MON

flahavaj

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

dunno haven't though about it.



Your 'hard cold fact' belies your youthful naivety i'd say. I remember a time when Chelsea were also rans, Arsenal were ****e under Rioch, Pool were mid table cloggers, Spurs were going down and Villa were title contenders.

My point being is that the imaginary pecking order/hierarchy of clubs is in your head and previous success is not a guide to future performance. As a Utd fan you'll probably only fully realise this when Alex Ferguson retires and the banks come calling for their cash.

Being a United fan has nothing to do with it.

That was a different era of football to which you're referring. With the money floating around and the massive power the bigger clubs have nowadays it will take something really special for United, Chelsea and Arsenal to be usurped from their position at the top in the long run. 4th is up for grabs at the moment but with City building and spending like madmen, not for long. I think I'm pretty correct in saying Villa will be fighting for 5th-7th at best for the foreseeable future. And this has a serious bearing on the quality of manager they can attract.

It would probably be a good idea to think about who's a better manager than O' Neill before stating that Villa are a good prospect for managers btw.

Also LOL at youthful naivety.

Neil3030

flahavaj wrote: »

Being a United fan has nothing to do with it.

That was a different era of football to which you're referring. With the money floating around and the massive power the bigger clubs have nowadays it will take something really special for United, Chelsea and Arsenal to be usurped from their position at the top in the long run. 4th is up for grabs at the moment but with City building and spending like madmen, not for long. I think I'm pretty correct in saying Villa will be fighting for 5th-7th at best for the foreseeable future. And this has a serious bearing on the quality of manager they can attract.

It would probably be a good idea to think about who's a better manager than O' Neill before stating that Villa are a good prospect for managers btw.

Also LOL at youthful naivety.

This is, to be fair, a naive statement.

United - Fergie is approaching retirement, debts are mounting.
Chelsea - Team is ageing, Abramovic may loose interest
Arsenal - Wenger may leave, Fabregas may leave, when will the stadium debt be paid off?

Plenty of possible scenarios to question the certainty of these clubs' dominance.

invinciblePRSTV

flahavaj wrote: »

That was a different era of football to which you're referring.

Not really tbh, it was the 1990s, a time when TV money and rich benefactors dosh dominated the game...unlike today?....

flahavaj wrote: »

With the money floating around and the massive power the bigger clubs have nowadays it will take something really special for United, Chelsea and Arsenal to be usurped from their position at the top in the long run.

If anything clubs wield less power in 2010 then in the 1990s at a national and european level with the disbandment of the G14.

Arsenal & Utd were plodding along until their respective managers came on board to shape their futures in a positve manner, off the top of my head i believe Arsenal had finished 10th under Rioch, after a coupe of years of Stu Houston, then Wenger joined and away they went. Ditto Chelsea until Harding and then Roman came along. Again my point being its kinda irrelevant where a club is so long as they appoint the right man to take them forward. History does not guarantee future success.

flahavaj wrote: »

4th is up for grabs at the moment but with City building and spending like madmen, not for long. I think I'm pretty correct in saying Villa will be fighting for 5th-7th at best for the foreseeable future. And this has a serious bearing on the quality of manager they can attract.

4 years ago Villa were milesaway from the top 6, who knows where they'll be in another 4yrs any guessing on your part is just that.

flahavaj wrote: »

It would probably be a good idea to think about who's a better manager than O' Neill before stating that Villa could do better than him btw.

Don't think i said that Villa could do better then MON, so it makes the rest of what you say null and void, but now that i do think about it i reckon we could.

flahavaj

Neil3030 wrote: »

This is, to be fair, a naive statement.

United - Fergie is approaching retirement, debts are mounting.
Chelsea - Team is ageing, Abramovic may loose interest
Arsenal - Wenger may leave, Fabregas may leave, when will the stadium debt be paid off?

Plenty of possible scenarios to question the certainty of these clubs' dominance.

It will still take somethng special to overtake them IMO, something like City's unrecedented wealth for example.

Esse85

Ericsson, Bilic, Hughes are just 3 names that I feel if given the resources that MON has had, could do an equal or better job.

Neil3030

flahavaj wrote: »

It will still take somethng special to overtake them IMO, something like City's unrecedented wealth for example.

O.K., how about these three scenarios:

Man United: Rooney leaves, his transfer fee servicing the debt. Fergie retires, new manager lasts 6 months before the fans tire of not mounting a serious title challenge and the merry-go-round begins - No serious money given to any new managers to spend on players, older players (Neville, Scholes, Giggs) retire.

Chelsea: Abramovic pulls out of the club citing lost funds/boredom. Ballack, Drogba, Lampard retire. Club forced into a barnstorm sale of players to service debt levels.

Arsenal: Fabregas and Wenger leave. Rising interest rates (which often co-occur with economic growth) result in new manager given same annual spend as Wenger as servicing debt on stadium is extended.

Nothing particularly "special" about the above three scenarios in my mind. But it would see the above three teams fall significantly from grace.

flahavaj

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Not really tbh, it was the 1990s, a time when TV money and rich benefactors dosh dominated the game...unlike today?....

Champions' League money and the widening of the number of teams that qualify has made the chasm between the select few clubs that compete regularly in it an the rest ar wider than it was in the 1990's. It simply wasn't the case in the period to which you referred in your post.

If anything clubs wield less power in 2010 then in the 1990s at a national and european level with the disbandment of the G14.

Arsenal & Utd were plodding along until their respective managers came on board to shape their futures in a positve manner, off the top of my head i believe Arsenal had finished 10th under Rioch, after a coupe of years of Stu Houston, then Wenger joined and away they went. Ditto Chelsea until Harding and then Roman came along. Again my point being its kinda irrelevant where a club is so long as they appoint the right man to take them forward. History does not guarantee future success.

You think Arsenal and Chelsea are realistically going to return to mid table mediocrity anytime soon? Really? Arsenal are run unbelievably well and with teh structures Wenger as put in place and the revenue the new ground generates they're set for decades to come. And you say Abramovich could up sticks and leave Chelsea at any stage, but an agreement is in place that he cannot do so and leave the club in dire straits. They're also here to stay for teh fopreseeable future.

Bottom line, realistically Villa at this very moment in time have a particular level at which you'd expect them to compete and thats in the 5th -7th bracket at best. Expecting anything more is naive in the extreme. And this limits them in the quality of manager they can attract, which is our original point of contention.

4 years ago Villa were milesaway from the top 6, who knows where they'll be in another 4yrs any guessing on your part is just that.

Yes and they could just as easily plummet back to the relegation zone of they got rid of MON and upset the club's stability. I though we were discussing Villa right now in terms of the quality of manager they could attract?

Don't think i said that Villa could do better then MON, so it makes the rest of what you say null and void, but now that i do think about it i reckon we could.

Again start naming names.

invinciblePRSTV

Esse85 wrote: »

Ericsson, Bilic, Hughes are just 3 names that I feel if given the resources that MON has had, could do an equal or better job.

Call me crazy Esse but i'd like to see someone like Zola in the Villa job. Yeah WHU are ****e but thats because they are screwed financially. Zola always sets them up to play and pass the ball around. Thats all i really want tbh,a Villa team that can pass it around a bit, it can't be that hard.

flahavaj

Neil3030 wrote: »

O.K., how about these three scenarios:

Man United: Rooney leaves, his transfer fee servicing the debt. Fergie retires, new manager lasts 6 months before the fans tire of not mounting a serious title challenge and the merry-go-round begins - No serious money given to any new managers to spend on players, older players (Neville, Scholes, Giggs) retire.

Chelsea: Abramovic pulls out of the club citing lost funds/boredom. Ballack, Drogba, Lampard retire. Club forced into a barnstorm sale of players to service debt levels.

Arsenal: Fabregas and Wenger leave. Rising interest rates (which often co-occur with economic growth) result in new manager given same annual spend as Wenger as servicing debt on stadium is extended.

Nothing particularly "special" about the above three scenarios in my mind. But it would see the above three teams fall significantly from grace.

They are all at best unlikely to happen anytime soon IMO. And such fates could easily befall Villa, too also in their quest to overtake them btw.

If I ws to put money on it I'd sooner bet on Villa slipping back to mid table mediocrity than them overtaking United, Chelsea or Arsenal anytime soon tbh, no matter how many doomsday scenarios ye dream up.:pac:

flahavaj

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Call me crazy Esse but i'd like to see someone like Zola in the Villa job. Yeah WHU are ****e but thats because they are screwed financially. Zola always sets them up to play and pass the ball around. Thats all i really want tbh,a Villa team that can pass it around a bit, it can't be that hard.

:eek:

invinciblePRSTV

flahavaj wrote: »

Champions' League money and the widening of the number of teams that qualify has made the chasm between the select few clubs that compete regularly in it an the rest ar wider than it was in the 1990's. It simply wasn't the case in the period to which you referred in your post.

Dunno i think it was. late 1990s was when multiple teams from same countries could qualify afair.

flahavaj wrote: »

You think Arsenal and Chelsea are realistically going to return to mid table mediocrity anytime soon? Really? Arsenal are run unbelievably well and with teh structures Wenger as put in place and the revenue the new ground generates they're set for decades to come. And you say Abramovich could up sticks and leave Chelsea at any stage, but an agreement is in place that he cannot do so and leave the club in dire straits. They're also here to stay for teh fopreseeable future.

Lets ask former CL regulars Newcastle & Leeds whether or not its possible to fall into obscurity after tasting CL action. Think it was Neil who mentioned Chelsea but they are, more then most imo, liable to collapse, i can't see Roman ever spending the kind of money he did in 03/04/05 , especially with his womens expensive art hobby and the decline in his own finances.

flahavaj wrote: »

Bottom line, realistically Villa at this very moment in time have a particular level at which you'd expect them to compete and thats in the 5th -7th bracket at best. Expecting anything more is naive in the extreme. And this limits them in the quality of manager they can attract, which is our original point of contention.

Yes you're back to beating this particular drum. Look if you genuinely believe that the status quo is going to remain forever then more power to you, i beg to differ.

flahavaj wrote: »

Yes and they could just as easily plummet back to the relegation zone of they got rid of MON and upset the club's stability. I though we were discussing Villa right now in terms of the quality of manager they could attract?

indeed, but you gotta speculate to accumulate right? although the dystopian future you predict with a permanent never changing top 4 means we'll prob change manager and finish about the same as have for the past few seasons using your logic.

Neil3030

flahavaj wrote: »

They are all at best unlikely to happen anytime soon IMO. And such fates could easily befall Villa, too also in their quest to overtake them btw.

If I ws to put money on it I'd sooner bet on Villa slipping back to mid table mediocrity than them overtaking United, Chelsea or Arsenal anytime soon tbh, no matter how many doomsday scenarios ye dream up.:pac:

Hey, it's only a doomsday scenario if you support Chelsea, Man U or Arsenal!

I'd be more than happy to take you up on the following bet if you'd like:

Aston Villa to finish above Chelsea, Man United or Arsenal in the Premier League final standings, within the next 5 years.

What do you say? 4 pounds? 5?

flahavaj

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Dunno i think it was. late 1990s was when multiple teams from same countries could qualify afair.

But it was the 2000's before the effect financially of a big 3/4 qualifying regularly for the latter stages of the competition was seen properly. Either way nitpicking on your part.

Lets ask former CL regulars Newcastle & Leeds whether or not its possible to fall into obscurity after tasting CL action. Think it was Neil who mentioned Chelsea but they are, more then most imo, liable to collapse, i can't see Roman ever spending the kind of money he did in 03/04/05 , especially with his womens expensive art hobby and the decline in his own finances.

I don't see the mismanagament that was rife at those particular jokes of clubs happening anytime soon at United Chelsea or Arsenal tbh. No matter what your opinion of the Glazer's the are at least decent business people. Nor were Leeds and Newcastle regulars in the CL for a prolonged period like the Big 4 have been.

Also wrt to Chelsea, they will spend a good chunk of money this Summer and they also have an extremely talented crop of young players coming through thanks to their investment in the club's grass roots structures the past few years.

Yes you're back to beating this particular drum. Look if you genuinely believe that the status quo is going to remain forever then more power to you, i beg to differ.

indeed, but you gotta speculate to accumulate right? although the dystopian future you predict with a permanent never changing top 4 means we'll prob change manager and finish about the same as have for the past few seasons using your logic.

I never said the status quo would remain the same forever. That'd be a ridiculous statement tbh. But I do believe it is more likely to remain the same for the foreseeable future than Villa are to break into it on a permanent basis in the next few years, Which at the end of the day is what we're basically arguing here.

flahavaj

Neil3030 wrote: »

Hey, it's only a doomsday scenario if you support Chelsea, Man U or Arsenal!

I'd be more than happy to take you up on the following bet if you'd like:



What do you say? 4 pounds? 5?

4.50, or whatever the equivalent is in the currency of the time in that far flung year when such an unlikley freak occurance happens.:pac:

If this was someone I knew in real life I'd happily take that bet btw!

invinciblePRSTV

flahavaj wrote: »

But it was the 2000's before the effect financially of a big 3/4 qualifying regularly for the latter stages of the competition was seen properly. Either way nitpicking on your part.

Well i referenced Wenger coming to Arsenal &/Bates/Hardings influence on Chelsea, both of which occurred in the 1990s and led to to these clubs gaining CL qualification. The original point of contention is whether these clubs have had sustained success because of astute appointments or because of the expanded CL format, i would argue the former led to success in the latter.

flahavaj wrote: »

I don't see the mismanagament that was rife at those particular jokes of clubs happening anytime soon at United Chelsea or Arsenal tbh. No matter what your opinion of the Glazer's the are at least decent business people. Nor were Leeds and Newcastle regulars in the CL for a prolonged period like the Big 4 have been.

Well i can certainly see the current top 4 suffering declinein a similar manner to those 'joke' clubs, in particular the eventual departures of Ferguson & Wenger should be a larf. Besides clubs with a long standing reliance on CL money are probably more at risk for eventual financial turmoil then those without.

flahavaj wrote: »

Also wrt to Chelsea, they will spend a good chunk of money this Summer and they also have an extremely talented crop of young players coming through thanks to their investment in the club's grass roots structures the past few years.

Chelseas youth policy? Can't see it myself, Chelseas squad will need renewal in a serious manner over the next few years and i cannot see how this will be achieved without the type of cash not seen at the bridge since the Shevchenko days. Perhaps Roman might, but Chelsea have been keeping a pretty tight transfer policy over the past few years.

flahavaj wrote: »

I never said the status quo would remain the same forever. That'd be a ridiculous statement tbh. But I do believe it is more likely to remain the same for the foreseeable future than Villa are to break into it on a permanent basis in the next few years, Which at the end of the day is what we're basically arguing here.

i think what we're arguing here is that a MON Villa team is unlikely to break into the the CL places. I can agree on that.

flahavaj

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Well i referenced Wenger coming to Arsenal &/Bates/Hardings influence on Chelsea, both of which occurred in the 1990s and led to to these clubs gaining CL qualification. The original point of contention is whether these clubs have had sustained success because of astute appointments or because of the expanded CL format, i would argue the former led to success in the latter.





Well i can certainly see the current top 4 suffering declinein a similar manner to those 'joke' clubs, in particular the eventual departures of Ferguson & Wenger should be a larf. Besides clubs with a long standing reliance on CL money are probably more at risk for eventual financial turmoil then those without.




Chelseas youth policy? Can't see it myself, Chelseas squad will need renewal in a serious manner over the next few years and i cannot see how this will be achieved without the type of cash not seen at the bridge since the Shevchenko days. Perhaps Roman might, but Chelsea have been keeping a pretty tight transfer policy over the past few years.





i think what we're arguing here is that a MON Villa team is unlikely to break into the the CL places. I can agree on that.

Kinda going round in circles now.

Just on your last point.

Yes agreed MON is unlikely into the CL in the next few years. This season was a massive massive opportunity what with Liverpool's general sh*tness all season. Yet ye have fallen quite a bit short and can be safely ruled out of the running with 7 games to play. But I'm not sure ye can attract someone of a higher calibre either. Though I am as always open to suggestions. But you're gonna have to do better than Zola I'm afraid to convince me.;)

LuckyLloyd

flahavaj wrote: »

I found that article to be very reasonable, makes some perfectly valid points, without being a mindless hatchet job on O' Neill.

Don't really see what the problem is tbh?

It is massively at odds with what is usually written about him.

LuckyLloyd

I think the mention of how the Martin Jol sacking set Spurs back was a decent shout, however there are three key differences in this case:



- O' Neill has repeated the same failure trajectory in a remarkably similar fashion for the second season in a row, whereas Jol had got much closer to the promised land and was sacked during a poor (and unexpected) short term run of form;

- O' Neill has had a large net spend whereas Jol did not, and Villa currently have the ability to have a decent net outlay where Spurs have a longstanding aversion to end a season in the red on transfers;

- Jol was replaced with a manager with inferior abilities, and no experience of the English game;


If O'Neill was replaced with Hodgson for example, I think it would be reasonable to expect a more positive outcome than that which befell Spurs.

flahavaj

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It is massively at odds with what is usually written about him.

Oh I know and apreciate that and agree 100%.

I meant why would O' Neill's defenders have a problem with the points made in the article, well made and accurate as they are.

CSF

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Call me crazy Esse but i'd like to see someone like Zola in the Villa job. Yeah WHU are ****e but thats because they are screwed financially. Zola always sets them up to play and pass the ball around. Thats all i really want tbh,a Villa team that can pass it around a bit, it can't be that hard.

You're crazy.