NurembergVillan Posted December 31, 2017 Moderator Share Posted December 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, andym said: But surely the point is that we have got a lot more of the expensive players than other teams. Reading spent 8m on Aluko yes, but the rest of their transfers were about 5 mil combined. The previous season they spent 8 mil combined while we spent 50 mil+ (inc Jan). Sheffield Wednesday spent 10mil on Rhodes, but the rest of their signings this summer were 3 mil combined, and last season it was 10 mil total. Out of the top 15 all time highest championship transfer fees we have 4 (although Chester squeaks in equal 15th with quite a few others at 8mil). I suspect wage bill wise as well its going to be similar, Terry surely must be the highest paid championship player ever, and he would walk into every single side in this league easily. You are right in that Bruce may not have had resources far beyond above every side in the league, but he has compared to the majority, and what he has is definitely no worse than any side except maybe Wolves. He has certainly had enough for us to be better than 7th halfway through the season, better than 6 points behind the likes of Bristol and Cardiff who definitely haven't had the resources he has, and better than 17 points from the top. We haven't though. We've got 3 expensive players. It's not like they all cost £15m each. We were relegated as one of the worst sides in Premier League history. I agree that Bristol City and Cardiff are outperforming their spend. But our spend doesn't dictate that we should be above them. Leicester won the league... We've spent similar amounts to 5 or 6 other teams and we've been around 5th or 6th. I think with a better manager we'd be doing better, but let's not flatter ourselves into a "considerably richer than yow" scenario where we've spent proper cash. In terms of 17 points of the top of the league, I actually think it's about right. The set up at Wolves is dodgy as ****. NES in charge, and Neves in midfield? All those players on loan from places like Atletico Madrid? They to ought to be winning every game this season and ending up with 138 points. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted December 31, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2017 5 hours ago, villarocker said: The only time I will be hysterical during Bruce's reign at Villa is when we win a game comfortably whilst playing decent football. I'd be f###ing ecstatic if that ever happened! Dreamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: We haven't though. We've got 3 expensive players. It's not like they all cost £15m each. We were relegated as one of the worst sides in Premier League history. I agree that Bristol City and Cardiff are outperforming their spend. But our spend doesn't dictate that we should be above them. Leicester won the league... We've spent similar amounts to 5 or 6 other teams and we've been around 5th or 6th. I think with a better manager we'd be doing better, but let's not flatter ourselves into a "considerably richer than yow" scenario where we've spent proper cash. In terms of 17 points of the top of the league, I actually think it's about right. The set up at Wolves is dodgy as ****. NES in charge, and Neves in midfield? All those players on loan from places like Atletico Madrid? They to ought to be winning every game this season and ending up with 138 points. The argument is resources though. The size of the club and the wages we can offer are surely superior to the majority of other teams. Hence why terry, jedinak, whelan and snodgrass have all joined. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted December 31, 2017 Moderator Share Posted December 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, DCJonah said: But transfer fees are just one part. We have clearly had a financial advantage over most when it comes to fees and wages we have been able to offer. And we're higher in the league than most too. I think we agree for the most part. I'm with you that he shouldn't have been complaining about lack of funds. My annoyance is that by talking about us spending enormous sums of money it implies that we have this star studded squad (like Wolves) when in reality we're still picking Gabby when he's fit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, Tayls said: Duuuuuude. Come on. This is horrendous! I got annoyed as soon as I read the ‘bare bones’ section. At no point did Bruce indicate that we are “down to the bare bones” "We are literally down to the bare bones and have nineteen and twenty year-olds on the bench." - Steve Bruce http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-steve-bruce-absence-14095345 Except for when he said it? lol 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted December 31, 2017 Moderator Share Posted December 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, DCJonah said: The argument is resources though. The size of the club and the wages we can offer are surely superior to the majority of other teams. Hence why terry, jedinak, whelan and snodgrass have all joined. I agree. We are above the majority of teams in the league. My point remains, we haven't spent ENORMOUS sums of money on fees and wages. We've spent the going rate for a team aiming for promotion back to the PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: "We are literally down to the bare bones and have nineteen and twenty year-olds on the bench." - Steve Bruce http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-steve-bruce-absence-14095345 Except for when he said it? lol You didn’t quote my full sentence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 @DCJonah I disagree with what you responded to me a few pages back. I typed a big reply and quoted a load of people to back it up, but I think I must have broken the forum because I clicked ‘post’ and it’s not here. So... lucky you Regarding this Bruce article; I actually quite liked it. It has its flaws where the writer makes his assumptions and then tries to pass them off as fact, but I get what he’s trying to say. Bruce does like to use his interviews as a way to bring out his latest excuse. Maybe Bruce likes to think of himself as a chubby, northern Mourinho. Deflecting from poor performances by dropping daft comments for us to dwell on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted December 31, 2017 Moderator Share Posted December 31, 2017 1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: "We are literally down to the bare bones and have nineteen and twenty year-olds on the bench." - Steve Bruce http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-steve-bruce-absence-14095345 Except for when he said it? lol He's right. We did have 19 and 20 year olds on the bench. What's the issue with what he's said there? There are a mountain of things to chuck at Bruce. That article is garbage. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said: Sounds like he is trying to take on the fans and a slight dig back at the board with his comments. Look, you are big enough and so am I , that if people have a pop, you have a pop back. I think perhaps frustration got the better of him and If I was his adviser i would have persuaded him against those comments.....but seeing the down to earth character he is, he has bit......wrongly Imo. but hey, lets not all get gooey eyed and feel aggrieved, he has had a pop back. Lets not lose sight of the objective ....attractive winning football......then perhaps both sides can steer clear of the personal and pointed speculative slurs.....and get on with the job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Tayls said: You didn’t quote my full sentence.... Quote I got annoyed as soon as I read the ‘bare bones’ section. At no point did Bruce indicate that we are “down to the bare bones” because we are playing Elphick. The person who wrote that suggested that, so actually it is he who thinks playing Elphick means we are “down to the bare bones”. I genuinely don't see the difference. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, TRO said: Look, you are big enough and so am I , that if people have a pop, you have a pop back. I think perhaps frustration got the better of him and If I was his adviser i would have persuaded him against those comments.....but seeing the down to earth character he is, he has bit......wrongly Imo. but hey, lets not all get gooey eyed and feel aggrieved, he has had a pop back. Lets not lose sight of the objective ....attractive winning football......then perhaps both sides can steer clear of the personal and pointed speculative slurs.....and get on with the job. Absolutely Just to add he should learn better PR skills and you'd think he'd know better from all his years in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: He's right. We did have 19 and 20 year olds on the bench. What's the issue with what he's said there? There are a mountain of things to chuck at Bruce. That article is garbage. That was in response to the previous poster who said regarding "At no point did Bruce suggest that we were down to the bare bones". Just as yourself, the poster and a few others have decided that the article is bollox and blatantly written by a Bruce hater. The reverse could be suggested in defense of it. Edited December 31, 2017 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted December 31, 2017 Moderator Share Posted December 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: I genuinely don't see the difference. lol It's because the writer says Bruce means we're bare bones because of Elphick, and goes into great detail as to why that's incorrect and disrespectful, when he obviously means bare bones because we've got kids on the bench. Huge difference. It's articles like that which have driven Bruce to say what he has. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: I genuinely don't see the difference. lol No probs... so, I said...at no point did Bruce say we are down to the bare bones because we are playing Elphick. ... Bruce did say we are down to the bare bones, but he didn’t say, “we are down to the bare bones because we are having to play Elphick”... Edited December 31, 2017 by Tayls 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said: It's because the writer says Bruce means we're bare bones because of Elphick, and goes into great detail as to why that's incorrect and disrespectful, when he obviously means bare bones because we've got kids on the bench. Huge difference. It's articles like that which have driven Bruce to say what he has. Just now, Tayls said: No probs... so, I said...at no point did Brice say we are down to the bare bones because we are playing Elphick. ... Bruce did say we are down to the bare bones, but he didn’t say, “we are down to the bare bones because we are having to play Elphick”... Ok noted, now I get it. However, I still wouldn't write off the whole post as nonsense because a large section of fans feel the exact same way about the majority of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 31, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) Edit: doesn't matter, someone already explained it. Edited December 31, 2017 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: And we're higher in the league than most too. I think we agree for the most part. I'm with you that he shouldn't have been complaining about lack of funds. My annoyance is that by talking about us spending enormous sums of money it implies that we have this star studded squad (like Wolves) when in reality we're still picking Gabby when he's fit. The last line tickled me, but poignant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 I thought the article was quite funny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted December 31, 2017 Share Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, TRO said: The last line tickled me, but poignant. Hold on, so do Wolves have a "Star studded Squad", or 2 or 3 Star "players"? Either way let's hand Wolves that, and move on to all the other teams above, and around us? How does our "average/poor squad" compare to them? Do we not have arguably a good portion of "Stars" from the last few championship seasons? Including a Premier League winner, A premier League mainstay defender, plus, plus, plus? I can handle most defenses and excuses, but trying to downplay the "squad" or insinuate that poor Brucey has had to work wonders with a little money, and we are all just expecting too much is laughable. We have the most expensive team in the League ffs. Come off it. Edited December 31, 2017 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts