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

[reykjavik]

I voted for Carlo.

It's the kind of appointment that could change the club - in a similar way to Chelsea signing Gullit in the mid 90s. It took them continental, made them a bigger name, and then a few years later... Football is different now, sure, but profile is still huge. Ancelotti can/would change that upwardly.

There is a flip side, which is obviously that if a bigger job comes up in 12/18 months and he's nigh on transformed us then he'd be off quicker than Downing's agent can say "how much?!?!", but I think the positive elements to his appointment outweigh this.

I like this post. This is so 100% right.

It's the kind of appointment that could change the club - in a similar way to Chelsea signing Gullit in the mid 90s

Ancelotti would be a great lottery prize.

If Lerner bring maestro Ancelotti to the club.

Lerner would rightly be King Lerner

[OnlyOne]

I voted for Carlo.

It's the kind of appointment that could change the club - in a similar way to Chelsea signing Gullit in the mid 90s. It took them continental, made them a bigger name, and then a few years later... Football is different now, sure, but profile is still huge. Ancelotti can/would change that upwardly.

There is a flip side, which is obviously that if a bigger job comes up in 12/18 months and he's nigh on transformed us then he'd be off quicker than Downing's agent can say "how much?!?!", but I think the positive elements to his appointment outweigh this.

I wouldn't hold it against him if he left after a couple of years. I mean come on, this was the guy who won the Champions League TWICE with A.C Milan and won the double with Chelsea just last year. Just imagine the players he could attract and the legacy he would leave behind him. He would automatically make us a bigger club just by joining that could attract more quality managers in the future.

At least he has won stuff and has the right to move to a bigger club if it does come to that. What the **** has Downing won to think he's worthy enough to leave after one season after performing a higher note than his own usual shit standard? I despise characters like him. I honestly hope Liverpool are stupid enough to pay over the odds for him like they did for Carroll. Downing is not top 4 material. He's a loser. The price from the sale (as well as Young) would allow Carlo to have plenty of money to build an army of top 4/silverware challengers.

[Dodgyknees]

Ancelotto then!

[joey55]

Aren't any of you weary of judging Ancelotti purely on what he has won and perhaps ignoring the circumstances in which these successes were achieved? 2 league titles in 10 years of managing Juve, Milan and Chelsea has to be cause for some element of doubt surely? When you look at the Chelsea team he took over from Hiddink, did he really improve it? Cheslea were the best team in the league under Hiddink and Utd still had Ronaldo back then. When he took over at Juve they were the defending champions and went backwards under him. Milan had their leanest period of Serie A wins for a long time under him. I know he had cup success, but surely the league is your priority. I suppose what i'm wondering is why would he suddenly become a manager that really has a great impact at Villa, when he hasn't in the past and thus think he's being judged on his CV and maybe not putting those achievments into context.

Capello has a great CV, but given limited resources he's struggled. The only time he didn't have massive money to spend was when Roma had financial problems. Without the ability to buy the best players he was left to depend on his "coaching" skills and was next to useless. Somehow the FA ignored this and thought he could turn England into a WC winning side. I don't really see how Ancelotti's CV particuarly differs from Capello's or other managers who have won things in favourable conditions. Houllier had a great CV, but didn't seem like an improvement on MON. Rijkaard has won La Liga and the CL, but has been hopeless when not being bale to rely on world class players. I really can't see anything on Ancelotti's CV that suggests he's the right man for Villa. Whilst David Moyes has shown year after year that he can achieve whilst weighed down with the financial problems at Everton. With Randy's backing surely he's far more likely to be a success at Villa than Carlo.

[Mr_Dogg]

United did not have Ronaldo.

[Chindie]

Thats more or less how I also view Ancelotti. The boon to his (very very unlikely) signing would be more one of image than genuine potential to succeed on the pitch. Oh and the fact he wouldn't be Mclaren. Or the like.

But christ man, use the enter key, big blocks o'text don't get read often.

[joey55]

United did not have Ronaldo.

Yes they did. Hiddink was there in 2008/9. Ronaldo left at the end of that season. Despite them still having Ronaldo Cheslea still won more points than any Prem team when Hiddink was there.

[Dodgyknees]

Aren't any of you weary of judging Ancelotti purely on what he has won and perhaps ignoring the circumstances in which these successes were achieved? 2 league titles in 10 years of managing Juve, Milan and Chelsea has to be cause for some element of doubt surely? When you look at the Chelsea team he took over from Hiddink, did he really improve it? Cheslea were the best team in the league under Hiddink and Utd still had Ronaldo back then. When he took over at Juve they were the defending champions and went backwards under him. Milan had their leanest period of Serie A wins for a long time under him. I know he had cup success, but surely the league is your priority. I suppose what i'm wondering is why would he suddenly become a manager that really has a great impact at Villa, when he hasn't in the past and thus think he's being judged on his CV and maybe not putting those achievments into context.

Capello has a great CV, but given limited resources he's struggled. The only time he didn't have massive money to spend was when Roma had financial problems. Without the ability to buy the best players he was left to depend on his "coaching" skills and was next to useless. Somehow the FA ignored this and thought he could turn England into a WC winning side. I don't really see how Ancelotti's CV particuarly differs from Capello's or other managers who have won things in favourable conditions. Houllier had a great CV, but didn't seem like an improvement on MON. Rijkaard has won La Liga and the CL, but has been hopeless when not being bale to rely on world class players. I really can't see anything on Ancelotti's CV that suggests he's the right man for Villa. Whilst David Moyes has shown year after year that he can achieve whilst weighed down with the financial problems at Everton. With Randy's backing surely he's far more likely to be a success at Villa than Carlo.

Appreciate the in put but I believe Villa fans know what we want more than fans of other clubs, Liverpool fans telling us we should have Rafa, Spurs saying another. And you saying Houllier was not an improvement on MON does not look at the criticism of MON Villa fans had, GH was not right but at least he had the idea to buy a goal scorer and not a cart horse like Harewood or Heskey.

Sorry but the amount of other fans telling me we should have Hughes (United fans) Benitez (Liverpool fans) and Moyes/others (Spurs and other fans) makes me ask why don't they want us to get Ancelotti? :-/

And for the record, every Chelsea fan I have spoken to thinks he will be great for us and will stabilise us, get us playing good football and will also be a great front man for the club and I would presume they know him better than you.

[OnlyOne]

Aren't any of you weary of judging Ancelotti purely on what he has won and perhaps ignoring the circumstances in which these successes were achieved? 2 league titles in 10 years of managing Juve, Milan and Chelsea has to be cause for some element of doubt surely? When you look at the Chelsea team he took over from Hiddink, did he really improve it? Cheslea were the best team in the league under Hiddink and Utd still had Ronaldo back then. When he took over at Juve they were the defending champions and went backwards under him. Milan had their leanest period of Serie A wins for a long time under him. I know he had cup success, but surely the league is your priority. I suppose what i'm wondering is why would he suddenly become a manager that really has a great impact at Villa, when he hasn't in the past and thus think he's being judged on his CV and maybe not putting those achievments into context.

Capello has a great CV, but given limited resources he's struggled. The only time he didn't have massive money to spend was when Roma had financial problems. Without the ability to buy the best players he was left to depend on his "coaching" skills and was next to useless. Somehow the FA ignored this and thought he could turn England into a WC winning side. I don't really see how Ancelotti's CV particuarly differs from Capello's or other managers who have won things in favourable conditions. Houllier had a great CV, but didn't seem like an improvement on MON. Rijkaard has won La Liga and the CL, but has been hopeless when not being bale to rely on world class players. I really can't see anything on Ancelotti's CV that suggests he's the right man for Villa. Whilst David Moyes has shown year after year that he can achieve whilst weighed down with the financial problems at Everton. With Randy's backing surely he's far more likely to be a success at Villa than Carlo.

It's the fact he's one of the best managers around and he would attract quality players across the globe. I don't expect him to sign 'superstars', but players who are underrated that can be the golden spine of the team. I have faith in his ability to adapt to our situation and build us into a lethal force where we could possibly give the 'top 4' a scare. I don't think none of us expect him to win the league, especially in his first season. When he does leave us, another quality manager may be interested seeing as we were worthy enough to attract Carlo and it could follow suit. He comes across as extremely likeable as well. No arrogance or none of that BS.

Capello is a different situation because he's limited to English players. Carlo can still attract a few quality players I bet.

Those are my points anyway.

[Mr_Dogg]

United did not have Ronaldo.

Yes they did. Hiddink was there in 2008/9. Ronaldo left at the end of that season. Despite them still having Ronaldo Cheslea still won more points than any Prem team when Hiddink was there.

Thought you were on about Ancellotti! I skimmed your post. :oops:

[NottingVilla]

2 x European Cups is good enough for me. Proves he's a 'winner'. I've always thought the Italian league to be a bit rubbish so don't take to much notice of what he's done over there. Gordon Strachan won leagues with Celtic, says it all.

But 2 Champions Leagues is very good going. Fergie only has two in over 20 years!.

[reykjavik]

Aren't any of you weary of judging Ancelotti purely on what he has won and perhaps ignoring the circumstances in which these successes were achieved? 2 league titles in 10 years of managing Juve, Milan and Chelsea has to be cause for some element of doubt surely? When you look at the Chelsea team he took over from Hiddink, did he really improve it? Cheslea were the best team in the league under Hiddink and Utd still had Ronaldo back then. When he took over at Juve they were the defending champions and went backwards under him. Milan had their leanest period of Serie A wins for a long time under him. I know he had cup success, but surely the league is your priority. I suppose what i'm wondering is why would he suddenly become a manager that really has a great impact at Villa, when he hasn't in the past and thus think he's being judged on his CV and maybe not putting those achievments into context.

Capello has a great CV, but given limited resources he's struggled. The only time he didn't have massive money to spend was when Roma had financial problems. Without the ability to buy the best players he was left to depend on his "coaching" skills and was next to useless. Somehow the FA ignored this and thought he could turn England into a WC winning side. I don't really see how Ancelotti's CV particuarly differs from Capello's or other managers who have won things in favourable conditions. Houllier had a great CV, but didn't seem like an improvement on MON. Rijkaard has won La Liga and the CL, but has been hopeless when not being bale to rely on world class players. I really can't see anything on Ancelotti's CV that suggests he's the right man for Villa. Whilst David Moyes has shown year after year that he can achieve whilst weighed down with the financial problems at Everton. With Randy's backing surely he's far more likely to be a success at Villa than Carlo.

It's the fact he's one of the best managers around and he would attract quality players across the globe. I don't expect him to sign 'superstars', but players who are underrated that can be the golden spine of the team. I have faith in his ability to adapt to our situation and build us into a lethal force where we could possibly give the 'top 4' a scare. I don't think none of us expect him to win the league, especially in his first season. When he does leave us, another quality manager may be interested seeing as we were worthy enough to attract Carlo and it could follow suit. He comes across as extremely likeable as well. No arrogance or none of that BS.

Capello is a different situation because he's limited to English players. Carlo can still attract a few quality players I bet.

Those are my points anyway.

And Ancelotti is on this 50 best manager list

We could dissagree to this list who is number 1,2 or 3. But be at top 50 manager list is something.

Ancelotti would bring us to higher level. If Lerner bring Ancelotti, it would bring him to higher level.

[joey55]

Aren't any of you weary of judging Ancelotti purely on what he has won and perhaps ignoring the circumstances in which these successes were achieved? 2 league titles in 10 years of managing Juve, Milan and Chelsea has to be cause for some element of doubt surely? When you look at the Chelsea team he took over from Hiddink, did he really improve it? Cheslea were the best team in the league under Hiddink and Utd still had Ronaldo back then. When he took over at Juve they were the defending champions and went backwards under him. Milan had their leanest period of Serie A wins for a long time under him. I know he had cup success, but surely the league is your priority. I suppose what i'm wondering is why would he suddenly become a manager that really has a great impact at Villa, when he hasn't in the past and thus think he's being judged on his CV and maybe not putting those achievments into context.

Capello has a great CV, but given limited resources he's struggled. The only time he didn't have massive money to spend was when Roma had financial problems. Without the ability to buy the best players he was left to depend on his "coaching" skills and was next to useless. Somehow the FA ignored this and thought he could turn England into a WC winning side. I don't really see how Ancelotti's CV particuarly differs from Capello's or other managers who have won things in favourable conditions. Houllier had a great CV, but didn't seem like an improvement on MON. Rijkaard has won La Liga and the CL, but has been hopeless when not being bale to rely on world class players. I really can't see anything on Ancelotti's CV that suggests he's the right man for Villa. Whilst David Moyes has shown year after year that he can achieve whilst weighed down with the financial problems at Everton. With Randy's backing surely he's far more likely to be a success at Villa than Carlo.

It's the fact he's one of the best managers around and he would attract quality players across the globe. I don't expect him to sign 'superstars', but players who are underrated that can be the golden spine of the team. I have faith in his ability to adapt to our situation and build us into a lethal force where we could possibly give the 'top 4' a scare. I don't think none of us expect him to win the league, especially in his first season. When he does leave us, another quality manager may be interested seeing as we were worthy enough to attract Carlo and it could follow suit. He comes across as extremely likeable as well. No arrogance or none of that BS.

Capello is a different situation because he's limited to English players. Carlo can still attract a few quality players I bet.

Those are my points anyway.

But what I'm asking is what is this faith based upon? Spurs fans were the same when we were after Ramos and I couldn't see why. I went through his history in great detail and his success, like most managers, seemed so circumstance dependant. There was nothing really that suggested he had some magical coaching skills or tactical knowledge that would take us forward and as a foreign coach, it was hard to judge how much influence he'd had on player recruitment. At Cheslea, Milan and Juve, do we really know how much Ancelotti had to do with signings? And even if he did, at Cheslea were they that great given the money he had to spend? Surely you need a manager who can get the most out of the players you have and has a proven record at recruiting on a comparitvely limited wage and trasfer budget. That's why I see Moyes as a better choice than Ancelotti. I think he could work wonders with the money he'd have at Villa compared to Everton. I can't see much in Ancelotti's history that suggests the same. There obviously isn't anything that suggests he can't, as he's not really been in that position before (assuming we all know little about hs time at Parma). But why take the risk?

[MrDuck]

Aren't any of you weary of judging Ancelotti purely on what he has won and perhaps ignoring the circumstances in which these successes were achieved? 2 league titles in 10 years of managing Juve, Milan and Chelsea has to be cause for some element of doubt surely? When you look at the Chelsea team he took over from Hiddink, did he really improve it? Cheslea were the best team in the league under Hiddink and Utd still had Ronaldo back then. When he took over at Juve they were the defending champions and went backwards under him. Milan had their leanest period of Serie A wins for a long time under him. I know he had cup success, but surely the league is your priority. I suppose what i'm wondering is why would he suddenly become a manager that really has a great impact at Villa, when he hasn't in the past and thus think he's being judged on his CV and maybe not putting those achievments into context.

Capello has a great CV, but given limited resources he's struggled. The only time he didn't have massive money to spend was when Roma had financial problems. Without the ability to buy the best players he was left to depend on his "coaching" skills and was next to useless. Somehow the FA ignored this and thought he could turn England into a WC winning side. I don't really see how Ancelotti's CV particuarly differs from Capello's or other managers who have won things in favourable conditions. Houllier had a great CV, but didn't seem like an improvement on MON. Rijkaard has won La Liga and the CL, but has been hopeless when not being bale to rely on world class players. I really can't see anything on Ancelotti's CV that suggests he's the right man for Villa. Whilst David Moyes has shown year after year that he can achieve whilst weighed down with the financial problems at Everton. With Randy's backing surely he's far more likely to be a success at Villa than Carlo.

A lot of sense in this.

[Dodgyknees]

he builds teams, he keeps teams together, he creates a team spirit, he gets the team playing as a unit but not with long ball/knock downs like you have at Spurs but good flowing football. He knows the market, he has contacts which means he does not need any form of bribery. He does not melt away into nothing when he loses like your manager, he gets down to picking the players up.

[Window09]

Joey55 everything you say is correct. Though this is Villa..I can't think of a bigger name than Ancelotti coming to manage us. I admire Hughes and Moyes but part of me is scared that they will use the same tactics as MON (as good as they were at the time, I don't want them to be repeated).

[villanesque]

Villa fans really shouldn't have to justify their excitement over the potential appointment of a Champions League coach to head Aston Villa to another team's fan. Frankly, the simple reason of "because I like his eyebrow!" can draw the line under it, imo.

As far as Ancelotti goes, players in this league and else where will want to play for him. He's an attraction. Not to say that those who have had their heads turned already or feel that they have put in their time with the club will be jolted into staying but those players who may want a change of scenery at their current club may enjoy the scenery of Villa Parke a whole lot more with a proven winner on the sideline and dressing room.

[VillaAndLoyal]

Aren't any of you weary of judging Ancelotti purely on what he has won and perhaps ignoring the circumstances in which these successes were achieved? 2 league titles in 10 years of managing Juve, Milan and Chelsea has to be cause for some element of doubt surely? When you look at the Chelsea team he took over from Hiddink, did he really improve it? Cheslea were the best team in the league under Hiddink and Utd still had Ronaldo back then. When he took over at Juve they were the defending champions and went backwards under him. Milan had their leanest period of Serie A wins for a long time under him. I know he had cup success, but surely the league is your priority. I suppose what i'm wondering is why would he suddenly become a manager that really has a great impact at Villa, when he hasn't in the past and thus think he's being judged on his CV and maybe not putting those achievments into context.

Capello has a great CV, but given limited resources he's struggled. The only time he didn't have massive money to spend was when Roma had financial problems. Without the ability to buy the best players he was left to depend on his "coaching" skills and was next to useless. Somehow the FA ignored this and thought he could turn England into a WC winning side. I don't really see how Ancelotti's CV particuarly differs from Capello's or other managers who have won things in favourable conditions. Houllier had a great CV, but didn't seem like an improvement on MON. Rijkaard has won La Liga and the CL, but has been hopeless when not being bale to rely on world class players. I really can't see anything on Ancelotti's CV that suggests he's the right man for Villa. Whilst David Moyes has shown year after year that he can achieve whilst weighed down with the financial problems at Everton. With Randy's backing surely he's far more likely to be a success at Villa than Carlo.

No, I'm sorry, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are doing people a bit of a disservice by suggesting they are just getting carried away with the hysteria of it all.

Going by your theory, Sir Alex Ferguson has also had "favourable conditions" which in your eyes would lessen his astonishing achievements in the game? In fact, every top football manager that has ever lived has gone through periods without success.

What do you judge a football club on? How many trophies they've failed to win throughout their history? The amount of money they've had to win trophies? No, you judge them on what they HAVE won, regardless of circumstance, which is why we as Villa fans are all too quick to remind people about our history when criticised for our many years of under achievement. This principle is the same when judging a manager.

Carlo has won trophies and proved a success at every Club he's ever played at or managed. He is one of only six people to have won the Champions League - football's most coveted trophy - as both player and coach. He has won, as manager, the same number of Champions League titles as Sir Alex Ferguson (arguably the greatest manager of all time and certainly of his generation) in far less time. More are surely to follow.

In his relatively short managerial career he has shown ability to succeed at every level, from achieving promotion with Reggiana, to improving a middle-of-the-road Parma team, to his successes at Juve, Milan and Chelsea. He is a master tactician who has a unique management style which players respect, and he has also shown an ability to adapt his philosophies depending on the circumstance. I say this because he was once criticised at Milan for his defensive tactics - often part and parcel of the Italian game - yet in his first season in England he broke a record for his team scoring more than 100 league goals in a season. That was also the season where he masterminded Chelsea's first ever domestic double, a feat which Mourinho failed to match during his time at Chelsea.

He has won it all - as player and as a coach - yet has always remained thoroughly down to earth and respectful of teams who either are simply not as good as your Milan's and Chelsea's or who have underachieved for a period of time, a bracket which Aston Villa falls into. To suggest or imply that Ancelotti would not "fit in" with our Club is purely speculative and not based on any substance or fact.

Many a Chelsea fan will tell you how sorry they were to see him go - in a Club seemingly run from the top rather than where the decisions should lie, with the manager. Despite having his number two removed from under his nose, multi-million pound players bought on his behalf, and dressing room discontent rising, Ancelotti still managed to turn it round this season just gone and lead them to a respectful finish. His winning percentage as a manager speaks volumes - at 55.15% - and his percentage has improved with every Club he's been at. A sign, that with every job he gains greater knowledge of the game and an even better insight into how to win.

He is regarded, and rightly so, as one of the top 10/15 mangers in world football and quite frankly the reaction on this Board over the past week reflects that fact. Many Villa fans, me included, have to pinch ourselves that this is even a possibility as it could well prove to be a massive turning point in our Club's history.

Carlo is human; he is far from perfect and makes mistakes like every manager. But his CV, which you clearly acknowledge, speaks volumes and the untold benefits he would bring to this Club - just in terms of exposure and intent - is something which cannot be underestimated.

I like David Moyes - although the "money" argument about his reign at Everton is somewhat overplayed. He could probably do a good job at Villa. But quite simply, he isn't in Ancelotti's league.

[joeszwab]

2 x European Cups is good enough for me. Proves he's a 'winner'. I've always thought the Italian league to be a bit rubbish so don't take to much notice of what he's done over there. Gordon Strachan won leagues with Celtic, says it all.

But 2 Champions Leagues is very good going. Fergie only has two in over 20 years!.

Come on! Two champions leagues is very good. The reason that the team could win those titles was that they were in a tough league. The Italian league over the last couple of years is the weakest it's ever been in my memory. And it still has some of the world's top players. Comparing it to the Scottish league, even now, is completely ridiculous. In the early to mid 90's (when Ancelotti started) it was arguably the strongest.

[NottingVilla]

Early 90's that's when all the fixing was going on wasn't it? I just think 2 x european cups is a better indicator than winning domestic leagues imo, especially 'dodgy' ones or ones with poor quality (Scottish)