Manager Paul Lambert

[Morpheus]

But the point remains and yeah nice dodge.

[Keyblade]

Right.

[VillaForever1970]

Are people really wanting loans now just because of Everton? 5 mins ago loans were hated and we didn't want them?

[PaulC]

 

 

Guzan isn't a lambert signing either (really) and neither is Weimann.

 

But the two of them and Delph have looked better under this manager than they ever have before.

 

Lucky coincidence I guess

 

True, but it makes you wonder how good some of the players we ridiculed in the MON regime would seem now.  We were spolit.

 

The football was not much better under MON than it is currently.

 

 

Pretty similar really except we had more width. We were better at home under Oneill, but away we hit teams on the counter like we do now.

[PaulC]

Are people really wanting loans now just because of Everton? 5 mins ago loans were hated and we didn't want them?

 

I don't but wonder why its allowed to have 3 loan players on the pitch at the same time. It seems wrong to me!

[samjp26]

Are people really wanting loans now just because of Everton? 5 mins ago loans were hated and we didn't want them?

 

People can't see past the next 6 months.

[Eames]

Eames' list of gumbles with the loan market 

 

1. Player hording - clubs buy players to prevent the competition signing them and then loan them out to smaller clubs eg. Lukaku
2. You shouldn't be able to loan players out in the same league or at the same level. Eg. No loans from the PL to Ligue 1.
3. Loans between clubs in the same league only benefit the parent club in the long run. eg. the Kyle Walker situation
4. The club that accepts a player on loan should be responsible for 100% of the wages. 
5. Only 1 loan player to be at the club at the time. 
6. Allow clubs to have 40 players in the first team squad (yes you can only register 25 but of you have lots of home growns you can sneek them in.)

 

EDIT: 7. Players on all should play be allowed to play against the parent club thats the risk you take when you loan a player out. There are to be no gentlemans agreements of any sort preventing this. 

 

I don't like loans at all. 

Edited December 10, 2013 by Eames

[Dodgyknees]

Eames' list of gumbles with the loan market

• Player hording - clubs buy players to prevent the competition signing them and then loan them out to smaller clubs eg. Lukaku
• You shouldn't be able to loan players out in the same league or at the same level. Eg. No loans from the PL to Ligue 1.
• Loans between clubs in the same league only benefit the parent club in the long run. eg. the Kyle Walker situation
• The club that accepts a player on loan should be responsible for 100% of the wages.
• Only 1 loan player to be at the club at the time.
• Allow clubs to have 40 players in the first team squad (yes you can only register 25 but of you have lots of home growns you can sneek them in.)

I don't like loans at all.

Exactly this.

[villan_007]

 

 

I was just wondering if he does sign a creative midfield player where it leaves Westwood?

 

Passing it to the creative midfielder

 

http://www.statsbomb.com/2013/09/the-curious-cost-of-the-everton-loans/

 

I feel like this might be pertinent to the discussion RE Everton.

 

It does seem like there's an awful lot of people who don't realise that when we say we're "building for the future" that future =/= six months later.

 

We're short of talent on the ball and still lacking depth, and our attack force which was so devastating last season has hit really bad form. Despite this, our defense is far better and we've actually accrued a very respectable point tally.

 

This is a really good article by the way.

 

 

It makes some good points, but then overlooks the fact that the loan players Everton have signed have pushed them into the top 4, which pays for the fees in one go, and then some.  It also neglects to mention that most of the "bargains" we've signed tho summer have about as much chance of turning into star buys as Marlon Harewood.

 

 

Probably because it would have been a stupid thing to write, and more likely a stupid thing you'd read on a football message board......oh wait.

[GENTLEMAN]

Pretty similar really except we had more width. We were better at home under Oneill, but away we hit teams on the counter like we do now.

 

We were also a lot better from set-pieces. A large majority of our goals came from corners and set plays under MON. From what I recall, we never did dominate a game with possession or had great ball retention under MON. That is amazing considering we were the sixth best team in the county for three years and the money we spent on players.

 

What does this say about English/British football?

[PaulC]

 

Pretty similar really except we had more width. We were better at home under Oneill, but away we hit teams on the counter like we do now.

 

We were also a lot better from set-pieces. A large majority of our goals came from corners and set plays under MON. From what I recall, we never did dominate a game with possession or had great ball retention under MON. That is amazing considering we were the sixth best team in the county for three years and the money we spent on players.

 

What does this say about English/British football?

 

 

I think football has moved on a bit since Oneill was here. There's a lot more teams out there plenty better football. My guess is that Oneill side would get nowhere near top 6 today. Maybe 8th or 9th.

[TRO]

We had a modest/poor record at home under O'Neill perhaps marginally better, despite the loftier league position.

 

The other problem with this kinda "Results only sod the rest" is that the managers usually last around 3-4 years before everyone just gets simply tired of unsophisticated tediousness of it all and the peak and trough results that usually become so acceptable in some quarters...The new manager coming in ,describes it all as a major rebuilding job wants a sum commensurate with the defence budget to put it right and then conveniently joins the previous bands of " hoofball" managers because there is little else he can do ( allegedly) when told that sum isn't there.

 

We have to break this circle/cycle we have to start somewhere.

 

The arguments criticising expansive or believable football are pitiful at times...."tippy tappy" football as some describe as. I often wonder why a boxer who bobs and weaves and uses his ring craft, don't just walk over and clobber the living daylights out of the other bloke and cut all the crap out....If it was only that simple.

 

We get examples of Villa and Chelsea winning the European cup by losing the possession argument on the day but winning the match, that all that matters, I hear some say....yes your right, but go back through all the other Finals and you tell me that "direct Football" or having low levels of possession win more than lose.

 

To cite Barcelona as an unreachable example is another illustration of folly, to attempt to reconcile an opinion in favour of " results only football"....Barcelona, Arsenal, Man Utd have been following the examples of expansive football for decades and that's why they are so comfortable with it now and new recruits just fit in....it ain't just turned up on their doorstep....and they have still stuck with it in the not so good times.

 

as we are right now, nothing is changing and it is looking like, nothing will.

[Risso]

Are people really wanting loans now just because of Everton? 5 mins ago loans were hated and we didn't want them?

 

Nobody's arguing that they should be used exclusively, but Villa's problem at the moment is that we've got all of our eggs in one basket.  It's nearly all young, 'promising' players from lower leagues, and it mostly isn't working.  In my opinion we need a blend of youthful exuberance, established quality and the odd loan thrown in here and there to supplement the quality.  Which is more or less exactly how Everton are doing things.

[Shaw_nuff]

If we went down the loan route with our track record, we'd end up with a player called Wonga and forget to make the repayments.

[Nabby]

 

Are people really wanting loans now just because of Everton? 5 mins ago loans were hated and we didn't want them?

 

Nobody's arguing that they should be used exclusively, but Villa's problem at the moment is that we've got all of our eggs in one basket.  It's nearly all young, 'promising' players from lower leagues, and it mostly isn't working.  In my opinion we need a blend of youthful exuberance, established quality and the odd loan thrown in here and there to supplement the quality.  Which is more or less exactly how Everton are doing things.

 

 

This 100% 

 

 

 

We should have a long term plan but doesn’t mean she shouldn’t deal with here and now. If Loaning a player gets us a few more points on the table

Which will increase prize money and ability to invest in future then we should explore that option. Both Walker and Keane added something to the team

Although on flip side Jenas was an epic disaster.

[Shillzz]

HairyHands has been clocked, hasn't he? That's a shame.

[Kwan]

Loaning is a useless exercise. Just a fleeting aha moment. It gains nothing in the long term. Keane and Walker didn't help us out now. Lukaku hasn't helped WBA out now.

[SikhInTrinity]

We had a modest/poor record at home under O'Neill perhaps marginally better, despite the loftier league position.

 

The other problem with this kinda "Results only sod the rest" is that the managers usually last around 3-4 years before everyone just gets simply tired of unsophisticated tediousness of it all and the peak and trough results that usually become so acceptable in some quarters...The new manager coming in ,describes it all as a major rebuilding job wants a sum commensurate with the defence budget to put it right and then conveniently joins the previous bands of " hoofball" managers because there is little else he can do ( allegedly) when told that sum isn't there.

 

We have to break this circle/cycle we have to start somewhere.

 

The arguments criticising expansive or believable football are pitiful at times...."tippy tappy" football as some describe as. I often wonder why a boxer who bobs and weaves and uses his ring craft, don't just walk over and clobber the living daylights out of the other bloke and cut all the crap out....If it was only that simple.

 

We get examples of Villa and Chelsea winning the European cup by losing the possession argument on the day but winning the match, that all that matters, I hear some say....yes your right, but go back through all the other Finals and you tell me that "direct Football" or having low levels of possession win more than lose.

 

To cite Barcelona as an unreachable example is another illustration of folly, to attempt to reconcile an opinion in favour of " results only football"....Barcelona, Arsenal, Man Utd have been following the examples of expansive football for decades and that's why they are so comfortable with it now and new recruits just fit in....it ain't just turned up on their doorstep....and they have still stuck with it in the not so good times.

 

as we are right now, nothing is changing and it is looking like, nothing will.

 

I don't think Man Utd have adopted this principle at all, if they had, it would have been an easier transition for Moyes. They've always played with width and pressed teams, then also had the winning mentality with Fergie, but to say that passing was their philopshy, I don't think it was, it was about winning.

HairyHands has been clocked, hasn't he? That's a shame.

 

Huh?

[dudevillaisnice]

It gains nothing in the long term. Keane and Walker didn't help us out now. Lukaku hasn't helped WBA out now.

 

Hmm. One could argue Keane helped us because vs Wolves he gave us 3 points imo which at the end of the season were very valuable as we stayed up; infact looking at the 2011-12 table hadn't we got 3 points in that fixture we probably would be relegated.. Bolton thankfully got relegated instead and there was only a 2 points difference.

 

Loan signings have both positives and negatives to it, personally if we got a loan signing in and had a fixed fee attached to it I wouldn't mind.

[Kwan]

In a situation like thay, yeah I can see that being a long term influence but I don't think this team is anywhere near relegation fodder nor will they need a push to challenge for europe.

So in our current state, a loan would just be to give us a masking tape over our problems. WBA is a good example of that. Everyone would have killed for Lukaku up front but what kind of dividends did that loan give to them?

A loan is what it is. A short term fallback and we don't need one right now. We need a systematic change of style.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Kwan