BOF Posted February 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2012 Protesting for the removal of the chairman i.e the man making the decisions is not the same as asking the chairman to merely change his decisions while remaining in charge. They are 2 different scenarios. One is seeking a new club owner, which a fan should always have the right to do. The other is asking him to change his mind, which I don't think is healthy.Not sure I get the logic there that says you cannot protest against the manager being here but you can protest against the owner being here, but hey hoNot quite what I meant, which is probably why you didn't get the logic. Scenario 1 : Fans want the owner out. A protest is valid. Scenario 2 : Fans want the owner to change a failing manager. A protest is valid. Scenario 3 : Fans want the owner to change his mind on a decision to hire a manager. A protest is invalid. Scenario 3 is the one I meant when I said "asking the chairman to merely change his decisions" and "asking him to change his mind, which I don't think is healthy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I would hope that Lerner would see that we are very much in Scenario 2 at the moment. McLeish is a failure. He has a track record of under-achieving, even in the SPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2012 I agree. If we're not already in scenario 2, we certainly seem to be heading there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I would hope that Lerner would see that we are very much in Scenario 2 at the moment. McLeish is a failure. He has a track record of under-achieving, even in the SPL. Winning your League is so over-rated isn't it? Taking shite clubs to Wembley and winning is so over-rated too don't you think? Even MON did that. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah can't see any other option than Scenario 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I would hope that Lerner would see that we are very much in Scenario 2 at the moment. McLeish is a failure. He has a track record of under-achieving, even in the SPL. Winning your League is so over-rated isn't it? Taking shite clubs to Wembley and winning is so over-rated too don't you think? Even MON did that. :winkold: Ok maybe my point was a little blunt but I refuse to congratulate McLeish for winning the SPL with the best squad in the league. I'm sure Avram Grant couldn't have done the same thing. I won't mention the 3rd place finish. In fairness yes he did well winning the League Cup, but he failed to keep Birmingham in the league. Twice. In my opinion McLeish has not over-achieved anywhere apart from at Birmingham (in 1 competition), purely by winning/fluking the cup. I refuse to congratulate someone for having a good SPL record as it should be a given. The fact is McLeish is a poor manager, with poor tactics and has clearly not inspired our team or it's fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Protesting for the removal of the chairman i.e the man making the decisions is not the same as asking the chairman to merely change his decisions while remaining in charge. They are 2 different scenarios. One is seeking a new club owner, which a fan should always have the right to do. The other is asking him to change his mind, which I don't think is healthy.Not sure I get the logic there that says you cannot protest against the manager being here but you can protest against the owner being here, but hey hoNot quite what I meant, which is probably why you didn't get the logic. Scenario 1 : Fans want the owner out. A protest is valid. Scenario 2 : Fans want the owner to change a failing manager. A protest is valid. Scenario 3 : Fans want the owner to change his mind on a decision to hire a manager. A protest is invalid. Scenario 3 is the one I meant when I said "asking the chairman to merely change his decisions" and "asking him to change his mind, which I don't think is healthy".OK, how about then a protest to ask the chairman to spend money and buy a player, a pound protest if you will. Is that valid, as equally it is asking the chairman to change his mind and direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2012 What do you think Richard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 I think it's valid, to be honest I think all the scenarios that you listed are valid. I am just trying to debate with you and understand your opinion and whether it is the same in all cases or whether some cases to protest to get a chairman to change his mind are ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2012 Without going through all possible scenarios, I think a broader/looser description can work as a starting point as outlined earlier. Now if we also appreciate that there will always be exceptions to every scenario, I think that in general, as a fan, you can protest in hindsight i.e. when you have given something the chance to work and it's clear that it isn't. Whether that be a managerial appointment or the tightening of the purse strings or even to the chairman himself. That's fine. But to protest before something is given the chance to work, in other words the second guessing of a chairman particularly in regards to the hiring of someone, I don't believe that is healthy. And in that scenario, if the fans really feel strongly enough to protest against the appointing of a manager then maybe what they're actually saying is they don't want the chairman in charge because they don't like his decisions or his ability to make sound decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 And in that scenario, if the fans really feel strongly enough to protest against the appointing of a manager then maybe what they're actually saying is they don't want the chairman in charge because they don't like his decisions or his ability to make sound decisions. A cracking point for me and another that then baffles me by those who say / said that Lerner was wrong but who still profess support for him to remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah I understand you Richard. That's a completely valid thing to be baffled by to be honest. I actually do fall somewhat into the category you describe however (as you probably know). The reason I still support Lerner is because ultimately I think in everything he does, Randy has the best interests of Villa at heart as opposed to him putting himself above the club. And that is the crux of it for me. He will make bad decisions along the way. I'd like to think that no-one is perfect and that no matter who was in charge, they'd make a booboo here and there - and be allowed to make it. I genuinely think he hired McLeish for the right reasons, even if a) some don't think it and b) it hasn't worked out the way we would have liked. As soon as I start to think that Randy's Villa business decisions are not directly in Villa's best interests then I will change my opinion of him. But at this moment in time, the reduction in the wage bill is nothing other than bringing us into line with what is a fundamentally unfair financial regulation, but one with which the club will nevertheless have to conform to if we are ever to progress. It's hopefully the pain coming before the pleasure, and in a way it is also the pain coming as a direct result of the recent pleasure we enjoyed under O'Neill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sellbydate Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah I understand you Richard. That's a completely valid thing to be baffled by to be honest. I actually do fall somewhat into the category you describe however (as you probably know). The reason I still support Lerner is because ultimately I think in everything he does, Randy has the best interests of Villa at heart as opposed to him putting himself above the club. And that is the crux of it for me. He will make bad decisions along the way. I'd like to think that no-one is perfect and that no matter who was in charge, they'd make a booboo here and there - and be allowed to make it. I genuinely think he hired McLeish for the right reasons, even if a) some don't think it and b) it hasn't worked out the way we would have liked. As soon as I start to think that Randy's Villa business decisions are not directly in Villa's best interests then I will change my opinion of him. But at this moment in time, the reduction in the wage bill is nothing other than bringing us into line with what is a fundamentally unfair financial regulation, but one with which the club will nevertheless have to conform to if we are ever to progress. It's hopefully the pain coming before the pleasure, and in a way it is also the pain coming as a direct result of the recent pleasure we enjoyed under O'Neill. completely agree. and also, who is going to buy the club, and how can you guarantee they'd be any 'better'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 How many men behind the ball boss? Did you say 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I don't understand the whole support him because he has our best interests at heart. For me that's just not enough. I truly believe every time Heskey puts on the shirt he wants us to win and he has the clubs best interest at heart. Does that mean we want him to play week in week out? Does that mean we shouldn't ask for better? As much as I hate Mcleish I truly believe he wants the best for the club he is just totally useless at achieving it. But just because he has good intentions does that mean we should be happy? Does that mean we can't ask for better? This is competitive sport at the highest level, good intentions will never just be enough on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2012 OK, how about then a protest to ask the chairman to spend money and buy a player, a pound protest if you will. Is that valid, as equally it is asking the chairman to change his mind and direction? I think, personally, it would depend on context. Randy Lerner recently put in 5 million ( I think it was) of his own money, to keep the club running, as we discussed previously. It isn't the first time he's done that either. So in my view, where the Chairman/Owner is, from his own funds a net provider of money to the club, I wouldn't support a "pound sign" protest demanding he put more money of his own in, or that we borrowed more money at a time when expenditure (on wages etc) is too high compared to income. On the other hand if the owner had a long history of taking money out of the club to enrich himself, the club could afford to buy this hypothetical player, then I think I'd have a different view of it. I know RL took out 7 million in management charges a couple of years ago, as far as I know a one off, but I also know he's put in far more than that from his own funds. He may get that back eventually if he sells the club, though I doubt it. Anyway, suppose in the summer, with "deadwood" wages off the ledger, and the wages/income ratio very different to what it was a year ago, then there would IMO be a case, if there's continued depletion of the squad with no addition, be every justification to protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesWithe Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The problem is we KNOW it cant get better. At Blues and Rangers he has always played the same...its like a time warp where Eck can only see that his tactics are the onky way too play... what I would not give to play like Swansea do every so often...As a villa fan it pains me to say that. Our possession stats alone are a disgrace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The problem is we KNOW it cant get better. At Blues and Rangers he has always played the same...its like a time warp where Eck can only see that his tactics are the onky way too play... what I would not give to play like Swansea do every so often...As a villa fan it pains me to say that. Our possession stats alone are a disgrace The thing that sums up McLeish for me is that if you speak to any Celtic fans about MON they love him and would welcome him back with open arms, If you ask any Rangers fans about McLeish, even though he won 7 trophies in 3 years not one of them would have him anywhere near Ibrox. That says it all and yet he keeps bleating on about his success there!!! He always seems to gloss over the fact they all bloody well hate him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I agree with Scenario 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harris21 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah I understand you Richard. That's a completely valid thing to be baffled by to be honest. I actually do fall somewhat into the category you describe however (as you probably know). The reason I still support Lerner is because ultimately I think in everything he does, Randy has the best interests of Villa at heart as opposed to him putting himself above the club. And that is the crux of it for me. He will make bad decisions along the way. I'd like to think that no-one is perfect and that no matter who was in charge, they'd make a booboo here and there - and be allowed to make it. I genuinely think he hired McLeish for the right reasons, even if a) some don't think it and b) it hasn't worked out the way we would have liked. As soon as I start to think that Randy's Villa business decisions are not directly in Villa's best interests then I will change my opinion of him. But at this moment in time, the reduction in the wage bill is nothing other than bringing us into line with what is a fundamentally unfair financial regulation, but one with which the club will nevertheless have to conform to if we are ever to progress. It's hopefully the pain coming before the pleasure, and in a way it is also the pain coming as a direct result of the recent pleasure we enjoyed under O'Neill. Agree with this 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts