Situation vacant... who do you want as the new Villa manager

[jonno_2004]

Would love us to get Coyle. Successful everywhere he goes, teams play lovely football and his career is on the up and up. Think he'd be a brilliant appointment, and realistic.

Not me I don't rate him personally and he lacks a plan B

His plan B seemed to work against us though, so much they brought a DVD out!

[nick76]

I actually don't know who I want. Ancelotti because he's a big name, would show everybody else and I suppose to ourselves that we do have massive ambition.....but would he be a bit of a gimmick and would he be off next year when the next big job comes along, thus we have to start again....but we could get in a few big names in the interim, not lose so many of our better players hopefully and just some general optimism around the club which has been sadly lacking recently

Or do we go for a Hughes or less likely Moyes, what would be seen as a more long term, steadier appointment that could build over the years...would mean we may lose one or two key players as they flout lack of ambition, blah blah blah. But we can continue to grow and get some stability and have one of the young really good up coming managers that are likely to be here to build a team......

Conflicted....glad it's not my choice

[juanpabloangel18]

I actually don't know who I want. Ancelotti because he's a big name, would show everybody else and I suppose to ourselves that we do have massive ambition.....but would he be a bit of a gimmick and would he be off next year when the next big job comes along, thus we have to start again....

Why do you think this? I think he seems like a committed and generally pretty righteous guy, I dont see any reason why he'd be a gimmick, or indeed leave us in the shit.

[ender4]

new posts are getting added to this thread faster than i can read them!

[Alec]

and making a profit on players?

hughes didnt make a profit on santa cruz, he spent 22 million on signing him twice and santa cruz has been sold for 17.5 million so he has made a loss on him.

he spent 230 million pounds in 16 months at man city on players, it was on 18 players, however 3 of those players were free transfers, so he spent an average of just over 15 million pounds per player, and they finished WORSE than the previous season under sven

awsome

The fact of the matter is that he saw the potential in Santa Cruz when he was struggling in the Bundesliga and snapped him up for £3.5m, allowing Blackburn to sell him for £18m a year later.

Signed David Bentley for £500,000 - sold him for £16m.

And one can only imagine what profit Blackburn will make on Christopher Samba this summer having signed him for £400,000, not to mention the increase valuations you would now find on the likes of Zabaleta and Kompany at City.

As we've said before though, there's not much point debating profit margins on player turnover at Man City when they are happy to pay the wages of players (Santa Cruz, Bellamy, Onouha etc.) who they send out to other clubs rather than selling them to rivals.

And your argument about finishing beneath Sven having spent £230m looks somewhat different in light of the fact that the majority of it was spent after that season ended and the Abu Dhabi consortium had taken over from Shinawatra. After the money was spent largely during the summer of 2009 - and some of it clearly went on players targetted by the board such as Robinho - he had them higher in the league at the time of his departure than Sven had them at any point.

?

hughes worked his way through £128.5 million in his first season,

Jo CSKA Mosc. £18,000,000 02 Jul, 2008

Tal Ben-Haim Chelsea Signed 30 Jul, 2008 £5,000,000

Vincent Kompany Hamburg £6,000,000 22 Aug, 2008

Shaun Wright-Phillips Chelsea £9,000,000 28 Aug, 2008

Glauber Berti Nuremberg Free 31 Aug, 2008

Pablo Zabaleta Espanyol Signed 31 Aug, 2008 £7,000,000

Robinho Real Madrid £32,500,000 01 Sep, 2008

Wayne Bridge Chelsea £12,000,000 03 Jan, 2009

Craig Bellamy West Ham £14,000,000 19 Jan, 2009

Nigel de Jong Hamburg Signed 21 Jan, 2009 £18,000,000

Shay Given Newcastle Signed 01 Feb, 2009 £7,000,000

3 years later lets see what the players sold for

or are doing for the club

Jo CSKA Mosc. £18,000,000 STILL AT CLUB DOESNT PLAY 1 YEAROF CONTRACT LEFT

Tal Ben-Haim £5,000,000 SOLD... FREE TRANSFER

Vincent Kompany Hamburg £6,000,000 STILL AT CLUB PLAYS

Shaun Wright-Phillips Chelsea £9,000,000 STILL AT CLUB DOESNT PLAY 1 YEAR LEFT ON CONTRACT

Glauber Berti Nuremberg Free SOLD FREE TRANSFER

Pablo Zabaleta Espanyol £7,000,000 STILL AT CLUB PLAYED 1/2 THE GAMES LAST SEASON

Robinho Real Madrid £32,500,000 SOLD 14 MILLION..OOOOFFF.

Wayne Bridge Chelsea £12,000,000 STILL AT CLUB DOESNT PLAY

Craig Bellamy West Ham £14,000,000 STILL AT CLUB? DOESNT PLAY WILL LEAVE FOR NOTHING THIS SUMMER

Nigel de Jong Hamburg Signed 21 Jan, 2009 £18,000,000 STILL AT CLUB, PLAYS

Shay Given Newcastle Signed 01 Feb, 2009 £7,000,000 STILL AT CLUB DOESNT PLAY

awsome

As outlined repeatedly now, selling for profit is completely irrelevant as far as City are concerned which is why I stressed the profits made from aquisitions at Blackburn in response to your statement that he supposedly fails to do this.

If you're asking me if I think all of the above signings were good then I'd have to say no - in so far as Jo, Shaun Wright-Phillips, Tal Ben-Haim and Wayne Bridge have generally all been poor since going there. The others, however, have either proven to be very good signings or at the very least performed well under his management at the club.

Robinho is the obvious exception to all of the above in that I think it's widely accepted that this was a purchase made by the board and the manager had very little to do with it.

And that still leaves virtually half of the stated £230m which was then spent in one go during the summer of 2009.

his buying and selling of players is part of his managerial history, just because you chose to ignore it, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

£230 million -£128.5 million is not the "majority"

his deals with blackburn included some good ones and some shit ones, he certainly did not make himself a reputation for finding good players cheaply.

he picked up santa cruz for decent money, £3.8 million. cruz was a decent forward who got injured at bayer, was then used out on the wing ( like gabby) so scored less goals , he still had a ratio of 31 goals in 82 games for one of the top clubs in germany, so hardly an unknown player and bayer signed him for the same amount in 1999 so they already scouted him and signed him and developed him.

our are we proclaiming DOL as a great manager as well?

his record compaires favourably to hughes and they also have had the same sort of circumstances when it comes to a team with loads of money and then teams with less money.

Given that I've attempted to look at ALL of the business he's conducted, I'm obviously not the one choosing to ignore anything.

Santa Cruz scored 31 in 155 games, not 82 games, and was percieved to be washed up at the time (admittedly he was plagued by injury at Bayern). That he enjoyed such a revival at Blackburn should tell you a lot about Hughes' ability to work with players and get the best from them, especially forwards.

£128m is more than half of £230m so, technically, yes it is the majority. The fact that it was also spent in six months compared to the previous £100m being spent over a year also weights the figure toward his last few months with the club.

And what the hell has David O'Leary got to do with anything other than an attempt to tarnish an otherwise well-respected manager with one that has been ostracised from the Premier League since we sacked him? Don't remember anyone parting company under such acrimonious circumstances from any club as O'Leary - and certainly not Mark Hughes.

? weird because you proclaimed hughes spent the majority of the money in his second seasson, i prove he didnt and you then carry on pretending the £128.5 was spent the second season?

weird?

you put santa cruz 1 year of good football purely down to hughes? DOL is awsome after all then, getting laursen and bouma and solano, not forgetting milner.

If you could see past your anti-Hughes rhetoric and allow for a couple of seconds of clarity, you will find that what I prclaimed was true - £128.5m was spent in his second season. He was only there 18 months - he spent just over £100m during the summer of 2008 and the transfer window in January 2009. The remainder was spent during his second - and last - summer with club.

And, yes, I think you can give Hughes a lot of credit for getting Santa Cruz playing the best football of his career under his management. He's not matched that level of form before or since.

O'Leary, on the other hand, got next to no game time from Laursen as he was injured, playing only one Premier League match during the 2005-2006 season (O'Leary's last). Bouma was absolutely shocking under O'Leary and only started to find form halfway into O'Neill's first season at the club. But, yeah, Milner played well during his first spell here. Not sure what any of that has to do with Mark Hughes though.

[jimbojames]

Really don't know who I want either I think I'm favouring a younger manager who has worked his way up and deserves a chance at a bigger club. So perhaps a Martinez, Coyle or Lambert.

On the other hand a big name who demands respect could work especially after the problems last season and perhaps help players sign and stay.

I really don't think there is a manager available who everyone will be universally happy with however who it is we need to get behind them.

[nick76]

I actually don't know who I want. Ancelotti because he's a big name, would show everybody else and I suppose to ourselves that we do have massive ambition.....but would he be a bit of a gimmick and would he be off next year when the next big job comes along, thus we have to start again....

Why do you think this? I think he seems like a committed and generally pretty righteous guy, I dont see any reason why he'd be a gimmick, or indeed leave us in the shit.

yeah fair point. Not right for me to judge as I don't know the guy. Just thinking he is a massive name and I'm sure when big jobs become available his name is mentioned in those boardrooms and as much as I love the Villa we aren't in the top tier of clubs in Europe and it might be tempting I would guess.

[Nigel]

I'm sure my mates and I did exactly the same thing on a Saturday night for hours on end after a game verbally (and generally with a few beers). I actually wasn't that impressed with that report. I reckon there is a number of us fans that could do that. I now I watch games neutrally all the time when Villa aren't on and watch certain plays, weaknesses and so forth.....that was just documenting it all

You're not going to get the job Avram!

[ender4]

i want Hughes, and i can feel it in my bones that we are getting Hughes.

why else would he have resigned from Fulham (or so the twitterers are saying).

[LondonLax]

MM stopped posting becausde of the negativity and stupid comments by some (I think).

Not sure if he's jsut having a break or if he's goe for good.

i recall someone was pm-ing him and then blurted something out on the board and named MM as the person who had told him, despite it being a private conversation.

thus dropping MM in the shit

understandably he stopped posting the things we all were waiting for.

shame as his posts i always thought were honest and from inside the club as things were happening. not always 100% but things change so from when the info was known to actual thing happening, it can change.

but i always believed what was posted by him

i also thought it may have been the great Ian Taylor.

Mystery Man is not Ian Taylor.

I believe his name is Grant.

I think he runs the company that made the signs around the ground e.g. "Football league founded by Villa, won by Villa" etc.

I'd say he spends a lot of time around the explayers and directors in the corporate lounges which is where he'd hear snippets of info.

[wedge]

What style of play would Hughes bring? Is he a hoof-ball merchant or on the floor attacking stuff

[user66]

SSN news says that Sparky has a win success of 32% with Fulham. That's not very good. Too many drawers. Boring manager in my honest opinion.

......I always thought he was a snappy dresser.....

[nick76]

I'm sure my mates and I did exactly the same thing on a Saturday night for hours on end after a game verbally (and generally with a few beers). I actually wasn't that impressed with that report. I reckon there is a number of us fans that could do that. I now I watch games neutrally all the time when Villa aren't on and watch certain plays, weaknesses and so forth.....that was just documenting it all

You're not going to get the job Avram!

damn it, sprung

[lmarsha_926]

It is alright saying get Ancelotti as it will show the ambition the club has but what is the point of ambition if the cash is not there to back it up. Say we wanted to be ambitious and go for CL we would need to spend more than the current 5 or 6 teams to catch up and the overtake them.

Plus it will need higher wage costs at a time when revenues are going down in some areas and wages are over 75% turnover it may a massive risk to the clubs future

[brummybloke]

I actually don't know who I want. Ancelotti because he's a big name, would show everybody else and I suppose to ourselves that we do have massive ambition.....but would he be a bit of a gimmick and would he be off next year when the next big job comes along, thus we have to start again....

Why do you think this? I think he seems like a committed and generally pretty righteous guy, I dont see any reason why he'd be a gimmick, or indeed leave us in the shit.

or me?

his first couple clubs he left for career progression however juve milan and chelsea removed him rather than him leaving them.

with milan he built up a team who finished 6th and made them champs in 3 years

from 6th to 4th, 3rd then champs

so much for taking on an already successful team which is what some have spouted.

chelsea finished 3rd, he takes over, they win the double

only leaves when they dont do better than 2nd and champions league semi finalists and that is after having his assistant manager sacked from under him and having a player forced onto him in torres.

he still walked away with a ratio of 1 win in every 1.6 games or 2.02 points per game

[djdabush]

You know what this what has Hughes won is really getting on my nerves. Let me be very blunt, WTF have we won in the past 16 years, exactly the same as Hughes has in his management career. And guess what Hughes is management career is a lot shorter than that. Man United have dominated our league for the past two decades so it has been difficult for many managers. I just think Hughes is a fit for Villa in terms of resources available and the squad we have.

games, lets see how many games he has won and his win ratio

then lets compair it to others

Fulham 43 14 16 13 win ratio = 1 win in 3 or 1.3 points per game

Man City 77 36 16 25 win ratio = 1 win in 2.1 or 1.6 points per game

Blackburn 188 82 47 59 win ratio = 1 win in 2.3 or 1.56 points per game

so the BEST he has done was after spending £230 million pounds on players and he manages 1.6 points per game

houllier for villa in a terrible season league and cup

played 39 won 14 drew 11 lost 14 win ratio = 1 win in 2.8 or 1.36 points per game

BETTER than hughes at fulham

so houliers first season which had all sorts of disruptions from the very start was more successful than hughes at fulham.

Oooops.

Did Hughes spend 28 Million in the January Window? No didn't think he did and yet they still finished higher than us. Ooooops back to you.

shit? who spent 28 million in january?

chelsea? liverpool?

i know villa didnt, so who are you talking of?

can i also check to see if teams get deducted points under the " its not fair, you have more money than me" rule?

ahh, they dont.

or should we go on the actual outlay from each club?

that season we spent 3 million pounds

we got £26 million for milner and £3 million for davies

we paid

£18 million for bent

£8 million on ireland ( still makes me sick)

£6 million on makoun

leaving a total spend of £3 million and im sure we sold sidwell for 1 million or so and shorey i thought we sold for £2 million? but not including them we paid out £3 million over what we made on transfers.

a quick look at fulham and they have spent more than we did

and as mentioned houlier achieved a higher points per game and better win ratio in his time at our club than hughes

oh dear

Trying to compare points per game and then including cup games is deliberately trying to distort the figures in my book, as is including games when Houllier was hospitalized. In the league we had an average of 1.23 points per game under Houllier by my reckoning.

[JulieB]

Putting aside Anceloti a second..although I can't say I'm not enthused by that prospect. Would be a huge statement of intent.

TBF Hughes came into Fulham when they were left with a huge void to following the departure of Hodgson to his ultimately disastrous perceived promotion to Anfield.

He's done an excellent job, steadied the ship with little resources.

There is a huge void that needed filling ever since MON walked out on the club 5 days before the start of last season. GH turned out to be a stop gap and at least he had the sense to bring in EXACTLY what we needed... which was a decent striker!

So it Mark Hughes gets the job, steadies the ship, tightens up our defence and builds on what we have and the talent we have available then I don't know why anyone should moan.

I voted for Moyes but the more I think about it the more I think Hughes would be a good candidate

[Condimentalist]

Moyes is the outstanding candidate in my eyes, but for whatever reason I'm not sure it's going to happen.

Ancellotti would be an exceptionally exciting appointment, would raise the profile of the club, and convince high calibre players to join, but I think we'd have to accept that he'd likely only be around for a couple of seasons, and perhaps we should be aiming for more stability. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect a manager to be around for more than a few seasons though anyway? And could the benefits to the clubs reputation outlast the tenure of the manager? Possibly, I certainly think he'd be a great appointment.

Which leads us to Hughes. Solid manager, wouldn't go too far wrong. Top ten every season, without seriously threatening the top 4. I just can't get excited about the prospect, but I'd certainly not be despondent.

Which leads us to

[Qwpzxjor1]

Looks like we're going for Ancelotti, but in the backs of our minds know he's a bit beyond us, so have Hughes pretty much ready to join..

Handful of Fulham fans I know have heard Hughes has already completely walked away from Fulham's contract.

[Condimentalist]

Moyes is the outstanding candidate in my eyes, but for whatever reason I'm not sure it's going to happen.

Ancellotti would be an exceptionally exciting appointment, would raise the profile of the club, and convince high calibre players to join, but I think we'd have to accept that he'd likely only be around for a couple of seasons, and perhaps we should be aiming for more stability. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect a manager to be around for more than a few seasons though anyway? And could the benefits to the clubs reputation outlast the tenure of the manager? Possibly, I certainly think he'd be a great appointment.

Which leads us to Hughes. Solid manager, wouldn't go too far wrong. Top ten every season, without seriously threatening the top 4. I just can't get excited about the prospect, but I'd certainly not be despondent.