PussEKatt Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's not so important who he bought.What is important is that he made some good signings and he made some bad signings, but the important thing is that he welded them into a team.A group of players, then he gave them a purpose and a direction and we ended up 6th. A lot of people run MoN down but our team played a lot better when he was in charge, and I seem to remember that we tried to win, no matter who we played ( we had no such hang ups as Elite teams ) I also remember we won a lot of our home games.Yes, he spent a lot of money but how many teams that consistantly finish among the european places spend **** all ?! Come back MoN, all is forgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's not so important who he bought.What is important is that he made some good signings and he made some bad signings, but the important thing is that he welded them into a team.A group of players, then he gave them a purpose and a direction and we ended up 6th. A lot of people run MoN down but our team played a lot better when he was in charge, and I seem to remember that we tried to win, no matter who we played ( we had no such hang ups as Elite teams ) I also remember we won a lot of our home games.Yes, he spent a lot of money but how many teams that consistantly finish among the european places spend **** all ?! Come back MoN, all is forgiven. EDIT: Everton and Arsenal have consistently out performed us in recent years. We are the 7th top spenders over the last decade - compare that to the number of seasons we played European football. We have massively underachieved given our spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Hang on Davies was £10m plus whatever 2 years of wages at 40k a week (so another £4m) and was sold to our local rivals (MADNESS !!) for £500k !! That is just **** ludicrous on many levels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's not so important who he bought.What is important is that he made some good signings and he made some bad signings, but the important thing is that he welded them into a team.A group of players, then he gave them a purpose and a direction and we ended up 6th. A lot of people run MoN down but our team played a lot better when he was in charge, and I seem to remember that we tried to win, no matter who we played ( we had no such hang ups as Elite teams ) I also remember we won a lot of our home games.Yes, he spent a lot of money but how many teams that consistantly finish among the european places spend **** all ?! Come back MoN, all is forgiven. EDIT: Everton and Arsenal have consistently out performed us in recent years. We are the 7th top spenders over the last decade - compare that to the number of seasons we played European football. We have massively underachieved given our spending. You can have Arsenal higher up the spending ladder.The only reason they are 9th is because they were building their new stadium. And looking at your list I notice that the top spenders are also the top teams eg Chelsea,Man U, Liverpool etc etc.Which proves my point, " You dont finish in the top by spending peanuts" It's quite simple really.If you could get to the top and stay there without spending large sums of money then you would see teams like Brentford,L.Orient, Sheffield W etc at the top ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's not so important who he bought.What is important is that he made some good signings and he made some bad signings, but the important thing is that he welded them into a team.A group of players, then he gave them a purpose and a direction and we ended up 6th. A lot of people run MoN down but our team played a lot better when he was in charge, and I seem to remember that we tried to win, no matter who we played ( we had no such hang ups as Elite teams ) I also remember we won a lot of our home games.Yes, he spent a lot of money but how many teams that consistantly finish among the european places spend **** all ?! Come back MoN, all is forgiven. EDIT: Everton and Arsenal have consistently out performed us in recent years. We are the 7th top spenders over the last decade - compare that to the number of seasons we played European football. We have massively underachieved given our spending. You can have Arsenal higher up the spending ladder.The only reason they are 9th is because they were building their new stadium. And looking at your list I notice that the top spenders are also the top teams eg Chelsea,Man U, Liverpool etc etc.Which proves my point, " You dont finish in the top by spending peanuts" It's quite simple really.If you could get to the top and stay there without spending large sums of money then you would see teams like Brentford,L.Orient, Sheffield W etc at the top ?! No no no. Don't move the goal posts. You asked "who consistently gets into Europe spending **** all" I answered - and gave you evidence. Now ssshhhhhh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 @Eames: Well I dont know about you but I see Chelsea,Liverpool, Man U in the top 5 and I am fairly sure that they finish high enough to qualify for europe most seasons ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 In terms of how much he cost, yes. But his performances were not actually that bad. It is just he did not get close to the amount he cost. Remember the 3-1 win at Anfield, surely that was one of the best indiviudal performances by a Villa player in recent years? Davies was beyond abysmal. When he and Cuellar formed the mainstay of the central defence for half a season, we averaged nearly three goals a game against. I always remember the home match that we lost 2-0 to Wigan, he went to head a ball and it just sailed about two feet over his head. He's a £2m player at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 @Eames: Well I dont know about you but I see Chelsea,Liverpool, Man U in the top 5 and I am fairly sure that they finish high enough to qualify for europe most seasons ?! Yup.... but they DON'T spend **** all. You asked about consistent European place finishers who spend less than Villa. I answered your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Milner,Young and downing were good signings, but he did make some dud signings aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It's not so important who he bought.What is important is that he made some good signings and he made some bad signings, but the important thing is that he welded them into a team.A group of players, then he gave them a purpose and a direction and we ended up 6th. A lot of people run MoN down but our team played a lot better when he was in charge, and I seem to remember that we tried to win, no matter who we played ( we had no such hang ups as Elite teams ) I also remember we won a lot of our home games.Yes, he spent a lot of money but how many teams that consistantly finish among the european places spend **** all ?! Come back MoN, all is forgiven. EDIT: Everton and Arsenal have consistently out performed us in recent years. We are the 7th top spenders over the last decade - compare that to the number of seasons we played European football. We have massively underachieved given our spending. Spurs have spent that much?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve-67 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Lots of good signings that MON got the best out of. Lots of poor, over the top transfer fee signings as well. Club allowed him to do it and we are now in a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 In terms of how much he cost, yes. But his performances were not actually that bad. It is just he did not get close to the amount he cost. Remember the 3-1 win at Anfield, surely that was one of the best indiviudal performances by a Villa player in recent years? Davies was beyond abysmal. When he and Cuellar formed the mainstay of the central defence for half a season, we averaged nearly three goals a game against. I always remember the home match that we lost 2-0 to Wigan, he went to head a ball and it just sailed about two feet over his head. He's a £2m player at best. I dont think he was that bad to be honest. I would be interested to know other VTers opinions on Curtis Davies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Flattered to deceive at times, should probably be cut a wee bit of slack for being hampered by injuries but all in all (especially for the money spent) he was awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Actually, having just read the previous page I do agree with you that the transfer fee was probably the biggest factor in condemning Davies. I think if he'd been brought in for ~£4m, you could upgrade him from "disaster" to "poor" and his tenure probably wouldn't be looked upon with such lament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20, 2012 Davies had a brief spell alongside Laursen where he looked extremely promising. However, it would appear that was just as a result of playing alongside such a good centreback. Once Laursen was gone, Davies looked average at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Davies didnt help himself by bigging himself before he had even played, and then condemning himself for playing like a "pub player". Sometimes it is better to keep the mouth closed, and let others assess you. But as has already been said, some people are relegating him to poor signing because of the price tag, and not nescesarily (sp) for the performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The performances weren't great though, and when they were it was the exception, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20, 2012 But when you're rating signings you HAVE to consider the pricetag, don't you? Or is this a thread purely talking abotu ability, because then the discussions are very different. For example, most agree that Petrov's been a decent/good signing (depending on your viewpoint). But if he'd cost £80 million then you would have to say he'd been an awful signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I predict that this thread will go for many pages, maybe even hundreds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts