Steve Bruce

[pintpotvilla]

43 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

Bruce walked away from a 2 year contract at Hull when he handed in his resignation, he don't think he is money orientated. What manager ever hands in their notice.

Except Keegan.

John Gregory?

[Dave J]

6 hours ago, terrytini said:

Call me a gullible old fool, but I don’t think he’s staying for the money, I think he’s staying because he thinks he’s needed and it’s the right thing to do. In my opinion if it was only money he’d have already gone...he has plenty anyway.

This is a hard one for me - Bruce comes comes over as a decent guy, working class roots made good if you like, but let's not pretend that it's business we are talking about here and there is very little in the way of loyalty in modern day pro football 

[terrytini]

1 hour ago, Dave J said:

This is a hard one for me - Bruce comes comes over as a decent guy, working class roots made good if you like, but let's not pretend that it's business we are talking about here and there is very little in the way of loyalty in modern day pro football 

Indeed.

Dont get me wrong, I doubt he’d stay if he weren’t being paid !

But I think as long as he IS paid I think ( could be wrong of course) he is staying for decent reasons, not just waiting for a better offer, or because it’s a good wage.

But who knows for sure ? Only him I guess.

But there IS a huge amount of loyalty in football of course .....us lot !

[AvfcRigo82]

5 hours ago, pintpotvilla said:

John Gregory?

The last decent manager we had until MO'N.

[thabucks]

I very much doubt he will be here by Hull ! He is on the brink ! 

[AvfcRigo82]

37 minutes ago, thabucks said:

I very much doubt he will be here by Hull ! He is on the brink ! 

Of what - the sack?, resigning?, suicide?..

[A'Villan]

13 hours ago, briny_ear said:

I think he did what he was asked by Xia which was try to get us promoted. He didn’t succeed.

I’ve seen no evidence that he was part of what has now been partially exposed of the flaky financial dealings that Xia was involved in. Presumably Xia signed all the cheques to back Bruce’s efforts in the full knowledge of the financial risks. I have seen no evidence that Bruce colluded in these flaky financial dealings. If you have any evidence please provide it here.

Bruce tried to get us promoted and didn't succeed. Does that make him “culpable” for AVFC’s failure to pay its May tax bill on time? You need to do more than just assert this to make a convincing case.

I think it fairly safe to presume that after 20 years in management, a few relegations and 4 promotions, Bruce might have a little bit of knowledge in regards to the financial constraints and capabilities of a football club.

Add to this it was this time last year that Bruce told the media he was made aware of the clubs financial situation before he took over and the comments he made in relation to a failure to gain promotion, I think it's safe to say Bruce has been aware of our predicament.

We can only speculate on the kind of relationship Xia and Bruce share, but like any relationship theirs is reliant on trust and understanding. The notion that Bruce would need to know the most accurate and detailed information in order to gain a realistic perspective on the clubs financial situation is a bit naive. One thing we can be sure of is that Bruce, Wyness and Xia discussed in depth their expectations and what the plan of action would be.

For all we know Xia had an influential hand in deciding our recruitment policy and playing personnel. It could have been Xia that pushed for experience, leadership or proven ability. Perhaps each transfer was subject to his approval.

Even if that was the case, Bruce is still a big part of the discussion and always will be while he's here and it's entirely up to him as to what he chooses to voice his opinion on, not having the final say does not exempt him from responsibility. At some point he had to make a call on whether Xia is trustworthy or not. If he is, then they can plan accordingly and there is room for goodwill. If not, then Bruce needs to address it.

Bruce is part of the management team responsible for the situation we find ourselves in and therefore, in part, culpable.

[Demitri_C]

9 hours ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

The last decent manager we had until MO'N.

The last decent managers we have had and i would include would be bruce, mon gregory little in my life time.

That's dreadful when you think about it.

[AvfcRigo82]

41 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The last decent managers we have had and i would include would be bruce, mon gregory little in my life time.

That's dreadful when you think about it.

Don't forget Big Ron  

[briny_ear]

5 hours ago, A'Villan said:

I think it fairly safe to presume that after 20 years in management, a few relegations and 4 promotions, Bruce might have a little bit of knowledge in regards to the financial constraints and capabilities of a football club.

Add to this it was this time last year that Bruce told the media he was made aware of the clubs financial situation before he took over and the comments he made in relation to a failure to gain promotion, I think it's safe to say Bruce has been aware of our predicament.

We can only speculate on the kind of relationship Xia and Bruce share, but like any relationship theirs is reliant on trust and understanding. The notion that Bruce would need to know the most accurate and detailed information in order to gain a realistic perspective on the clubs financial situation is a bit naive. One thing we can be sure of is that Bruce, Wyness and Xia discussed in depth their expectations and what the plan of action would be.

For all we know Xia had an influential hand in deciding our recruitment policy and playing personnel. It could have been Xia that pushed for experience, leadership or proven ability. Perhaps each transfer was subject to his approval.

Even if that was the case, Bruce is still a big part of the discussion and always will be while he's here and it's entirely up to him as to what he chooses to voice his opinion on, not having the final say does not exempt him from responsibility. At some point he had to make a call on whether Xia is trustworthy or not. If he is, then they can plan accordingly and there is room for goodwill. If not, then Bruce needs to address it.

Bruce is part of the management team responsible for the situation we find ourselves in and therefore, in part, culpable.

OK, so you think Steve Bruce is "culpable" . That means he is guilty of something, to blame, at fault. It isn't clear in this whole discussion what people think he is to blame for.? You almost seem to be saying here that he should have been a whistleblower because he must have known how dodgy Xia's financial position actually was  (contrary to Xia's public statements).

To save this going round in circles, let's move it on. If Steve Bruce is guilty - at least in part - for our dire financial position, what do you think he should have done differently?

[TheStagMan]

22 hours ago, briny_ear said:

I think he did what he was asked by Xia which was try to get us promoted. He didn’t succeed.

I’ve seen no evidence that he was part of what has now been partially exposed of the flaky financial dealings that Xia was involved in. Presumably Xia signed all the cheques to back Bruce’s efforts in the full knowledge of the financial risks. I have seen no evidence that Bruce colluded in these flaky financial dealings. If you have any evidence please provide it here.

Bruce tried to get us promoted and didn't succeed. Does that make him “culpable” for AVFC’s failure to pay its May tax bill on time? You need to do more than just assert this to make a convincing case.

I didn't ask if he was culpable for AVFC failing to pay the May tax bill on time. 

I asked if you thought he shared no part in the culpability for the apparently precarious financial situation the club is now in. It seems your answer is no, and that he is completely blameless? Is this a correct interpretation of your stance?

 

 

As for what you have posted - you are correct - he didn't succeed in the objective that he was set. He should have been aware, no, *must* have been aware that the one season squad he built was an all or nothing approach to getting promoted, and that we would be in financial jeopardy if we did not get promoted. If he didn't realize that then he is an idiot and should not be a football manager. He failed in his one objective after assembling an expensive, short term team. Please do not give me any bollox about him not having money to spend as it simply isn't true (have a read back through here for various articles debunking this myth).

Therefore please show me your evidence that he did not collude in the finances of this club. He seems to enjoy taking the credit for saving us money so must have known the situation so your argument holds no water at all. 

You are making Bruce out to be some poor innocent in all of this. There is no way on earth a competent manager could sit there thinking, i'll just sign all these players on massive salaries, it's OK, there is a magic money tree that will fund it all. 

Xia did not pick the players. Bruce did. Bruce would also have known how much they would be offered. There is no way a senior and experienced manager of Bruce's so called caliber would not have *some* involvement in these negotiations. If what you are saying is true, and Bruce had no knowledge of the finances and  just sat there picking players he wanted like a fat kid in a sweet shop, turning a blind eye to the financial side of things then he has been extremely negligent in his duty to this club, which makes him just as culpable as various others who have already gone. 

 

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

The last decent managers we have had and i would include would be bruce, mon gregory little in my life time.

That's dreadful when you think about it.

It must be bad when Bruce on that list of good managers

[TRO]

On 17/07/2018 at 16:59, sheepyvillian said:

With this manager, that is exactly what I expect. As for being surprised, let's not kid ourselves. So that's why we never got promotion, not because the team wasn't up for it when it mattered, but because, it was burdened by the weight of expectation ? For me, that's nothing but cliche ridden nonsense.

I didn't say that.

i told you in previous posts, my opinion......team not quite good enough.That entails some players being good enough, others not.

Yes, I do think expectation plays a part......the whole part no.

Rarely, does one piece of criteria give you success or failure.

[kiltorken]

54 minutes ago, Zatman said:

It must be bad when Bruce on that list of good managers 

Third highest win rate in Villa's history, obviously the win % doesnt mean as much as agasint the top flight maangers but still not as bad as some people make out.

		Start Date	Finish Date	Games	Win%
1	George Ramsay[5]	August 1884	01/05/1926	1327	49.59
2	W. J. Smith[5]	01/08/1926	01/05/1934	364	48.08
3	Steve Bruce	01/10/2016	Present	89	47.19
4	Jimmy Hogan	Summer 1936	01/09/1939	124	45.97
5	Graham Taylor	01/05/1987	01/07/1990	142	45.77
6	Tony Barton	01/02/1982	01/06/1984	130	44.62
7	Ron Saunders	01/06/1974	01/02/1982	353	44.48
8	Vic Crowe	01/01/1970	01/05/1974	199	44.22
9	Ron Atkinson	01/07/1991	01/11/1994	178	43.26
10	John Gregory	01/02/1998	01/01/2002	190	43.16
11	Joe Mercer	01/12/1958	01/07/1964	282	42.55
12	Martin O'Neill	01/08/2006	01/08/2010	190	42.11
13	Brian Little	01/11/1994	01/02/1998	164	41.46
14	Alex Massie	01/08/1945	01/08/1950	189	40.21
15	George Martin	01/12/1950	01/08/1953	119	39.50

[TRO]

On 17/07/2018 at 18:36, Dave J said:

So would you acknowledge this as Bruce being culpable in this ?

Yes, absolutely.....every manager has to be responsible For their recruits.

but bear in mind, we all have our own idea on who they should be.....there is only one manager.....and who is to say the next one will be any better under the circumstances.

I would be surprised that any fan would oppose a change for a better manager, but that option is not being presented......its change for change sake that i am gleaning.

but i will say again Dave.....a better manager with worse players is not the answer either.

We want a better manager and better players.....one without the other is incomplete.

[TRO]

12 hours ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

The last decent manager we had until MO'N.

Even he was accused of dour boring football in some quarters.......time dulls the mind.

[TRO]

9 minutes ago, kiltorken said:

Third highest win rate in Villa's history, obviously the win % doesnt mean as much as agasint the top flight maangers but still not as bad as some people make out.

		Start Date	Finish Date	Games	Win%
1	George Ramsay[5]	August 1884	01/05/1926	1327	49.59
2	W. J. Smith[5]	01/08/1926	01/05/1934	364	48.08
3	Steve Bruce	01/10/2016	Present	89	47.19
4	Jimmy Hogan	Summer 1936	01/09/1939	124	45.97
5	Graham Taylor	01/05/1987	01/07/1990	142	45.77
6	Tony Barton	01/02/1982	01/06/1984	130	44.62
7	Ron Saunders	01/06/1974	01/02/1982	353	44.48
8	Vic Crowe	01/01/1970	01/05/1974	199	44.22
9	Ron Atkinson	01/07/1991	01/11/1994	178	43.26
10	John Gregory	01/02/1998	01/01/2002	190	43.16
11	Joe Mercer	01/12/1958	01/07/1964	282	42.55
12	Martin O'Neill	01/08/2006	01/08/2010	190	42.11
13	Brian Little	01/11/1994	01/02/1998	164	41.46
14	Alex Massie	01/08/1945	01/08/1950	189	40.21
15	George Martin	01/12/1950	01/08/1953	119	39.50

I think win ratio's are significant.

Generally, you play with the quality of player commensurate with the league you are in.

yes many of those managers played in the top league.....but they had better quality players to do it, so one negates the other.

Win ratio's are a valid benchmark Imo.

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

It must be bad when Bruce on that list of good managers

How when he has one of our highest win ratios?

[sne]

Well the 47% win ratio is certainly a better stat to have than the lose ratio of 41% he had after his first season here. Or the 60% draw ratio that RDM had during his short stint here.

Think it was 45% win and 41% lost or something like that for Bruce after the fist season. Hence why we finished 13th.

 

But considering we tried to Man City the league by throwing money at it it's still kinda poor.

We still had almost twice the wage budget compared to the next highest spending club if the figures are true.

Edited July 19, 2018 by sne

[A'Villan]

2 hours ago, briny_ear said:

OK, so you think Steve Bruce is "culpable" . That means he is guilty of something, to blame, at fault. It isn't clear in this whole discussion what people think he is to blame for.? You almost seem to be saying here that he should have been a whistleblower because he must have known how dodgy Xia's financial position actually was  (contrary to Xia's public statements).

To save this going round in circles, let's move it on. If Steve Bruce is guilty - at least in part - for our dire financial position, what do you think he should have done differently?

Yes, I think Bruce is guilty of having foresight of the ramifications of decisions made by management and going along with it regardless.

I am not suggesting he should have been a whistleblower, I am saying as part of the decision making process he has adequate insight in to the finances of Aston Villa and the ability to speak his own mind. Whether Bruce has much freedom in his role or is bound by parameters set by Xia and formerly Wyness, Bruce is still in a leadership role and his input has authority.

What do I think he should have done differently? Good question and I have a few suggestions.

I think what's of paramount importance and really of interest is how Bruce would answer that question.