks as well as algae. One of the algae is morania confluens which easily disintegrates over time.

In an anaerobic environment marine invertebrates normally curl up when they die but those found in the Burgess Shale do not exhibit this.

Many of the soft bodied fossils in the Burgess Shale left carbon films showing marine creatures were fossilized rapidly.

In Chengjiang China consisting of shale and loaded with fossils of soft bodied organisms. The fossils at Chengjiang show excellent preservation.

Brachiopods and priapulid worms are buried in life positions at Chengjiang and the cause of death of animals there was asphyxia.

Some polystrate trees found within coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by sediments.

In 2005 a fossilized forest covering forty square miles was found in an Illinois coal mine. Scientists believe there was an earthquake with a flood which buried the forest. Among the species of plants were fossilized remains of mangrove-like plants. On an evolutionary time scale mangroves appear in the late Cretaceous period more than 200 million years after the Carboniferous period.

In 2008 a team from the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Bristol found five more fossilized forests in Illinois. They are believed to have grown a few million years apart but they are stacked one on top of the other. Scientists believe the "ancient land experienced repeated periods of subsidence and flooding which buried the forests in a vertical sequence."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7604721.stm

Many plants left an impression in the coal bed showing they were buried quickly and were put under extreme pressure.

There are also fossil forests in Yellowstone Park, New Zealand, Ellesmere Island and Axel Heiberg Island in the Canadian Arctic.

Polystrate fossils are also found in the Joggins cliffs in Nova Scotia. They also contain fossils of spirorbis and naidites, a bivalve mollusk and a fossil trackway from a horseshoe crab.

One of the layers of compressed, fossil sea bed at the Joggins Cliff contains small leaves, fish scales and sea shells. Fish scales would degrade quickly in aerobic environment.

Given the right conditions wood can be be petrified rapidly by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures.

40 fossilized bees nests were found within giant petrified, or mummified, logs at the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona. Until recently bee fossils, believed to be the oldest, were dated to about 70 million years. A bee fossilized in amber in a mine in Myanmar is believed to be about 100 mya.

The fossil tree trunks are dated from 207 to 220 million years ago. The fossilized bees and tree trunks would have to withstand erosion and the shock-wave and ensuing tidal wave caused by the Chicxulub asteroid. It is believed to have had a force of hundreds of millions of atomic bombs like the one dropped on Hiroshima.

Vast fossil graveyards have been discovered, often with animals that normally wouldn't have been together when they died.

A fossil graveyard was discovered in Tampa, Florida that has fossilized camels, horses, mammoths, bears, wolves, large cats, sharks' teeth, turtle shells, the bones of fresh and salt water fish and a bird with an estimated 30-foot wingspan.

Fossils in an Alaskan fossil graveyard include "..two types of bears, dire wolf, wolf, fox, badger, wolverine, saber-tooth cat, jaguar, lynx, wooly mammoth, mastodon, two horses, camel, saiga antelope, four bison, caribou, moose, stag-moose, elk, two sheep, musk-ox and yak types, ground sloth, and several rodents."

(R.F. Flint, Glacial and Pleistocene Geology, 1957, p. 471)

Other fossil graveyards include the Ashley Beds of South Carolina, the Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland, the La Brea Tar Pits in California, the Herring fossil layers in California, the hippopotamus beds in Sicily, Agate Springs in Nebraska, love bone bed in Florida, insect fossils of Elmo Kansas, Mazon Creek formation in Illinois, the Arlington Archosaur Site in Texas, the Green River formation and Florissant Fossil Beds in Colorado, the Montceau-les-Mines in France, Scotland's Old Red Sandstone, the Zeuglodon Valley in Egypt and Ukhaa Tolgod in the Gobi desert, Mongolia.

In the Australian outback there's an area of fossilized jellyfish (trace fossils) in a sandstone bed covering more than 400 square miles.

Thousands of fossilized impressions of jellyfish were discovered in a quarry in Mosinee, Wisconsin. They were in sandstone beds that were stacked horizontally in seven layers of rock about 12 feet high.

Nautiloids found in the Grand Canyon were mollusks and are believe to have lived in the Paleozoic era between 542 million years and 251 million years ago. The fossils are in a bed of Redwall Limestone that begins at the Grand Canyon and covers an area of approximatley 5,700 square miles.

In 2001 a Cuban paleontologist found more than 500 giant oyster fossils in the Andes mountains; about 4000 feet above sea level. When an oyster dies the central muscle relaxes and the shell opens. These oysters were in the closed position which may have resulted from being rapidly buried in silt.

Flat-topped seamounts or submarine volcanoes (guyots) discovered in the 1940’s show evidence of wave action.

Marine fossils of various kinds have been found all over the United States indicating that the areas were under water and something caused the creatures to be buried rapidly in an anaerobic environment.

Massive flooding by the Glacial Lake Missoula cut canyons and covered cliffs reshaping the landscape and reaching to the Pacific.

A fossilized whale was discovered in Lompoc California in 1976. The whale wasn’t standing on its tale as first reported but at a 40 degree angle and was buried rapidly in diatomic earth.

More than 500 fossilized baleen whales have been found in western Peru over 20 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean in an area called the Pisco formation. Researchers believe the whales were killed by toxic blooms of diatoms then buried by the accumulation of diatom frustules on the seafloor.

Fossils of whales and other marine creatures have been found in sediments in the Andes mountains. The fossilized jawbone of a whale was discovered in the Himalayan foothills.

The skeleton of a whale was found in Tuscany about six miles from the Mediterranean along with fossils of shells, fish and shark teeth. The fossil of a beluga whale was discovered in Norfolk, New York. There have been whale fossils discovered in Cornwall, Ontario, the Jacquet River in New Brunswick and in Montreal. In 1849 railroad workers uncovered the fossil of a beluga whale in Vermont which is the inspiration for a sculpture called "Reverence" in Burlington. The fossil was found 150 feet above sea level along with fossilized clams, mussels and plants.

Lake Titicaca is the highest navigable lake on earth at more than 12,000 feet above sea level. It is located in Peru and Bolivia and covers about 3,200 square miles, the northern tip being about 1,000 miles south of the equator. Divers found a 200 meter long, 50 meter wide temple at the bottom of Lake Titicaca after following a submerged road. They also found a terrace for crops and an 800 meter long containing wall. There are ancient submerged structures in Yonaguni, Japan and sunken cities in India, China and Peru. What appears to be a sunken city off the coast of Cuba is being studied by scientists.

How long were they at sea? Forty days, was it? (CBA to "research" this).

So I'm assuming these animals would all need feeding, no?

Now work out the average food consumption of these various creatures and how much larder space would be required.

Come back when you have the answer, I'm going to the staff room for a smoke.

Simple answer to this one; Some species of animals, like Rabbits, mice etc breed at a astronomic rate.Also as I have listed above, only 56% of the ark was used for storing the species, the rest of space could easily have been used to store food.

Ive found a bit of substance which would give evidence the Ark and Noah existed, although it may be a bit long winded..

In Mathew 24; Jesus said.

37 “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah."

38 “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark.

Which is obviously written in the New Testament..So then comes the task of how reliable are the teachings from Jesus in the New Testament?

I then came across this;

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

There are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors.. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.

Finding evidence of Noah's Ark would be difficult..As far as physical evidence goes for the flooding, there are numerous sedimentary deposits world-wide which suggest a universal flood. There are countless fossil deposits world-wide (fossilization occurs when organisms are buried rapidly within sediment.). Every major culture has a flood legend.

The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high

no ship of the size of Noah’s Ark was built until the late 19th century when iron was used for construction material.. so no it probably wasn't within the realms of possibility !!

This is the answer from a structural engineer;

The very task for which the Ark was to be used for is one of the main strong points (so to speak) for how the Ark could be constructed. Let's take say 3 stories worth of what would essentially be pens. Or for my purposes "Boxes". I have helped to design factories in this manner, so I know what I'm talking about. The Ark, if I was going to build it, would just be a bunch of boxes "pegged" together, until it formed one huge box with incredible strength. All that would be needed would be some "cross members" to take care of the twist (deflection) and this thing would be more than capable of doing the job.

Two or three men at a time could easily handle the small individual "boxes," so there would be no need for special equipment that we think they may have needed. I've always wondered how they could have made the Pyramids, but I must admit, the Ark never seemed like that big a deal to make.

This is the answer from a research physicist;

As far as gopher wood is concerned: One Hebrew scholar in Israel commented to a friend of mine that gophering was a process, not a specific wood. The process was lamination. Indeed, in the Concise Oxford Dictionary 1954 edition under the word "gofer, gaufre, goffer, gopher, and gauffer see also wafer" it speaks of a number of similar things ranging from wafers as in biscuit making (layers of biscuit) or in a honeycomb pattern, to layers of lace in dressmaking, and hence goffering irons to iron the layers of lace.

The pitch or glue used to cement the layers of wood in the lamination was well-known even as late as the Roman Era in Britain. They used elm bark and its sap to form a glue that was so tenacious that wood, pottery etc would break on either side of the joint where the glue was, rather than at the glued portion itself.

QI moment - they didn't go in pairs! isn't something like hooved animals went in sixes?

(Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."

Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) - "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

Genesis 6:19-20 simply instructs Noah to preserve two of every kind. Genesis 7:2-3 is additional information where seven of the clean animals were to be taken and two of every other kind. The reason for this is that the extra animals were for sacrifice. "Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar," (Gen. 8:20).

Logically, to have seven pairs also means that there are two pairs, since the two are included in the seven. If one verse said take only one pair and another verse said seven pairs, that would be a contradiction.

This is an interesting question, so I thought I would seek an answer.. The following of which makes interesting reading;

(Genesis 6:14)make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks"

-----------

The ark took about 120 years to build. Noah was 480 years old when he began the work and he had the help of his wife, three sons, and his son's wives. He probably hired local people to help in the construction.

The dimensions of the ark have a ratio of six to one. The Ark was six times longer than it was wide. This is the best ratio for modern ship building. Model stability tests have shown that the design is stable for waves up to 200 feet high and that the ark could have rotated 90 degrees and still righted itself.

The volume of the ark would be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high. This equals 1,518,750 cubic feet and is comparable to 569 modern railroad boxcars. Therefore each boxcar, by comparison, would be 1,518,750 divided by 569, or 2,669 cubic feet of space. The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat. But, just to keep it safe let's consider the average size of an animal to be a sheep. The average double deck stock car holds 240 sheep. The Ark capacity would be about 569 x 240 equaling 136,560 animals of that size. However, that still is not accurate for our needs. Since most birds, reptiles, and amphibians are much smaller, let's double the boxcar capacity for them. Therefore, the boxcars could each hold 480 different kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians.

Noah had to take two or seven of every kind of animal on the earth. Though it is not really known exactly what is meant by a biblical kind, it is generally considered to be animals that are fertile within their own groups. Any dog can breed with any dog, therefore, dogs are one kind. It would only be necessary to bring representatives of each kind since the parents could produce offspring that would carry the genetic information for all variations within their kind.

Classification . . . . Number of Species . . . . Number of Kinds on the Ark

Mammals . . . . . . . . .3,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,700 (a few live in water).

Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,200 (seven pairs according to Gen. 7:3)

Reptiles. . . . . . . . . . .6,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,300

Amphibians. . . . . . . .2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500

Fishes. . . . . . . . . . . .20,600. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero

Other marine life . . . 192,605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero

Insects . . . . . . . . . . . 850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . . . . . . . . . . . .72,700

The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.

Since Gen. 7:3 says to take seven pairs of every bird then the total for birds would be 8,600 times two pair times 7 or 120,400 animals. 120,400 x 480 = 250 boxcars. The reptiles and amphibians would be 6,300 plus 2,500 or 8,800. 8,800 times two pair equals 17,600 animals. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.

The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400. There would be 251 boxcars left over. That means that only 56% of the ark would be used for storing the animals. Obviously, then, the rest of the space would be used for food for the people and animals and sleeping quarters. In addition, considering that insects are extremely small, it is easily conceivable that they could be housed in part of the remaining space.

It should also be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to live peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, animal behavior probably would have been different from normal daily life. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.

Though this is only a brief analysis, it should present enough evidence that the Ark account is certainly within the realm of possibility. :winkold:

AVFC,

I bring up the closest manager to what Deschamps would be if he joined Villa and you start questioning the wages he spends?

I cant name any other Premiership manager can I because below the top 4 they are all clueless home grown crap, bar Jol who is too old and past it. What can McLeish bring new to the Aston Villa table than what these home grown crap bring? Absolute naff all. Been there, seen it, done it..MON, Pulis, Bruce, Coyne, Warnock, Hughes, Moyes etc they are all the same....The ONLY guy that bought something different to the table is the guy that built his vision into a Premiership club on a budget and surprise surprise its WENGER!

I cant name another top Ligue 1 manager that took a Premiership team to the top on a budget because there is ONLY Wenger...So I have to use him to make my point!

I have never said a change in direction/vision/approach "would" take Villa into Europe again...I said it "could"...The only thing im sure of, is that this same old, same old dosnt work and hasnt for any club on a consistent basis....Yet the change in direction, vision and approach has worked for Arsenal..Its proven!

All we are with McLeish, is your run of the mill average crap...Just like the rest of them...We just look for the scraps off the top 4 table...Appart from Wenger, who came in and had vision and knowledge that spanned further than the English channel...

The reason you think we need huge sums of money, is because that does seem the case with all the managers in the Premiership bar Wenger. So why bother going down that failed route? Why not try and bring in the next, younger Wenger in Deschamps and "just try something different"..?

Arsenal may be on a budget relative to Manchester City, but just this past window Wenger spent 52 million pounds on transfer fees (yes, 70 million pounds came in, largely for Fabregas and Nasri).

For a bit of comparison, Aston Villa has purchased four players for 10 million pounds or more (Curtis Davies, including his initial loan fee, James Milner, Stewart Downing and Darren Bent) in the club's entire history. Arsene Wenger did that just this summer, and has purchased 12 players for transfer fees above 10 million in his term as Arsenal manager. So please do spare me the "budget" talk.

Also, Didier Dechamps has purchased 4 players costing more than 10 million pounds (Gignac, Remy, Lucho, and Mbia) in his two and a quarter seasons as Marseille manager, and has spent at a loss each season. To say he's "working on a budget" is risible.

Take a look at Wenger's record;

1st,(double)

2nd,

2nd,

2nd,

1st,(double)

2nd,

1st,

2nd,

----------

4th,

4th,

3rd,

4th,

3rd,

4th,

Notice in his earlier career he had better stats? Did you also notice that the teams he also built in his earlier years also went on incredible unbeaten runs, despite the emergence of mega rich Chelsea?

Notice the transfer finds he once was able to spot have dried up slightly over time? The last couple of season's he started to buy more proven players for more cash? Its because he has spent too long in the UK and English leagues. He dosnt have the edge on the continent he once had..Yes he has scouts, he is still a very high profile name etc But he wouldnt be as clued up as when he 1st arrived on the scene in the Premiership of good unfound players on the continent, or the bargains he once knew and was so well known for finding.

Players like, Henry, Petit, Viera, Anelka, all came from France in his early times at the club and helped build the nucleus of his successful sides. Especially Viera who was the rock in midfield, who Wenger knew from his time playing at Cannes.

Yet which players has McLeish bought in over Summer from his past knowledge of watching players at 1st hand? Hutton is hardly going to set the Premiership alight is he..If Newcastle can find Cabaye etc lurking about on the cheap, I wonder what the likes Deschamps will know about that others have not quite yet spotted? I doubt even Wenger today wouldnt have the knowledge of up to date bargains that Deschamps could possibly find in the ever crowded talented cheaper French market..

AVFC,

I bring up the closest manager to what Deschamps would be if he joined Villa and you start questioning the wages he spends?

I cant name any other Premiership manager can I because below the top 4 they are all clueless home grown crap, bar Jol who is too old and past it. What can McLeish bring new to the Aston Villa table than what these home grown crap bring? Absolute naff all. Been there, seen it, done it..MON, Pulis, Bruce, Coyne, Warnock, Hughes, Moyes etc they are all the same....The ONLY guy that bought something different to the table is the guy that built his vision into a Premiership club on a budget and surprise surprise its WENGER!

I cant name another top Ligue 1 manager that took a Premiership team to the top on a budget because there is ONLY Wenger...So I have to use him to make my point!

I have never said a change in direction/vision/approach "would" take Villa into Europe again...I said it "could"...The only thing im sure of, is that this same old, same old dosnt work and hasnt for any club on a consistent basis....Yet the change in direction, vision and approach has worked for Arsenal..Its proven!

All we are with McLeish, is your run of the mill average crap...Just like the rest of them...We just look for the scraps off the top 4 table...Appart from Wenger, who came in and had vision and knowledge that spanned further than the English channel...

The reason you think we need huge sums of money, is because that does seem the case with all the managers in the Premiership bar Wenger. So why bother going down that failed route? Why not try and bring in the next, younger Wenger in Deschamps and "just try something different"..?

It has been done, its just you chose to ignore it...Wenger has kept Arsenal amongst the top clubs on a budget. He has spent nowhere near the amounts Chelsea or City have, yet remains a regular in European competition.

All across Europe and in the UK we have teams reaching different levels with different budgets..Right now we have Newcastle sitting 3rd in the Premiership with players on the their books like Tiote, Ben Arfa, Cabaye, etc good enough to play at Champions league Level, yet bought for peanuts...They have Santon who is young and also looking potentialy good enough to one day be a top player. This is a club ran by an idiot who has tried to sell up and have also only recently been a club playing in the Championship. Its surprising what a little bit of vision can do.

Villa will never be a european winning side without huge money.

Maybe not, but with sensible appointments and sensible financial plans, I am sure we would be doing better, and we might even win some trophies...

Villa could rule Europe with the right man at the helm. Im not saying you can do it without money....But it can be done without spending the mass amounts which some fans seem to think you need.

Its all about assembling the right squad and set of tactics..The tactics will come from the brains within the manager and "his" coaching staff...The right squad selection again comes from the brains of the manager and "his" scouting staff...The FACTS we all know about are that the variety of players to chose from on the world stage is MASSIVE in comparison to how many "top clubs" there are on the circuit. Only a fool would think it cant be done..

Stan,

There are only so many best players these clubs can sign. Squad depth is less than 30 players. So lets take away the top 15 clubs in Europe, you are still left with a huge amount of players to chose from. Its just the wider your vision stretches the better player you will know about.

When Saunders built his team, the English league teams usually bought UK players.The best players still went/or were at United, Liverpool etc but because Saunders has vision and knew what he wanted he could scour the lower divisions and build a winning side because he spotted something in these players..We had very few players playing at International level yet won the European Cup. Thats comes down to great vision and team building. Not buying the best players!

Today, a great European winning side could still be built...Just that not from one country (like you used to)..It takes knowledge of all the leagues to achieve such..You need to put all the European teams into one large pot to then get your Ron Saunders type to chose his team. Its alot harder because the scope/pot is far wider/bigger.. So the race is on to chose a manager with the biggest knowledge of this pot.... OR, to just have loads of money and wait for these players to just materialise on the big stage(ie Chelsea/City) then buy them...We cant compete with the teams that buy these top players...But we can compete with teams looking to get a manager that would have the bigger knowledge of whats in the pot to build a winning side..

Was N'Zogbia REALLY all we could get for the best part of 10M quid!?

Who would you suggest?

im sure at time many people thought it was better deal than Downing though is he any worse than Downing as both have same stats for this season only Downing played more minutes

In that case you may as well just ask your average Joe to manage the club.(oops we did)

The point of of hiring a good manager with vast knowledge of the game, is that he has just that..Vast knowledge. And a manager with vast knowledge may have replaced Young and Downing for half the price of N'Zogbia..But we hired a manager that only has the vision of a small pond rather than the ocean.

Stan,

Every Premiership club starts the season with the same amount of points. Aston Villa's position in the Summer, is an established Premiership club with very good pedigree.

Every club in Europe has to live within its means, Aston Villa is no different. The prestige and pull is that Villa are a sleeping giant within one of the best league's in the world. MacClaren was well pee'd off when he didnt get an interview, Hughes left Fulham to join us, Flores was quoted as saying he was ready to join, Houllier never even wanted to leave....Dont kid yourself that McLeish was the only choice we had, because it wasnt..

Lerner chose McLeish because he thought he was the best man for the job, he had recently won a League Cup and Got Blues into Europa, to an American who knows very little about football, he seen this as a great skill..He seen how annoyed us fans were when we threw away the FA Cip tie with City, McLeish was Cup winner to Lerner and would pull out all the stops to bring him to Villa Park..Yes he knew he was ex-Blues and would get a bashing by some fans...But he seen a Domestic winner in his eyes and wanted to bring this man to do similar with Villa.. We also had the General saying that they had advice from Fergie at how decent he is as a manager. Lerner was fooled and naive...He is out of depth running a football club in the Premiership, his last 2 (and only 2) managerial appointments have proven this...Along with the crappy criteria they constantly strive for in "Premiership experienced only". When the only managers coming close to Fergie and Manchester United are nearly almost all non Premiership trained.

SnC,

I think you missed his point.

He was trying to say, I think, that if we cannot even tempt Martinez (who you have stated is not good enough) from Wigan, how on earth are we going to attract the person you describe in your previous post?

Hi Stan,

Well Zatman has kinda answered that question above.. Getting the right manager is about being in the right place at the right time..Deschamps has taken a club (like Villa) that were sleeping giants onto the European stage, Marseille had won pretty much nothing in the modern day (again just like Villa) until he came along and re built the club and style. If the Marseille board are unhappy with recent results(even though it looks like they are now back on track)and lack the patience, then it could be a great opportunity to bring him into the Premiership as our manager..The English players have abilities you will not find on the continent, mix that up with continental flair/coaching and you can create a side that would be playing better football than Barcelona. Remember all Arsenal's past success, was build on a mix of Wenger's continental flair mixed with English fight and leadership in Adams and co'? Deschamps has the experience to understand that mix/blend to produce such a style/team.

Martinez already explained why he never joined Villa..It was because he couldnt let down a chairman that has always stuck by and believed in him. Not because Villa are an unattractive proposition!

I dont get why you would want a manager with so little scope on the huge stage? Lambert would be a decent choice if we were still playing football in 1980. But since the game has gone massively global, the best manager would be a man that is also pretty clued up on the big global stage. The 1st and foremost criteria the club should look for is European experience. Champions League as a manager if possible, rather than just premiership or UK experience. Also he would need huge knowledge of the personnel on the coaching, scouting and playing side, who also need to be global and not stuck in one small pond..We need a manager that can tap into the world market, not just the UK market. Ron Saunders, Brian Clough would be lost in today's game. Lambert and MON would probably win the league if football was still the same as it was in the 70's and 80's, where the majority of the English league consisted of home grown players..But our top flight(especially our top teams) consist of global players and you would need vast knowledge of this if you want to compete at that same level.

and completely ignore the fact that we are not an attractive club on the stage you mention any more and that managers would have to want to come here. We coudln't even persuade Martinez FFS

Martinez isnt good enough..He wouldnt do it at Villa because he isnt attractive enough for the global market to want to sign for...Players like Cabaye for instance, wouldnt sign for Martinez(unless we offer stupid wages) but WOULD sign for Villa under the right coach. Deschamps could easily attract Cabaye, Ben Arfa, Tiote for Villa ahead of Newcastle United... Its who you employ to take the role as manager thats important.. Yes Martinez and Lambert play nice football but are limited when it comes to knowledge of finding cheap talented players on the global stage and attracting them to work under their guidance. Why would a hungry, good talented young player on the continent want to sign for some Scottish bloke that won a European medal for a German club in the ancient times? Or some Spainish guy that spent his life in Wales? They are bottom end managers for bottom end clubs.

Is Villa attractive enough to sign a bigger named manager? YES

Aston Villa is massive..Its a sleeping giant just waiting to be awoken.. We have not employed the right manager under Lerner's ownership. Houllier 20 years younger would have been perfect. Wenger 10 years younger would be perfect.. The modern day Wenger(which is the best way of descibing it) is Deschamps. = He is English, Italian and French trained "IN THE MODERN ERA OF FOOTBALL". He has seen and worked with the most up to date techniques at this time. He is at the heart of European competition learning, seeing the standards his team/squad will need to be the best. He is by no means the finished article in the world of management, but he is learning at a FAR faster rate than McLeish/Lambert = who are still stuck in the UK pond. I mean all the Right Backs in the world we could chose from for 4m quid and we sign Hutton, I ask you...Did we really show scope in getting such a signiture? Did this really show we have a manager that's one step ahead and up with the times of this modern global game? For 4m quid we could have signed a RB that could hold his own on the world stage under the right management. But because we have a limited guy, its another 4m quid down the drain.

I dont get why you would want a manager with so little scope on the huge stage? Lambert would be a decent choice if we were still playing football in 1980. But since the game has gone massively global, the best manager would be a man that is also pretty clued up on the big global stage. The 1st and foremost criteria the club should look for is European experience. Champions League as a manager if possible, rather than just premiership or UK experience. Also he would need huge knowledge of the personnel on the coaching, scouting and playing side, who also need to be global and not stuck in one small pond..We need a manager that can tap into the world market, not just the UK market. Ron Saunders, Brian Clough would be lost in today's game. Lambert and MON would probably win the league if football was still the same as it was in the 70's and 80's, where the majority of the English league consisted of home grown players..But our top flight(especially our top teams) consist of global players and you would need vast knowledge of this if you want to compete at that same level.

So what? McLeish was gonna be sacked from Blues too, only they couldnt afford it.

Sven has just been sacked too, and only yesterday you were saying how great he is.

We need to be aiming for better managers than McLeish. Championship or relegation threatened Premier League sides* are his level

* - No, we're not a relegation threatened side before you say it.

Like who? Who do you think would come here?

This man...But moving quickly by the board would be vital. No compensation to pay any club and he is ready..We Just need to pay McLeish off.

http://www.goal.com/en/news/10/italy/2011/09/16/2667869/if-inter-call-me-of-course-i-will-go-former-atletico-madrid-boss-

By the way, Houllier was an old hat appointment..Just a stroke of luck(bad luck when you consider the health problems) that they stumbled upon him..He ticked the boxes that their "old hat" requirements were looking for..

So I am confused is old hat a good thing or not?

Depends what you want as a fan.. Houllier was appointed because of his credentials as a Liverpool and ex premiership manager...Yet this was not why he is a good manager, or should it have been the MAIN reason he was appointed(which it was as the club were seeking Premiership experienced only)..His stronger points and the points our board should consider when making any future appointment, was that he had evolved with the modern game and stayed in touch with modern tactics, styles, development of players and training techniques etc.. Sven is/has struggled to keep up with today's game and he needs a crash course in continental Europe at some high spec training complex to bring him back up to speed. Whilst Sven was screwing around as England coach with his cautious boring approach, France and Spain etc were moving way ahead with a more mobile effective style of football, where good teamwork, movement, passing and technical ability was installed. The training in France, Spain, Portugal and Holland is way ahead of what we are doing here in the UK. Hence the reason, we have to keep purchasing high spec foreign players to compete in the Champions League each season and so few UK players are snapped up overseas, the Premiership probably spends more money than any other league in foreign player transfers to remain competitive on the European stage. Ye olde English cloggers are dead..Hoofball, longball is dead..In your face hard man with a wreckless challenge is dead...Football has changed and the rough edges have been polished up, to produce a game that has more flair, finesse, movement, passing etc..Breathe on a player these days and he falls down, its a free kick. Wenger knows this, Houllier knew this, half of the top coaches in Europe knows this..But managers like McLeish, Pulis, McCarthy, Kean, etc are yesterday men and are slowly sinking..

If you want Villa to move forward, then we need a forward thinking coach, that is "up to date" with the game of today. Just running around a few cones, then having a laugh and a joke in training is dead..Dunne and Collins moaning about Houllier/Duverne's methods? They are basically moaning about method's that will take clubs forward, they are yesterday players, failing to understand that today's players are finely tuned athletes..

If McLeish goes, we will end up with Sven..Our board are being advised by old hat old timers with no ideas how the game is evolving..

So which one of these old hat old timers advised the board to employ Houllier or did these old timers only join recently.

Also Houllier is a year older than Sven and no where near as succesful a manager.

I could answer this question but I chose not to...As it would just be ANOTHER thread going down the Houllier path..All I can suggest is that you do some research and you may find the answer yourself..

By the way, Houllier was an old hat appointment..Just a stroke of luck(bad luck when you consider the health problems) that they stumbled upon him..He ticked the boxes that their "old hat" requirements were looking for..

You can kinda guess that these advisors wont go for a manager like Deschamps, Flores, Poyet etc they are not ex Premiership rejects.

I'm getting really sick of all this 'Mcleish will make us a solid, mid table team' shit. That is the worse possible thing to be.

Nobody said it was good - although I guess it may be seen as better than last season's romance with relegation.

It's just what McLeish will do and I'm sure it's why he was appointed because it's what Lerner wants for the club.

Lerner hired McLeish because he thought that he was a good manager...He seen McLeish win a cup for Birmingham City so thinks he will win one for us.

He gave him funds to replace Friedel and Young and seen Albrighton as the up and coming replacement for Downing..He allowed the sale of Luke Young, and gave sufficent funds to get in another player..He allowed Makoun out on loan so allowed room for another loanee..

Mid table was never an option..We even had the General saying a top ish position is what he was expecting..And that we should wait and see how good McLeish is etc..