KjParton Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 we had a good run and hey sometimes vimto is a really good treat. I like Vimto too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 what some posters dont seem to see was how different the premier league was just 5 seasons ago when we were throwing money around like confetti, at the time man utd and chelsea were the only clubs who were uncatachable really, liverpool and arsenal were begining to show that the sky4 dominance of getting into the champions league was actually a realistic aim for the likes of villa and spurs so we gambled heavily with a manager that, in hindsight should not have been given the sort of funds he had. for every shrewed signing like ashley young there was a marlon harwood, for john carew you had a steve sidwell, shit players on massive wages that he left on the bench because MON himself realised they were **** all good. and then it all changed when sheik mansoor rocked up at man city, at that moment the game changed overnight because instead of having 2 places to try and get into the CL, we now had only 1 with man utd, chelsea and man city now practically guaranteed to take the other 3 and whilst we had a very good first 11, those players with real worth and value suddenly wanted out and were coveted by clubs either already in the CL or with a better chance at getting there than us, at this point we had a mental manager hell bent on signing a shit aiden mgeady for £12million as the player to help us into that elusive 4th place, he was told to shift the players he brought but didnt play, but he walked out leaving us with a wage bill that accounted for 103% of our revenue and a stash of players that no one wanted to buy because a)they werent very good and because they were all on 4 year £45k a week deals. so at that point we had 2 options, hire another manager and throw more money at a decreasing gap of CL football or cut the wage bill down to sustainable level where growth is promoted by signing younger players who hopefully see us as a club they can achieve something with, rather than the others who wanted out as soon as the going got tough and or we hire a manager with a track record of signing good youth and improve the scouting network so we can sign talanted players for pennies when they're unknown rather than the previous method of spending millions on them and then realising there not that good. this was the job GH started but had to stop because of ill health, then the AMC debacle which i believe was a typical american "this is a crazy idea, but it just might work" project, which brings us on to PL who is a young manager himself who believes that youth and wanting to play for aston villa is more important than reputation. +1000000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Man city spent a fortune the summer Lerner took over. While not the richest club in the world he would have been stupid to dismiss them. You seem to suggest some genius thinking by Lerner after Mon left but houllier didn't do what you talk about. He didn't sign young cheap players. He signed makoun, walker on loan and spent more money on one player than any other manager we've ever had. How does that fit in with the approach you claim Lerner was going for. Then you just shrug off the appointment of Mcleish, again absolutely nothing to do with this so called approach you claim Lerner decided on after Mon left/was pushed. You mention about the money being wasted under Mon but how about: Ireland given a huge contract with no manager in place Settlement agreed with Mon. Compensation paid to houllier. Compensation paid to houllier's back room staff. Compensation paid to Birmingham city Huge contract to a 35 year old shay given. Compensation paid to Mcleish. Compensation paid to mcleish's back room staff. Certainly a fair amount of money wasted there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houllierout Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 its fairly obvious that some people like relegation material. and vimto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 The difference is though which i tried to point out in my post is that all of the above players were happy to stay with Arsenal due to challenging for honours and being in the Champions League! We won't be able to offer that to our possible young successes and they will take flight a lot sooner than those at Arsenal and i'm afraid therein lies the fallibility of your debate. But thats not the difference or the sole core of your argument originally was it, it was more to do with cherry picking and losing our rising stars. You said we would not be able to hold on to our best players. Well neither did arsenal - Challenging for Honours or not! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 what some posters dont seem to see was how different the premier league was just 5 seasons ago when we were throwing money around like confetti, at the time man utd and chelsea were the only clubs who were uncatachable really, liverpool and arsenal were begining to show that the sky4 dominance of getting into the champions league was actually a realistic aim for the likes of villa and spurs so we gambled heavily with a manager that, in hindsight should not have been given the sort of funds he had. for every shrewed signing like ashley young there was a marlon harwood, for john carew you had a steve sidwell, shit players on massive wages that he left on the bench because MON himself realised they were **** all good. and then it all changed when sheik mansoor rocked up at man city, at that moment the game changed overnight because instead of having 2 places to try and get into the CL, we now had only 1 with man utd, chelsea and man city now practically guaranteed to take the other 3 and whilst we had a very good first 11, those players with real worth and value suddenly wanted out and were coveted by clubs either already in the CL or with a better chance at getting there than us, at this point we had a mental manager hell bent on signing a shit aiden mgeady for £12million as the player to help us into that elusive 4th place, he was told to shift the players he brought but didnt play, but he walked out leaving us with a wage bill that accounted for 103% of our revenue and a stash of players that no one wanted to buy because a)they werent very good and because they were all on 4 year £45k a week deals. so at that point we had 2 options, hire another manager and throw more money at a decreasing gap of CL football or cut the wage bill down to sustainable level where growth is promoted by signing younger players who hopefully see us as a club they can achieve something with, rather than the others who wanted out as soon as the going got tough and or we hire a manager with a track record of signing good youth and improve the scouting network so we can sign talanted players for pennies when they're unknown rather than the previous method of spending millions on them and then realising there not that good. this was the job GH started but had to stop because of ill health, then the AMC debacle which i believe was a typical american "this is a crazy idea, but it just might work" project, which brings us on to PL who is a young manager himself who believes that youth and wanting to play for aston villa is more important than reputation. This is brilliant! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Man city spent a fortune the summer Lerner took over. While not the richest club in the world he would have been stupid to dismiss them. You seem to suggest some genius thinking by Lerner after Mon left but houllier didn't do what you talk about. He didn't sign young cheap players. He signed makoun, walker on loan and spent more money on one player than any other manager we've ever had. How does that fit in with the approach you claim Lerner was going for. Then you just shrug off the appointment of Mcleish, again absolutely nothing to do with this so called approach you claim Lerner decided on after Mon left/was pushed. You mention about the money being wasted under Mon but how about: Ireland given a huge contract with no manager in oplace Settlement agreed with Mon. Compensation paid to houllier. Compensation paid to houllier's back room staff. Compensation paid to Birmingham city Huge contract to a 35 year old shay given. Compensation paid to Mcleish. Compensation paid to mcleish's back room staff. Certainly a fair amount of money wasted there. I'm not dismissing the stupid appointment of mcleish, nor the money wasted on compensation, but ffs surely you can sew the direction were heading in with Lambert, and houllier was brought in to improve the scouting network. Man city spent cash but nothing like they did when mansoor turned up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 The approach seems that way now. Wether it will work if the investment is similar to last summer is debatable. But that approach was not put in place after Mon left like you suggest. It was another two terrible years sending us further down the league and making our current position worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Firstly. The Myth he is investing money. Its coming in as loans from his family fund. Its all just going against a giant credit to him if/when he sells. (that myth is right up there with Doug leaving us with no debts) Secondly. the £20MILL! this summer lot. After 2 years of negative investment he finally put some of the money back. Over three years he's only spent circa. £8mil. and thats why the squad is in the condition it is in! http://www.tinyurl.com/avfcspend I think you really need to look up the definition of investing. As far as I know the money comes from a family trust the beneficiaries of which will be RL and his family. If it all goes tits up he loses the trust's money which hits him and his family. It actually makes no difference whether it comes from his personal fortune or the trust, the effect of winning or losing for him in the longer term is the same. I'd just focus on the fact he is bankrolling the club. Or would you rather have a bunch of bankers crawling all over the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 what some posters dont seem to see was how different the premier league was just 5 seasons ago when we were throwing money around like confetti, at the time man utd and chelsea were the only clubs who were uncatachable really, liverpool and arsenal were begining to show that the sky4 dominance of getting into the champions league was actually a realistic aim for the likes of villa and spurs so we gambled heavily with a manager that, in hindsight should not have been given the sort of funds he had. for every shrewed signing like ashley young there was a marlon harwood, for john carew you had a steve sidwell, shit players on massive wages that he left on the bench because MON himself realised they were **** all good. and then it all changed when sheik mansoor rocked up at man city, at that moment the game changed overnight because instead of having 2 places to try and get into the CL, we now had only 1 with man utd, chelsea and man city now practically guaranteed to take the other 3 and whilst we had a very good first 11, those players with real worth and value suddenly wanted out and were coveted by clubs either already in the CL or with a better chance at getting there than us, at this point we had a mental manager hell bent on signing a shit aiden mgeady for £12million as the player to help us into that elusive 4th place, he was told to shift the players he brought but didnt play, but he walked out leaving us with a wage bill that accounted for 103% of our revenue and a stash of players that no one wanted to buy because a)they werent very good and because they were all on 4 year £45k a week deals. so at that point we had 2 options, hire another manager and throw more money at a decreasing gap of CL football or cut the wage bill down to sustainable level where growth is promoted by signing younger players who hopefully see us as a club they can achieve something with, rather than the others who wanted out as soon as the going got tough and or we hire a manager with a track record of signing good youth and improve the scouting network so we can sign talanted players for pennies when they're unknown rather than the previous method of spending millions on them and then realising there not that good. this was the job GH started but had to stop because of ill health, then the AMC debacle which i believe was a typical american "this is a crazy idea, but it just might work" project, which brings us on to PL who is a young manager himself who believes that youth and wanting to play for aston villa is more important than reputation. Ignoring the lets blame / not blame Randy Lerner argument for the moment but this sums up the reality of the situation. Great post mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I wonder if Lerner will be there tomorrow if its true him and PL had a meeting earlier this week then im guessing he might still be in the country If we sneak a 1 - 0 he may keep his chequebook closed in january Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 But thats not the difference or the sole core of your argument originally was it, it was more to do with cherry picking and losing our rising stars. You said we would not be able to hold on to our best players. Well neither did arsenal - Challenging for Honours or not! . It was the main point of my opinion though which still is that since we have no chance of qualifying for the Champion's League anytime soon under the present regime, if players like Benteke and Westwood continue to improve and one of the top six come in for them then they will leave, as opposed to the likes of Arsenal, who kept their younger players interested with Champions League for some considerable time before they moved on to pastures new. Do you think that Van Persie for instance would have stayed for as long as he did with Arsenal if he wasn't playing in the Champions League every season and then think about why he eventually left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 It was the main point of my opinion though which still is that since we have no chance of qualifying for the Champion's League anytime soon under the present regime, if players like Benteke and Westwood continue to improve and one of the top six come in for them then they will leave, as opposed to the likes of Arsenal, who kept their younger players interested with Champions League for some considerable time before they moved on to pastures new. Do you think that Van Persie for instance would have stayed for as long as he did with Arsenal if he wasn't playing in the Champions League every season and then think about why he eventually left. And how do you arrive at that conclusion? It didn't happen under O'Neill and we were never playing champions league football then so why would it happen to Lambert? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Ignoring the lets blame / not blame Randy Lerner argument for the moment but this sums up the reality of the situation. Great post mate! But houllier and Mcleish did not do anything suggested by the post. Man city spent a fortune the same summer Lerner bought the club. What's the great point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Because houllier was only here for6 months and didnt have time to put ideas in place and mcleish was just a diaaster from start to finish, and I replied to your city spending question before, the £8million signing of elano etc is nothing like the cash they spent when mansoor turned up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 And how do you arrive at that conclusion? It didn't happen under O'Neill and we were never playing champions league football then so why would it happen to Lambert? . But we were continually finishing top six and starting to challenge for that fourth Champions League place. You remember when MON asked Barry to stay for one one season to see if we could crack the top four and thats exactly my point. We are a long way off that now and will be for the considerable future so players such as Benteke and Westwood will not stay with us if a top six club comes in for them. Surely you must see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 But we were continually finishing top six and starting to challenge for that fourth Champions League place. You remember when MON asked Barry to stay for one one season to see if we could crack the top four and thats exactly my point. We are a long way off that now and will be for the considerable future so players such as Benteke and Westwood will not stay with us if a top six club comes in for them. Surely you must see that. I see where you are coming from but I don't agree it will be as bad as you imagine. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillakevBromsgrove Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I still get annoyed over MON. if you remember we only ever played well for 2 thirds of a season, after February we usually went downhill very quickly, whether it was required to buy in January to bolster the squad or the fact there was no rotation I dont know, we could have easily got to Europe in those 3 years if we played the whole season, this was my real frustration with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Because houllier was only here for6 months and didnt have time to put ideas in place and mcleish was just a diaaster from start to finish, and I replied to your city spending question before, the £8million signing of elano etc is nothing like the cash they spent when mansoor turned up. But there was no evidence houllier was going to do what you suggest. It's just an assumption. And with regards to city they spent enough that summer to show they would still have been competition to us under the first few years. To dismiss them then would have been foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I see where you are coming from but I don't agree it will be as bad as you imagine. . Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts