LancsVillan Posted December 8, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 8, 2011 I don't think we can even recall Makoun back from loan as well?! :x It is a season long loan would be surprised if we could have. Just like spuds couldn't with Walker last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 8, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 8, 2011 I don't think we can even recall Makoun back from loan as well?! :x Why would we want to? a) He's injured (so is back already) He's not really that good (we still have better options even now) c) You get the impression that he wanted away from Villa ASAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaizend Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Makoun is fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 8, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 8, 2011 Makoun is fantastic. Lets see if you can actually justify that using evidence from his time at VP in the PL and without using the phrase Man Utd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu_The_Villan Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 You get the impression that he wanted away from Villa ASAP True. You can hardly blame him either. He would have more quality around him by joining a local pub team. Olympiakos is a step up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 8, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 8, 2011 You get the impression that he wanted away from Villa ASAP True. You can hardly blame him either. He would have more quality around him by joining a local pub team. Olympiakos is a step up Clearly one he hasn't taken very well, he's only started 4 matches for them this season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 When a club has limited cash to spend then every signing, EVERY SIGNING, has to be able to come in and make an immediate impact and show their value to the club. With a dwindling squad you cannot afford to give a chance or wait for 6 months for a player to settle in..Such a scenario is not possible. The only logical corollary would be to never make any signings - it is not possible with human beings for every signing to instantly work. So if you can't tolerate one or more not instantly working, you have to insist that we make no signings (for money) and rely on home grown, loans and freebies. Alternatively, of course, we could take a slightly longer view, and say, it would be great i they all worked, and did so immediately, but realistically that's daft, so some period of adjustment is tolerable, some settling in time almost inevitable, as is the possibility that some will not work at all. That would lead to profiling the type of players that you elect to sign - they have to be sell-onable if it doesn't work out, rather than the Heskey type. They have to be on wages that reflect your straightened times, so that they are no prohibitively costly for any potential buyer. They should ideally be on incentivised contracts, rather than "money for nothing" contracts. All that stuff points towards the board having a significant say in the signings, more than just the manager, or alternatively the manager being givn the autonomy and responsibility, but he would need to have clearly set out parameters that he has to work to. Or is that not a fair summary?I think it is a pretty fair summary of your opinion It is not one I share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Makoun is fantastic.Not sure that's what the Olympi fans are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Well according to Cabaye Houllier was trying to sign him - so there was some interest at one stage - trouble is McEck won't know of such gemsWhen you look at the actual story, it's hard to give that much credibility. He also says he had no firm offers form anyone until Newcastle came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 8, 2011 Author Share Posted December 8, 2011 Trees to the thread please Is the Falcon back on the apron at BHX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry'sboots Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 When a club has limited cash to spend then every signing, EVERY SIGNING, has to be able to come in and make an immediate impact and show their value to the club. With a dwindling squad you cannot afford to give a chance or wait for 6 months for a player to settle in..Such a scenario is not possible. The only logical corollary would be to never make any signings - it is not possible with human beings for every signing to instantly work. So if you can't tolerate one or more not instantly working, you have to insist that we make no signings (for money) and rely on home grown, loans and freebies. Alternatively, of course, we could take a slightly longer view, and say, it would be great i they all worked, and did so immediately, but realistically that's daft, so some period of adjustment is tolerable, some settling in time almost inevitable, as is the possibility that some will not work at all. That would lead to profiling the type of players that you elect to sign - they have to be sell-onable if it doesn't work out, rather than the Heskey type. They have to be on wages that reflect your straightened times, so that they are no prohibitively costly for any potential buyer. They should ideally be on incentivised contracts, rather than "money for nothing" contracts. All that stuff points towards the board having a significant say in the signings, more than just the manager, or alternatively the manager being givn the autonomy and responsibility, but he would need to have clearly set out parameters that he has to work to. Or is that not a fair summary? I don't disagree with you Blandy BUT you have a far better chance of them playing from day 1 if you are not buying people with known injury problems or that haven't been a regular part of the first team that they are leaving for the last 12-18months - we saw the latter with Sidders and then Ireland and we still bring in Hutton and Jenas, helping one of our main rivals out in the process as the money and wage capacity from these two probably allowed them to go and get Scott Parker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 8, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 8, 2011 I agree barry'sboots - I can honestly say that I didn't think, at the time, that buying any of them was a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 When a club has limited cash to spend then every signing, EVERY SIGNING, has to be able to come in and make an immediate impact and show their value to the club. With a dwindling squad you cannot afford to give a chance or wait for 6 months for a player to settle in..Such a scenario is not possible. The only logical corollary would be to never make any signings - it is not possible with human beings for every signing to instantly work. So if you can't tolerate one or more not instantly working, you have to insist that we make no signings (for money) and rely on home grown, loans and freebies. Alternatively, of course, we could take a slightly longer view, and say, it would be great i they all worked, and did so immediately, but realistically that's daft, so some period of adjustment is tolerable, some settling in time almost inevitable, as is the possibility that some will not work at all. That would lead to profiling the type of players that you elect to sign - they have to be sell-onable if it doesn't work out, rather than the Heskey type. They have to be on wages that reflect your straightened times, so that they are no prohibitively costly for any potential buyer. They should ideally be on incentivised contracts, rather than "money for nothing" contracts. All that stuff points towards the board having a significant say in the signings, more than just the manager, or alternatively the manager being givn the autonomy and responsibility, but he would need to have clearly set out parameters that he has to work to. Or is that not a fair summary?I think it is a pretty fair summary of your opinion It is not one I share I think it's an eminently sensible and reasonable summary, and one that I would certainly share. As is BBoots's caveat above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Trees to the thread please Is the Falcon back on the apron at BHX You want to go 'on topic' ,huh? Trees is esconced in a hotel in Glasgow but no, Falcon is in Cleveland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Trees to the thread please Is the Falcon back on the apron at BHX You want to go 'on topic' ,huh? Trees is esconced in a hotel in Glasgow but no, Falcon is in Cleveland. Cleveland has a Thursday night football game later tonight, so that would explain that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 When a club has limited cash to spend then every signing, EVERY SIGNING, has to be able to come in and make an immediate impact and show their value to the club. With a dwindling squad you cannot afford to give a chance or wait for 6 months for a player to settle in..Such a scenario is not possible. The only logical corollary would be to never make any signings - it is not possible with human beings for every signing to instantly work. So if you can't tolerate one or more not instantly working, you have to insist that we make no signings (for money) and rely on home grown, loans and freebies. Alternatively, of course, we could take a slightly longer view, and say, it would be great i they all worked, and did so immediately, but realistically that's daft, so some period of adjustment is tolerable, some settling in time almost inevitable, as is the possibility that some will not work at all. That would lead to profiling the type of players that you elect to sign - they have to be sell-onable if it doesn't work out, rather than the Heskey type. They have to be on wages that reflect your straightened times, so that they are no prohibitively costly for any potential buyer. They should ideally be on incentivised contracts, rather than "money for nothing" contracts. All that stuff points towards the board having a significant say in the signings, more than just the manager, or alternatively the manager being givn the autonomy and responsibility, but he would need to have clearly set out parameters that he has to work to. Or is that not a fair summary? Its a fair point....and when you say that all clubs sign duff players, is true, but it is the amount or ratio between good and bad that sets us aside and possibly caused the owner to take stock.... not to mention the over payment in fee's and wages. we have also had a coaching/scouting setup in the past that has helped in players finding their feet at Villa Park.....In fact in Saunders era it didn't seem to matter what relative unknown came in they would turn them in to merchantable quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 9, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 9, 2011 Absolutely we've had a poor ratio of good signings to bad signings under Houllier and McLeish and it wasn't particularly good under MO'N either. And you're right about wages, too, TRO. That said it was Graham Taylor who really sorted out someone to help players settle, Lorna McClelland, I think her name was, was brought in to help them with house hunting and finding schools for kids and stuff. The previous chairman had been very reluctant to do that kind of thing for the players. TBH under Saunders there were plenty who didn't quite work out as well. But back to Randy, he's been let down by managers not performing well in terms of signings. It has to be managers who have the say on which players they want, they're the experts, but we've not really has anyone really good at transfer dealings for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted December 9, 2011 Share Posted December 9, 2011 In addition to that Blandy, I'd also say that he's been let down by the people brokering the deals to bring said players into the club. Yes the previous 3 managers have all bought some poor players, but we've also negotiated some terrible deals during that time. Some of the wages paid to average players have been a joke, and then you have deals like the Jenas one which shows a complete lack of ability to govern a top flight football club. Ultimate responsibility for such things rests with Lerner as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 Trees to the thread please Is the Falcon back on the apron at BHX You want to go 'on topic' ,huh? Trees is esconced in a hotel in Glasgow but no, Falcon is in Cleveland. You mean to say he's giving Bolton a miss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 18, 2011 Author Share Posted December 18, 2011 Anyone know if RL is in town for the Lpool / Arsenal double header ?? Hope he is, we seem to up our game when he's about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts