dukes Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 dukes wrote To my mind the football is the same as under MON, we just don't have Ashley Young as an outlet otherwise it's always been shit, and I agree most of our team are limited as footballers, and most of them were bought by MON for big money provided by Lerner. If you buy limited footballers who just want to hoof the ball, no amount of coaching will turn them into ball playing Brazilians. Would you agree the football is worse now than under MON and would you agree that attendances have dropped about 5,000 as a direct result? I would agree that the football is worse now than under MON, I don't agree that's all down to McLeish (he didn't choose to sell Downing or Young, im sure like most of us he thought N'zogbia would be a good replacement for Young). I do agree that attendances are down, some of that is own to McLeish, some is down to the economy. Attendances are down throughout the leagues. The football was better under Houllier, but attendances were dropping then too, and an awful lot of Villa fans never accepted him as manager either. If fans got behind the team and manager this might pass onto the players, but in my opinion the lethargy on the pitch is partially as a result if the silence inside Villa Park. It's chicken and egg I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2012 in my opinion the lethargy on the pitch is partially as a result if the silence inside Villa Park. It's chicken and egg I guess. I agree. My perspective is that I have a memory. By that I mean, if I've seen the team play like drains, I remember this and it affects my feelings of optimism at the next game, my hope that they will win is diminished. So I can't help but be anxious, or concerned or bite my nails. Alternatively If I have seen them play well and give it a go, then I remember this and shout and cheer and chant for more of the same the next time. The players sell the tickets, basically, and the players these days are responsible for the atmosphere 9 times out of 10. It used to be different in the old days of terracing and the ground could be a raucous cauldron 20 minutes before kick off. It was ace. But then the prices were affordable by all, the value for money, even with basic facilities was good and there was, most of the time, "hope" and expectation. Games weren't at Saturday lunchtime, or Sunday tea time. They were 3 pm Saturday, nearly always. You could go to the pub, pay on the gate and move if you were next to a tube or a numpty. It wasn't a major planning operation to work out if the game was on telly, what day you were entitled to apply for a ticket and all that. Different age. But right now, the approach of the team and players and manager has to improve. Yes confidence is low, yes the ground is quiet but it's frankly amazing that people still turn up, at times.. Given half a hint of something to cheer about, fans respond. Like it or not the players and manager and board need to provide that something in exchange for our hard earned/ill-gotten loot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 in my opinion the lethargy on the pitch is partially as a result if the silence inside Villa Park. It's chicken and egg I guess. I had overseas guests at last Saturday's game. The one comment was that the team lacked the belief to go on and win, and that he crowd lacked the belief to will them to victory. This was from a guy who sees the Villa two or three times a season as my guest and I really thought that he nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Limited Footballers? The kind of limited footballers who are now plying their trade at Man City, United & Liverpool? Let's please not go back to blaming everything on Oneill, because whilst my memory is terrible, I don't actually remember not wanting to go and watch a game at Villa Park due to the pish standard of football on offer whilst he was about. And as a fan, that's pretty much all I care about. Yes, the signings of Milner and Young were great, but at the time they were players tat had already received rave reviews in the media. Downing probably had his best season last year after MON had left. How many sub £5M signings did MON make that set the world alight L how many signings did he make from the lower leagues ? Where were we when Spurs signed Naughton and Walker from Sheffield United ? Apart from the new Zidane, how many chances did he actually take in the transfer market ? How many of his signings have left Villa Park for a profit ? Who spent £9.5M on Curtis Davies and then sold Cahill for £5M. For the record I'm not blaming MON for everything, randy should have taken action earlier, but perhaps the smell of success, the close proximity of success made him hold back. It's lunacy not to recognize that MON's his transfer policy has contributed massively to our problems, and hamstrung the managers since. Who knows, if he hadn't wated so much on substandard aging players, or on players he was never going to play, then maybe we'd not have ended up requiring a bargain basement manager. Even with all the money MON spent everyone seems to agree the lot all under him was shit....worse still the purist football loving Villa fans seem to have been happy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 It's times like these when you think of where we could be now if all the money given to O'Neill had been handed to O'Leary instead. Perhaps we would have ended up as an established top 4 club....... Yes giving him loads of cash at leeds worked really well. Please tell me that was a joke. Randy gets away with a lot on here, that good faith he built up with pr exercises obviously is still working on some. For all the faults Mon had he didn't decide houllier or mcleish should be in charge. Still blaming him now is pointless and deflects from the current issues holding us back and seeing attendences drop and drop as the football and results just aren't good enough. I have about as much interest in Leeds as I do Sunderland. O'Leary took us to pretty heady heights the one season, as I recall, and mainly had one arm tied behind his back. He also made one or two decent value signings-Bouma and Laursen spring to mind. Okay, he was an arrogant tosser, but the two guys that followed him made him look like an amateur in the arrogant stakes. I feel sure that, having learned from his experience, he would have been far more successful than O'Neill with the same resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 But right now, the approach of the team and players and manager has to improve. Yes confidence is low, yes the ground is quiet but it's frankly amazing that people still turn up, at times.. Given half a hint of something to cheer about, fans respond. Like it or not the players and manager and board need to provide that something in exchange for our hard earned/ill-gotten loot. Agree 100% Our team is summed up by Stephen Ireland, like him they need to have belief. It remains to be seen if McLeish is capable of giving that to them, but as fans we also need to drop the hatred of McLeish and remember we support Aston Villa, not the manager, and not the succession of players we've adored only for them to leave for greener pastures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 It's times like these when you think of where we could be now if all the money given to O'Neill had been handed to O'Leary instead. Perhaps we would have ended up as an established top 4 club....... Yes giving him loads of cash at leeds worked really well. Please tell me that was a joke. Randy gets away with a lot on here, that good faith he built up with pr exercises obviously is still working on some. For all the faults Mon had he didn't decide houllier or mcleish should be in charge. Still blaming him now is pointless and deflects from the current issues holding us back and seeing attendences drop and drop as the football and results just aren't good enough. I have about as much interest in Leeds as I do Sunderland. O'Leary took us to pretty heady heights the one season, as I recall, and mainly had one arm tied behind his back. He also made one or two decent value signings-Bouma and Laursen spring to mind. Okay, he was an arrogant tosser, but the two guys that followed him made him look like an amateur in the arrogant stakes. I feel sure that, having learned from his experience, he would have been far more successful than O'Neill with the same resources. Not really difficult to make a ridiculous claim with no evidence to back it up. Doesn't mean much either. And you don't have to know much about Leeds history to know how badly it went even with the manager getting a shit load to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Wonder if he's over for Wolves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 So he's issued and purchased another £5m worth of shares in the club (dec 2011) Is this just to keep us afloat ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 So he's issued and purchased another £5m worth of shares in the club (dec 2011) Is this just to keep us afloat ?? yeah, i think he has to do that at regular intervals to keep us going. We make roughly £40m loss each year, so that would mean Randy having to put in £5m x 8 times a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Excuse my ignorance but why would he buy shares and risk a loss rather than just making another loan at 3% above base like he has done before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lp_villa830 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 He has bought shares before too. Not all his investment has been in the way of loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 20, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 20, 2012 Excuse my ignorance but why would he buy shares and risk a loss rather than just making another loan at 3% above base like he has done before? In simple terms, Den, it's effectively a "gift" to the club - the club is worth exactly the same today as yesterday, he owns all the shares, but by issuing 5 million quid's worth of shares and then buying them, the club has £5 million more, he has £5 miilion less in his bank account - it's not a loan, it's equity. That's slightly simplistic, but covers the thing. It's also exempt from the FFP ruling - because he can't just take the money back, as it's not a loan. It suggests, also, commitment to the club. Perhaps the money is needed because revenue is down, perhaps because the club is about to spend it, perhaps because some payments are due, for transfer fees or payments that the club didn't have 5 mill in the bank available to pay out. Simplistic, again. But I think that it tends to show that contrary to some opinion he's not looking to get rid of the club, not looking to sell and despite saying little is "showing" rather than talking. If he was about to sell it would be dead money. Even if he sells longer term it's effectively, for him, lost money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WickerMan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 He can keep his money and do one. His decisions on the football (or those of his minions) are killing the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 The foreign owners still see the PL as a good investment, what are they seeing that we don't, further growth in TV revenues from abroad ? Far East and China ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Excuse my ignorance but why would he buy shares and risk a loss rather than just making another loan at 3% above base like he has done before? In simple terms, Den, it's effectively a "gift" to the club - the club is worth exactly the same today as yesterday, he owns all the shares, but by issuing 5 million quid's worth of shares and then buying them, the club has £5 million more, he has £5 miilion less in his bank account - it's not a loan, it's equity. That's slightly simplistic, but covers the thing. It's also exempt from the FFP ruling - because he can't just take the money back, as it's not a loan. It suggests, also, commitment to the club. Perhaps the money is needed because revenue is down, perhaps because the club is about to spend it, perhaps because some payments are due, for transfer fees or payments that the club didn't have 5 mill in the bank available to pay out. Simplistic, again. But I think that it tends to show that contrary to some opinion he's not looking to get rid of the club, not looking to sell and despite saying little is "showing" rather than talking. If he was about to sell it would be dead money. Even if he sells longer term it's effectively, for him, lost money. If what you say is correct, and you may well be I don't know, it makes him look an eve nworse businessman than I thought. Running the club this way makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 It would imply we're still losing money but it may not be £100k per day anymore, perhaps down to about £50k a day losses It's an expensive toy for Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 But I think that it tends to show that contrary to some opinion he's not looking to get rid of the club, God that's depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 21, 2012 If he was about to sell it would be dead money. Even if he sells longer term it's effectively, for him, lost money. That rather depends on the price he gets at the time he sells, the suggestion that it is a gift is until such a time just a theory. The club clearly isn't for sale at the moment, it remains to be seen what the position will be when the loans are repaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 21, 2012 It is a theory, but it's one supported by evidence. Not conclusive, but nevertheless reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts