Steve Bruce

[TheStagMan]

8 hours ago, kiltorken said:

I didn't miss my own point actually, objectives when Bruce took the job when we were just above the relegation zone on the back of 50 games with 4 wins was surely to steady the ship and try and get a respectable league position, getting the playoffs at that point would have been a very unexpected bonus in most people's eyes and that is the reason why it's "more valid",  he met the objective of steadying the ship, it's not his fault people got overly hopeful after one decent string of results before Christmas and decided playoffs were the new minimum. 

It's a good job we didn't get Chris Coleman in. 

 

You did. You claimed that cherry picking a point in time to support an argument was not right, then did exactly the same thing.

 

Anyway just because you think steadying the ship was the objective doesn't mean it was. Go back and read the quotes from Bruce, Wyness and Xia at the time. Promotion was most definitely the objective otherwise Buddah Handsome would have been given more time.

 

Bruce has failed, twice and we are now screwed. The annoying thing is that he is unlikely to be sacked due to the turmoil the club is in, so looks like you and the rest of the Bruce supporters will get exactly what you want, another season of dour, boring football and another season of failing to get promoted, but that's OK because it's too much to expect to be promoted now, so Steve has picked into another few million quid for being inept, with no pressure to perform. Great.

Edited June 27, 2018 by TheStagMan
typos

[DCJonah]

11 hours ago, kiltorken said:

I didn't miss my own point actually, objectives when Bruce took the job when we were just above the relegation zone on the back of 50 games with 4 wins was surely to steady the ship and try and get a respectable league position, getting the playoffs at that point would have been a very unexpected bonus in most people's eyes and that is the reason why it's "more valid",  he met the objective of steadying the ship, it's not his fault people got overly hopeful after one decent string of results before Christmas and decided playoffs were the new minimum. 

It's a good job we didn't get Chris Coleman in. 

 

If the club didn't think playoffs were a target they would not have sacked rdm after 11 games and then stated that playoffs were the target. 

[kiltorken]

3 hours ago, TheStagMan said:

You did. You claimed that cherry picking a point in time to support an argument was not right, then did exactly the same thing.

The only valid point in time for determining whether he failed in his objective is the point at which he took the job and was given his objective, selecting any other date to suit an argument is cherry-picking. 

[TheStagMan]

21 minutes ago, kiltorken said:

The only valid point in time for determining whether he failed in his objective is the point at which he took the job and was given his objective, selecting any other date to suit an argument is cherry-picking. 

so the point at which the club stated his objective was promotion then. OK

So you agree he failed based on the publicly stated objectives at the point you have cherry picked.

[kiltorken]

34 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

so the point at which the club stated his objective was promotion then. OK

Can you provide any evidence that the expected target for Bruce from the club for that season was promotion?

 

36 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

So you agree he failed based on the publicly stated objectives at the point you have cherry picked

Again, you seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept of cherry-picking.

[srsmithusa]

1 hour ago, kiltorken said:

Can you provide any evidence that the expected target for Bruce from the club for that season was promotion?

 

The quote from him has been posted in this thread multiple times.  It is typically reposted every time somebody AGAIN comes up with this fabricated, revision of history in order to excuse Bruce's repeated failures.  But at least you can go back to the fact that we had so many injuries, we're the only championship club to ever lose key players to injuries; or you can go back to the players just didn't follow his instructions while ignoring the tidbit that he kept playing them; or you can revert to the excuse that expectations were unrealistic while ignoring the fact that he stated and agreed to them when he signed on; or you could blame the failure on the fact that wolves cheated while ignoring that two other teams went up ahead of us; or you could return to blaming the players who are professional, forgetting that John Terry captained them.  But never mind me, my facts are just hysterical.

TO BE CLEAR- i'm not saying he's done nothing good.  As bad as our team spirit was, it would have been hard to oversee it getting worse... but he did much better than that in that criteria.  He got us to a points increase and placement finish higher.  Good, none of those result in promotion and promotion was his stated and accepted task.  He failed, with much more money, much more experience than he will have this season, he failed twice.

[bannedfromHandV]

21 hours ago, Dave J said:

He did fail - otherwise why would the club have sacked RDM after only 11 games if promotion was not on the remit - I'll stand corrected but I'm sure someone on here just a few weeks back confirmed that Bruce himself said that promotion was still the aim when he was unveiled as manager and quite frankly I'd have been pretty fuming with the club if this was not the ambition  and even if this was not said publicly I'm pretty certain it would have been said in private - I doubt RDM's compensation package would have been cheap.

FFS dave.

The remit at the start of the season was obviously promotion, SB took over with roughly 25% of the season already gone and with the team in the bottom 5 or so.

Of course the ultimate aim would have been promotion and publicly, of course they're going to say that stuff, how naive are you?

Steve Round gave an interview before the playoff final, look it up, he made it clear that no-one internally saw SB's first season as a failure for all the reasons have been said and repeated on a plethora of occasions.

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

FFS dave.

The remit at the start of the season was obviously promotion, SB took over with roughly 25% of the season already gone and with the team in the bottom 5 or so.

Of course the ultimate aim would have been promotion and publicly, of course they're going to say that stuff, how naive are you?

Steve Round gave an interview before the playoff final, look it up, he made it clear that no-one internally saw SB's first season as a failure for all the reasons have been said and repeated on a plethora of occasions.

Of course Steve Round is going to say that before the playoff final. How naive are you?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Of course the ultimate aim would have been promotion and publicly, of course they're going to say that stuff, how naive are you?

Steve Round gave an interview before the playoff final, look it up, he made it clear that no-one internally saw SB's first season as a failure for all the reasons have been said and repeated on a plethora of occasions.

Using your own words

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

of course [he's] going to say that stuff, how naive are you?

My own view is that Bruce quite obviously failed both seasons, but in the first one, succeeding (promotion) would have been nigh on a miracle, so I wouldn't slate him for not getting us up first season. This last season, he should have got us up, he failed, and under normal circs the arguments to get rid would prevail, however as we're utterly skint, we currently can't afford to sack him.  

[striker]

If Villa can’t afford to sack Bruce then can they still afford his wages?

[Czechlad]

Just now, striker said:

If Villa can’t afford to sack Bruce then can they still afford his wages?

If we sack bruce, we have to still keep paying his wages, plus a new managers wages.

At this point, financially it's not wise to sack bruce. 

[Jareth]

We could afford to put Bruce in a sack

[Lerner's Driver]

Is there anyone on this forum prepared to explain why Steve Bruce is or is not the right manager to take the club forward? I feel like I might have missed or forgotten some of the key elements of the discussion.

[bannedfromHandV]

46 minutes ago, blandy said:

Using your own words

My own view is that Bruce quite obviously failed both seasons, but in the first one, succeeding (promotion) would have been nigh on a miracle, so I wouldn't slate him for not getting us up first season. This last season, he should have got us up, he failed, and under normal circs the arguments to get rid would prevail, however as we're utterly skint, we currently can't afford to sack him.  

I don't think that's entirely fair Blandy.

Giving it large when you first come into a club (particularly the biggest club in the division with the highest expectations) is, for me, wholly different to reflecting on it a year later.

Steve Round didn't have to say what he said (one year later) whereas SB did have to say what he said (if he'd come in and said ah well, we're going to aim for as high a finish as possible but promotion may be a tall order - he'd have been crucified, even more so).

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

https://www.myoldmansaid.com/the-media-silence-of-steve-bruces-under-achievement-at-villa/

 

Quote

 

The Media Silence of Steve Bruce’s Under Achievement at Villa

While Aston Villa's financial woe bubbles away, have the local press let Steve Bruce off the hook for his part in it?

 

Yup, as well as a section of the fans.

 

 

Quote

 

Phantom January 2017 Spend

Another factor that receives little press attention – to the point of being forgotten – is the £23m Bruce spent on players in the winter 2017 transfer window.

Bruce was promised funds by CEO Keith Wyness when he arrived at the club in October 2016 and Aston Villa’s new manager chose to sign eight new players that winter; Lansbury, Hourihane, Bree, Hogan, Bjarnason, Neil Taylor, Bedeau and Sam Johnstone for a cost of around £23m.

CEO Keith Wyness explained one advantage of spending big in a January window was that players what a longer period to settle in before the start of the following season.  Bruce’s January transfer window was effectively his summer transfer window and Bruce himself admitted as much.

“There won’t be a huge turnover this summer,” said Bruce in March 2017. “I don’t think the club can expect to do that again. Now I’ve got a squad which I’m delighted about.”

After finishing fourth this season in the Championship, there has been an almost uniform rewriting of Bruce’s expenditure as Aston Villa manager by the press.  Six high-profile journalists appear to have omitted entirely from the debate the eight players Bruce signed in January 2017.

“It hasn’t been easy with Financial Fair Play.  People need reminding of that because they think I’ve used a big cheque book here, which has not been the case,” pleaded Bruce, at the end of last season.  “We’ve brought in loans and I think I spent £2.5m in the summer and brought in almost £20m.”

The alleged £20m Bruce claimed to have raised for the club this season included Veretout (a player Di Matteo didn’t have available to him either) and Carles Gil and Carlos Sanchez (Season long loans with buy options arranged during Di Matteo’s time was manager).

The press kept to Bruce’s script.

‘Despite the acquisition of a stellar name in John Terry, the last two Championship years have been austere,’ wrote the Daily Mail’s Martin Samuel.

‘Finishing 13th in the first season inspired the determination to recruit a player of Terry’s stature and experience but, in reality, times are hard. Steve Bruce, the manager, spent only £2.5m last summer, while raising £18m in player sales.”

If only journalists could make Aston Villa’s financial woes disappear as quickly as the many millions Steve Bruce spent on players, wages and loan fees during his time as manager here.

At best, the reporting in relation to Bruce’s expenditure can be described as a disingenuous, at worst deliberately misleading.  Sunderland and Huddersfield fans have expressed similar complaints about Bruce’s financial mismanagement of their clubs, but this is something that seems to be overlooked by the press.  Bruce had spent over £80m at Sunderland in two years as a manager there.

Many articles have been written in the past few weeks lamenting the financial mismanagement of Aston Villa yet seemingly no blame has, again, been attached to Steve Bruce.  This is a particularly troubling omission considering the justification Bruce gave for paying his signings such high wages.

“One of the reasons we have one of the biggest wage bills in the Championship is we have to deal with that mentality and that expectation,” he said back in February last year. “That’s why they get paid more than anyone else in this division. That’s why they get paid it – to handle the expectation.”

 

Thank you!

Edited June 27, 2018 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Steve Round didn't have to say what he said (one year later) whereas SB did have to say what he said (if he'd come in and said ah well, we're going to aim for as high a finish as possible but promotion may be a tall order - he'd have been crucified, even more so).

I disagree again , though I see where you're coming from.

On the eve of the POF, Round is never gonna do anything other than be positive about the manager. I'm sure the process of the first season's analysis would have looked at all aspects of what Bruce did and they clearly decided they were better off sticking with him (I did, too), I dunno how many times I've posted the words "I would never have given him the job, but once they did they had to give him until the end of this (2017/18) season".

Equally when coming to the club, Bruce did say, on Football Focus, talking to Dion Dublin , that his aim was to go up that season (via the play offs) and that if he didn't get up in 2 years, then he knew what would happen (the tin tack). And that was also the stated aim and expectation of the Owner and the board. So, sure. protocol says "say  [well worn script] optimistic  things" but it can absolutely be the case that they are sometimes (often even) genuinely true.

[markavfc40]

55 minutes ago, blandy said:

I disagree again , though I see where you're coming from.

On the eve of the POF, Round is never gonna do anything other than be positive about the manager. I'm sure the process of the first season's analysis would have looked at all aspects of what Bruce did and they clearly decided they were better off sticking with him (I did, too), I dunno how many times I've posted the words "I would never have given him the job, but once they did they had to give him until the end of this (2017/18) season".

Equally when coming to the club, Bruce did say, on Football Focus, talking to Dion Dublin , that his aim was to go up that season (via the play offs) and that if he didn't get up in 2 years, then he knew what would happen (the tin tack). And that was also the stated aim and expectation of the Owner and the board. So, sure. protocol says "say  [well worn script] optimistic  things" but it can absolutely be the case that they are sometimes (often even) genuinely true.

Pete I think the first season was going to be a big ask to get us back up. The club still wreaked of a losers mentality and despite the huge change over in staff there was still a hangover from the previous season. When Bruce arrived we had won five games in 18 months, hadn't won an away game for 14 months and had won one in 11 in the Championship and gone out the league cup to fourth tier opposition. Of course, much like every manager I have ever seen, when he came in the door he talked the talk, was hugely positive and reaching high. I think the reality was though he was a manager who came in with a quarter of the season gone, with the club struggling, trying to integrate a load of new players he hadn't signed without a pre season. I think he then made that task harder by introducing another half a dozen new players in January. You combine the whole thing together though and it would have been some achievement to get us up.

Last season was a different story as he had the resources, had been given the time and for me put together a squad that should have achieved promotion. Whether you think his failure to deliver it warranted him being sacked is where some of us may disagree. I personally don't think it was. I think the whole division was blown away by what Wolves did which made things tougher than anticipated but we then finished with in six points of Cardiff ,and had we have beaten them away we'd have finished above them, and lost by a single goal in the play off final. It was fine margins.

We are where are now though and I guess it isn't now so much about what has gone before but about whether you think Bruce is the manager for now and I am not sure given the turmoil of the financial situation any of us are in a position to answer that. We wouldn't have a clue who the club would be capable of attracting and things like if we'd be in a position to pay compensation for an in work manager. The whole thing is a mess. Being honest if as I was anticipating there would be some cost cutting and selling a couple of our best players and a bit of a rebuild I wouldn't want Bruce to over see that. I think it now may well be selling our best players and trying to get the best out of what is left and survive in this league and if that is the case then maybe Bruce is as well suited as anyone to do that. The whole thing is depressing.

Edited June 27, 2018 by markavfc40

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Pete I think the first season was going to be a big ask to get us back up. The club still wreaked of a losers mentality and despite the huge change over in staff there was still a hangover from the previous season. When Bruce arrived we had won five games in 18 months, hadn't won an away game for 14 months and had won one in 11 in the Championship 

Last season was a different story as he had the resources, had been given the time and for me put together a squad that should have achieved promotion. Whether you think his failure to deliver it warranted him being sacked is where some of us may disagree. I personally don't think it was. I think the whole division was blown away by what Wolves did which made things tougher than anticipated but we then finished with in six points of Cardiff ,and had we have beaten them away we'd have finished above them, and lost by a single goal in the play off final. It was fine margins.

We are where are now though and I guess it isn't now so much about what has gone before but about whether you think Bruce is the manager for now and I am not sure given the turmoil of the financial situation any of us are in a position to answer that. .... The whole thing is depressing.

Agree with most of that Mark. I’ve not said anything different, other than in regards of sacking him, really. Even without the current clusterpork of HMRC etc. FFP is a factor which means major rebuilding and youth. Bruce is not the right man for that kind of task, so in normal times, yes he came close to promotion, failed narrowly and wouldn’t be the man to try again on a small budget, rebuilding.  so if it wasn’t for being too skint to get rid, I’d get rid of him for sure it - wouldn’t be unfair, though he’s a decent man and has done his best under awful personal circs. If he’d been kept on in these imaginary normal circumstances, then I could see the argument for “one last go, he came so close” even if I don’t share it. But with the financial mess, we can’t financially afford to get rid of him. It’s just down to that. We have zero chance of promotion anytime soon, so personally, I’d like to see players coming through and a less conservative approach to games, at least.

[Dave J]

4 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

FFS dave.

The remit at the start of the season was obviously promotion, SB took over with roughly 25% of the season already gone and with the team in the bottom 5 or so.

Of course the ultimate aim would have been promotion and publicly, of course they're going to say that stuff, how naive are you?

Steve Round gave an interview before the playoff final, look it up, he made it clear that no-one internally saw SB's first season as a failure for all the reasons have been said and repeated on a plethora of occasions.

I believe you are totally wrong and no one will convince of anything differently - you suggest I am naive - do you not consider it would be anything but naive of around to say anything to the contrary on the lead up to the play off.

no one will convince me otherwise that Bruce failed in his first season objective and even more so in his second.

But this is a forum and we're all entitled to our own views

[Zatman]

4 hours ago, Czechlad said:

If we sack bruce, we have to still keep paying his wages, plus a new managers wages.

At this point, financially it's not wise to sack bruce. 

probably still paying RDM wages too and maybe even Remi Garde