Are Villa already too far gone?

CSF

Talisman wrote: »

The problem is the owner - in 2006, he haggled over the evaluation of the club he was buying and walked away from the deal for the sake of £1.5M. In the end, Doug Ellis dropped the valuation by £1.6M to close the deal. Randy Lerner is either a shrewd business man or penny pinching bar steward. His performance as owner/chairman of the club suggests the latter.

O'Neill had the team on the cusp of breaking into the top 4, Lerner decided that the squad didn't warrant further investment so O'Neill resigned. Since then the team have been treading water, transfer fees recouped have been reinvested but nothing further invested. That is a recipe for disaster in the Premier League, with the lucrative TV deals and sooner or later the lack of proper investment in the squad will catch up with you.

The managerial appointments have been a reflection of the lack of ambition of the owner : Houllier, McLeish, Lambert and Sherwood were all safe options with the aim of doing enough to keep the club in the league.

Sherwood got screwed when Liverpool bought Benteke's contract, as a direct result the club also lost Delph. The money was reinvested but it's impossible to build a team in a single transfer window and bedding in a large number of players at once takes time.

It's not too late for them to save themselves, they are only 4 points off of the position Leicester found themselves in at the same time last season. However the big difference is Aston Villa are not a cohesive unit unlike the Leicester team.

There are alot of inaccuracies here. O'Neill wasted alot of money at Villa. The upward curve had ceased by the time O'Neill stopped being funded. With the emergence of Sheik City, top 4 would never really have been an option. None of the 4 managers after O'Neill were 'safe' options, merely cheap ones. McLeish as a Premier League manager is about as unsafe as you can get. The likes of Pulis, Allardyce, those are safe options.

Delph didn't leave because Benteke did. He left before Benteke having already engineered his exit a few months previous by insisting on a miniscule release clause in his contract if he was too sign. If the money came, Delph was never staying, in spite of his attempts to paint himself as a proper working man's footballer.

Sherwood wasn't screwed, he screwed himself. The setup in so many games was just bizarre, at 2 nil up against Leicester he engineered the situation that has lef to where we are now, by refusing to shore up when 2 nil up away from home. Bizarre tactic after bizarre tactic later, he had to go.

In spite of the shambles that is the running of the club, I think most Villa fans would agree that based on what we've seen since Garde came in, had he got a pre-season with these players and not come into a team with rock bottom confidence, Villa would be putting in a much better shot at a relegation battle.

Talisman

CSF wrote: »

There are alot of inaccuracies here. O'Neill wasted alot of money at Villa. The upward curve had ceased by the time O'Neill stopped being funded. With the emergence of Sheik City, top 4 would never really have been an option.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Villa not finish 6th in three successive seasons before Lerner pulled the plug? In each of those seasons they got progressively closer to the top four. The teams that finished above them for two of those seasons were Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton. In 2007/8 Aston Villa finished 6th, 16 points off fourth place. In 2008/9 they finished 10 points off fourth and in 2009/10 they finished 6 points off of fourth. Liverpool were headed for bankruptcy at that point and Man City were pissing away money but still hadn't secured a lucrative top 4 place in the league. Spin it however you choose but the historical league tables suggest the upward curve had not ceased. Had Lerner not made the decision to stop funding the team, Villa were perfectly placed to challenge for the top 4. Of course there is no guarantee that they would have made it but there never is for any team.

None of the 4 managers after O'Neill were 'safe' options, merely cheap ones. McLeish as a Premier League manager is about as unsafe as you can get. The likes of Pulis, Allardyce, those are safe options.

That depends on your definition of safe. None of the appointed managers were likely to rock the boat regarding the transfer budget or have ambitions beyond keeping the team in the league. Tony Pulis most certainly would have caused some friction with the owner over transfers.

Delph didn't leave because Benteke did. He left before Benteke having already engineered his exit a few months previous by insisting on a miniscule release clause in his contract if he was too sign. If the money came, Delph was never staying, in spite of his attempts to paint himself as a proper working man's footballer.

I never said he left because Benteke had - try reading the text as it was written. Delph announced he had turned down the move to Man City on July 11th, and then did a U-turn on his decision to stay (July 17th) which was after Villa accepted Liverpool's offer for Benteke (July 16th).

Sherwood wasn't screwed, he screwed himself. The setup in so many games was just bizarre, at 2 nil up against Leicester he engineered the situation that has lef to where we are now, by refusing to shore up when 2 nil up away from home. Bizarre tactic after bizarre tactic later, he had to go.

In spite of the shambles that is the running of the club, I think most Villa fans would agree that based on what we've seen since Garde came in, had he got a pre-season with these players and not come into a team with rock bottom confidence, Villa would be putting in a much better shot at a relegation battle.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but Sherwood had setup Villa to get the best from Benteke and it worked. Tim Sherwood with a team including Delph and Benteke was a better prospect than a team managed by Sherwood without the two players and a bag full of money instead.

BUNK1982

Talisman wrote: »

Had Lerner not made the decision to stop funding the team, Villa were perfectly placed to challenge for the top 4.

Lerner funded Villa under MO'Neill to the point where they were one of the biggest spenders in Europe. There was a real opportunity to secure 4th one season when Villa were well ahead of Arsenal in January but all MON could think to do was buy Emile Heskey!

That's when things really started to go awry....

pavb2

All with the benefit of hindsight but the young and hungry player strategy under Paul Lambert didn't work out.

Unfortunately experienced players Villa have brought in over the last couple of seasons have been at the tail end of their careers and not really offered much Joe Cole, senderos, Kieron Richardson. The exception being Micah Richards who has consistently performed well this season.

With the sale of benteke and delph £50 mill +, Villa have brought in 13 odd players with very little PL experience. The approach should have been to sign possibly fewer players coming into or at the peak of their PL careers. Not to say the signings are all bad but I think it's generally accepted that foreign players especially so many at once need at least a season to settle in.

Having said that I agree with others that had Remi Garde had the team pre season we wouldn't be as badly off. The situation with Sherwood not playing the new signings was a farce.

The £50 mill was a missed opportunity to provide some stability and get out of the perennial relegation battle.

astonaidan

BUNK1982 wrote: »

Lerner funded Villa under MO'Neill to the point where they were one of the biggest spenders in Europe. There was a real opportunity to secure 4th one season when Villa were well ahead of Arsenal in January but all MON could think to do was buy Emile Heskey!

That's when things really started to go awry....

To this day, that makes me cry. What makes it worse we spent like 30million on Darren Bent a few years later, that if we had just spent then we really would have been deadly. It was a massive opportunity missed, Saying the MON still has been our best manager since Gregory.

Talisman

BUNK1982 wrote: »

Lerner funded Villa under MO'Neill to the point where they were one of the biggest spenders in Europe.

The same could be said of nearly all of the top Premier League clubs. Europe is of no relevance when it's the Premier League is where the club is competing. Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd were the established top three sides in the league. At the time, Everton, Liverpool and Tottenham were competing for the fourth Champions League spot. They were the three teams that Villa had to compete with before Man City established themselves.

The figures listed below are gross spending for the seasons 2006/7 - 2010/11 courtesy of Transferleague.co.uk. Villa didn't outspend Tottenham or Liverpool during that period. My rough calculations suggest Liverpool (£172M) spent around £54M more than Aston Villa (£119M) during O'Neill's time as manager. Tottenham (£216M) spent around £97M more during the same period.

O'Neill did quite well considering the level of investment relative to the other clubs.

Premier League Transfer Spending 2006/7
Tottenham : £48.9M
Liverpool : £28M
Newcastle : £19.9M
Man Utd : £18.6M
Aston Villa : £17.1M
Birmingham : £17.1M
Arsenal : £13.9M
Chelsea : £12M
Blackburn : £11.2M
Bolton : £9M
Everton : £7M
Man City : £2.4M

Premier League Transfer Spending 2007/8
Liverpool : £69.7M
Man Utd : £61.7M
Tottenham : £48.7M
Man City : £45.8M
Chelsea : £40.5M
Arsenal : £31M
Bolton : £27.8M
Everton : £19.2M
Newcastle : £18.5M
Aston Villa : £16.2M
Birmingham : £10.2M
Blackburn : £3.8M

Premier League Transfer Spending 2008/9
Man City : £127.7M
Tottenham : £87.2M
Aston Villa : £48.4M
Liverpool : £39M
Man Utd : £35.7M
Newcastle : £30M
Chelsea : £24.2M
Everton : £17M
Arsenal : £15.7M
Blackburn : £10.8M
Bolton : £2M
Birmingham : £1M

Premier League Transfer Spending 2009/10
Man City : £125M
Aston Villa : £37.5M
Liverpool : £36M
Tottenham : £32M
Chelsea : £23.5M
Man Utd : £21M
Everton : £20M
Birmingham : £16.7M
Blackburn : £12.9M
Arsenal : £10M
Newcastle : £1.5M

Premier League Transfer Spending 2010/11
Man City : £154.7M
Chelsea : £94.6M
Liverpool : £80M
Aston Villa : £32.2M
Man Utd : £27.2M
Birmingham : £19.8M
Tottenham : £18.5M
Arsenal : £14.5M
Newcastle : £10.2M
Everton : £1.5M

Corholio

pavb2 wrote: »

Having said that I agree with others that had Remi Garde had the team pre season we wouldn't be as badly off. The situation with Sherwood not playing the new signings was a farce.
.

It's an interesting point and I'm not sure where I stand on it. I have to admit that for all the bluster that Fox has talked about Sherwood having complete final say on all transfers, I don't fully believe him. I don't believe that if Sherwood had full control that the same players would have been signed. That's not to give Sherwood an excuse or anything, his picking of teams was at times bizarre but with the setup at Villa how it is with Almstadt and Reilly there, I don't believe that they are there just to recommend players to the club and it taken off their hands then.

topmanamillion

Talisman wrote: »

The same could be said of nearly all of the top Premier League clubs. Europe is of no relevance when it's the Premier League is where the club is competing. Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd were the established top three sides in the league. At the time, Everton, Liverpool and Tottenham were competing for the fourth Champions League spot. They were the three teams that Villa had to compete with before Man City established themselves.

The figures listed below are gross spending for the seasons 2006/7 - 2010/11 courtesy of Transferleague.co.uk. Villa didn't outspend Tottenham or Liverpool during that period. My rough calculations suggest Liverpool (£172M) spent around £54M more than Aston Villa (£119M) during O'Neill's time as manager. Tottenham (£216M) spent around £97M more during the same period.

O'Neill did quite well considering the level of investment relative to the other clubs.

Premier League Transfer Spending 2006/7
Tottenham : £48.9M
Liverpool : £28M
Newcastle : £19.9M
Man Utd : £18.6M
Aston Villa : £17.1M
Birmingham : £17.1M
Arsenal : £13.9M
Chelsea : £12M
Blackburn : £11.2M
Bolton : £9M
Everton : £7M
Man City : £2.4M

Premier League Transfer Spending 2007/8
Liverpool : £69.7M
Man Utd : £61.7M
Tottenham : £48.7M
Man City : £45.8M
Chelsea : £40.5M
Arsenal : £31M
Bolton : £27.8M
Everton : £19.2M
Newcastle : £18.5M
Aston Villa : £16.2M
Birmingham : £10.2M
Blackburn : £3.8M

Premier League Transfer Spending 2008/9
Man City : £127.7M
Tottenham : £87.2M
Aston Villa : £48.4M
Liverpool : £39M
Man Utd : £35.7M
Newcastle : £30M
Chelsea : £24.2M
Everton : £17M
Arsenal : £15.7M
Blackburn : £10.8M
Bolton : £2M
Birmingham : £1M

Premier League Transfer Spending 2009/10
Man City : £125M
Aston Villa : £37.5M
Liverpool : £36M
Tottenham : £32M
Chelsea : £23.5M
Man Utd : £21M
Everton : £20M
Birmingham : £16.7M
Blackburn : £12.9M
Arsenal : £10M
Newcastle : £1.5M

Premier League Transfer Spending 2010/11
Man City : £154.7M
Chelsea : £94.6M
Liverpool : £80M
Aston Villa : £32.2M
Man Utd : £27.2M
Birmingham : £19.8M
Tottenham : £18.5M
Arsenal : £14.5M
Newcastle : £10.2M
Everton : £1.5M

Haha to be honest he seems to have achieved just about what was expected seeing as they were in the top 5 spenders in all but one of those years!

BUNK1982

Corholio wrote: »

It's an interesting point and I'm not sure where I stand on it. I have to admit that for all the bluster that Fox has talked about Sherwood having complete final say on all transfers, I don't fully believe him. I don't believe that if Sherwood had full control that the same players would have been signed. That's not to give Sherwood an excuse or anything, his picking of teams was at times bizarre but with the setup at Villa how it is with Almstadt and Reilly there, I don't believe that they are there just to recommend players to the club and it taken off their hands then.

Can you imagine how things would be if Sherwood DID have control over all the transfers??

If that pillock was given free reign then we'd still be bottom of the table but would have spent 15m on Andros Townsend, 15m on Aaron Lennon and paying Adebayor 100k a week.

BUNK1982

topmanamillion wrote: »

Haha to be honest he seems to have achieved just about what was expected seeing as they were in the top 5 spenders in all but one of those years!

If you drill down into those numbers you'll see the root of the problem with O'Neill and the transfer market.

9m on Nigel Reo Coker whom he played at RB and left on a free, 9m on Carlos Cuellar who he played at LB and also left on a free - the list could go on. It's no wonder Randy Lerner wanted to curb his spending.

Lerner is incompetent though - his record at the Cleveland Browns and now Villa, he's inherited his wealth and is losing it hand over fist.

KaiserGunner

Yeah unfortunately I think they are gone. Think 1.5 points per game for the rest of the season is beyond them. It's sad to see as Villa are a big club and are too big for the championship IMO. Hope I'm wrong.

Corholio

BUNK1982 wrote: »

Can you imagine how things would be if Sherwood DID have control over all the transfers??

If that pillock was given free reign then we'd still be bottom of the table but would have spent 15m on Andros Townsend, 15m on Aaron Lennon and paying Adebayor 100k a week.

It's a fair point but if we are talking about comparing players then I would have taken all 3 of those players, figures arguable, against 3 of the players we did sign and having already knowing the league would be already adapted to it and playing better. I'm certainly no huge fan of Sherwood mainly to be his team picking shortcomings, however I do think if those were his targets it would be a better team than it is now rather than using a very important summer to make very risky and inexperienced signings across the board.

Bounty Hunter

tbh We did go after Adebayor and the only reason we didn't sign him is that he is a nutbar (iirc he contacted his spiritual advisor about the move or something similar) and didn't wanna leave London.

Which is a real pity cos we needed his type of CF badly and only on a loan it was no lose imo

BUNK1982

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

tbh We did go after Adebayor and the only reason we didn't sign him is that he is a nutbar (iirc he contacted his spiritual advisor about the move or something similar) and didn't wanna leave London.

Which is a real pity cos we needed his type of CF badly and only on a loan it was no lose imo

Yes but our lads would have been negotiating with Daniel Levy so you can be sure Villa would've ended up with the ****ty end of the stick.

GavRedKing

Two huge relegation 6 pointers this weekend, Newcastle v Villa and Chelsea v Sunderland.

Bounty Hunter

BUNK1982 wrote: »

Yes but our lads would have been negotiating with Daniel Levy so you can be sure Villa would've ended up with the ****ty end of the stick.

as far as I could tell the very worst case scenario was Villa paying 100k a week. When you consider the cost of relegation and how a CF like him would have plugged so many of the problems we have and that he would be off the wage bill at the end of the year I'd have been ok with that, and thats worst case.

The rumored prices for Townsend and co (15m iirc) were mad though. Def think Villa should have spent more of the TV money as we barely spent anything over what was brough in from Delph, Benteke and the other smaller sales. If we had even spent 12m or whatever it was on an Austin type it coulda made a massive difference

BUNK1982

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

as far as I could tell the very worst case scenario was Villa paying 100k a week. When you consider the cost of relegation and how a CF like him would have plugged so many of the problems we have and that he would be off the wage bill at the end of the year I'd have been ok with that, and thats worst case.

The rumored prices for Townsend and co (15m iirc) were mad though. Def think Villa should have spent more of the TV money as we barely spent anything over what was brough in from Delph, Benteke and the other smaller sales. If we had even spent 12m or whatever it was on an Austin type it coulda made a massive difference

Without doubt - they lost 3x first team regulars in Benteke, Delph and Cleverly and should have been looking to spend 50m plus some more again to replace them at the very least and to improve the squad.

Bounty Hunter

Villa not at all being helped by all the other teams at the bottom suddenly remembering how to win and against teams they are def not expected to aswell.

Newcastle beat Liverpool and spurs last 2 games
Bournemouth beat Man Utd & Chelsea

and now Norwich are beating Man Utd! While Bournemouth's opposition have gotten a player sent off

Game against Newcastle is fecking huge today!

Bobby Baccala

If Villa lose today (which looks likely) I reckon they've gone too far. It's unfortunate because I've always had a soft spot for them.

chopperbyrne

They need to get eleven points (three more than they've managed in half a season so far) while hoping the teams above them pick up no points to get out of the relegation zone by goal difference.

They're going down.

They should start preparing for a season in the Championship.

Gbear

Given that about half a teams signings tend to fail outright and half of what's left need time to settle, it's no wonder Villa have struggled after replacing their two best players.

Changing the composition of your squad from a one or two man team to something more balanced makes sense, especially when smaller teams often don't have much of a choice in the matter.
Look at Spurs. They didn't do a whole lot straight away with the Bale money and there were quite a few missteps, but now the squad they tried to put together has had time to coalesce and they're possibly favourites for third and certainly a very strong shout for CL.

But you can't afford a few years of ****ing about it you're just above relegation like Villa. A small drop off can be terminal.

monkey9

chopperbyrne wrote: »

They need to get eleven points (three more than they've managed in half a season so far) while hoping the teams above them pick up no points to get out of the relegation zone by goal difference.

They're going down.

They should start preparing for a season in the Championship.

Yeah, this is the main reason i feel they're already gone. They are more points away from safety than they've managed to accumulate all season so far. Even if they get those points from here until the end of the season, they'll obviously need more anyway because other teams above them will gain their own points.

It's just too much for Villa. Unless Garde makes some very clever signings in January (if he makes any at all), they're gone.

cson

No point signing anyone now in January, start preparing for life in the Championship. Garde won't bring them back up so that's change number 1; as for the players; where do you even begin?

Paully D

Absolutely nailed on to win at the weekend.

No win in 7 for Garde. Don't worry Remi, step forward Sunderland AFC.

topmanamillion

Jack Grealish playing Champions League football next season. Oh no I mean championship football😂😂😂😂

weadick

Since I started supporting Villa in the early 90's I think there were three really pivitol moments when the club could have pushed on and become serious contenders for the champions league if not the title. Obviously there was 1993 when they were in a good position to win the PL up until April, then there was 2000 when they got a lot of sponsorship money from NTL and 2006 when Learner took over. On the latter two occasions they wasted vast amounts of money on overrated and over the hill British/Irish players who were good for a season or two and then just hung around on massive money before they could be sold off or given away for free.

Gregory and O'Neill were very similar managers who liked to buy British and employ an extremely rudimentary style of play that worked against most PL teams but was usually found out fairly easily when we played any of the top 4-5.

I think the biggest blunder was by Lerner from 2006 onwards. Whereas you could say at least Ellis did a decent job at balancing the books and keeping the club stable until someone with tons of money/ambition could come in, it seems as if Lerner was clueless from the word go. There doesn't seem to have been any clear strategy or transfer policy since he arrived. Giving free reign to O'Neill to sign whoever he wanted at whatever price was a nice idea in theory but when it didn't breed success it was as if Lerner just panicked. The appointment of Houllier and buying Darren Bent were two inexplicable decisions.

One think the Americans were good at though was marketing. I was really taken in by the 'Proud history, bright future' bull****. I thought we had an owner that really cared about the club and achieving success the right way. Boy was I wrong.

Villas placing in the league table now is the product of ten years of mismanagement, stretching right back to 2006.

Gavlor

Paully D wrote: »

Absolutely nailed on to win at the weekend.

No win in 7 for Garde. Don't worry Remi, step forward Sunderland AFC.

With that attitude You should really support Everton

Edit: the premier league needs Aston Villa and Leeds Utd in the long term. It's all well and good Watford, palace & Leicester doing well this season but next year it'll be back to the usual top 7 dominating. At least villa, leeds and maybe a Sheffield club could break the mould .

As for the North East, the 3 clubs are one big circus.

pavb2

No fight or heart left in Villa our fat lady has gone triple platinum.
(The Villa Blog)

Paully D

weadick wrote: »

The appointment of Houllier and buying Darren Bent were two inexplicable decisions.

Buying Darren Bent was a fantastic decision by Villa IMO.

When he came in you were in 19th place with 21 points, had 1 win in the last 11 games and had only scored 23 goals in 21 games (only 3 teams had scored less at that point). His impact was immediate. He came in and scored 9 goals in 16 games and you eventually finished in 9th place with 48 points. In his second season, his season was finished in February due to injury but he was still your top scorer with 9 goals in 22 games and 1 in less than 2.5 games is a good record for a striker in a relegation threatened side.

It went sour for him after that but in all honesty Villa simply improved their striking options by signing what turned out to be a better player in Benteke who scored 19 in 34 in the league in his first season at the club.

Sure, he cost a lot of money, but his fee has probably been paid back 5 times over now. Of all the bad decisions Villa have made over the years, signing Bent would be right down at the bottom of the list for me.

astonaidan

Paully D wrote: »

Buying Darren Bent was a fantastic decision by Villa IMO.

When he came in you were in 19th place with 21 points, had 1 win in the last 11 games and had only scored 23 goals in 21 games (only 3 teams had scored less at that point). His impact was immediate. He came in and scored 9 goals in 16 games and you eventually finished in 9th place with 48 points. In his second season, his season was finished in February due to injury but he was still your top scorer with 9 goals in 22 games and 1 in less than 2.5 games is a good record for a striker in a relegation threatened side.

It went sour for him after that but in all honesty Villa simply improved their striking options by signing what turned out to be a better player in Benteke who scored 19 in 34 in the league in his first season at the club.

Sure, he cost a lot of money, but his fee has probably been paid back 5 times over now. Of all the bad decisions Villa have made over the years, signing Bent would be right down at the bottom of the list for me.

Dam right, Ive said it before we should have got him when we got Heskey, signing Bent not something Villa will regret at all

weadick

Paully D wrote: »

Buying Darren Bent was a fantastic decision by Villa IMO.

When he came in you were in 19th place with 21 points, had 1 win in the last 11 games and had only scored 23 goals in 21 games (only 3 teams had scored less at that point). His impact was immediate. He came in and scored 9 goals in 16 games and you eventually finished in 9th place with 48 points. In his second season, his season was finished in February due to injury but he was still your top scorer with 9 goals in 22 games and 1 in less than 2.5 games is a good record for a striker in a relegation threatened side.

It went sour for him after that but in all honesty Villa simply improved their striking options by signing what turned out to be a better player in Benteke who scored 19 in 34 in the league in his first season at the club.

Sure, he cost a lot of money, but his fee has probably been paid back 5 times over now. Of all the bad decisions Villa have made over the years, signing Bent would be right down at the bottom of the list for me.

I didn't say it was a bad decision it just didn't make any sense at the time. The right time to buy Bent was a year or two earlier when he might have helped to push us into the top 4. Would have made a lot more sense than Heskey anyway.

blueser

Afraid to say, I think they're doomed. They need to win 10 out of their remaining 19 games to get to 38 points, which may be enough to stay up. Not totally impossible, that's true. But they've only won 1 out of their first 19. It's just too big a change of form. And I can't see
A. Who's going to get the goals to win them those games. And
B. The defence is just too error prone.

Sorry fellas; it's sad when you see a major club struggling.

Leroy42

blueser wrote: »

Sorry fellas; it's sad when you see a major club struggling.

Is it? The likes of Watford, Leicster and CP have showed what can be achieved if things are done right. Why would you have any sympathy for a company that has mishandled its business in the last few years?

They had everything going for them. A big customer base, a widely popular product (EPL) and staggeringly loyal customer base (many industries would kill to have the almost birth to death loyalty shown to clubs) and sit very high up in the money table which tends to drive success.

Yet they have somehow contrived to end up as a complete shambles. No good players (or at least no players playing well), haven't done anything in terms if youth academy or development, haven't developed too much the stadium, the international appeal of the club etc.

A major club in terms of what they could have achieved, but then MySpace used to be a major online social platform. And I have no sympathy for the supporters either. Football supporters continued blind loyalty and willingness to continue to pay out their money to fund a club which is clearly not working is sad but its their decision. Maybe if more supporters put the long term success of the club in front of their own short term desire to watch the game then we would have more fan power at play and management would have to pay more attention. Instead we get fans complain of Radio 5 live but then dutifully buy the jerseys and the season tickets.

Its that sense of 'no matter what happens we are guaranteed X money anyway' which drives club management to be so laid back about decisions, which is what has lead to this situation.

CSF

Blaming the fans for still going to games is genuinely one of the most stupid things I've ever heard.

Leroy42

CSF wrote: »

Blaming the fans for still going to games is genuinely one of the most stupid things I've ever heard.

They pays the money. If they don't like what is happening it seems that many fans feel the best course of action to ....continue to go to the games but maybe not applaud as much.

The product being sold to them is terrible, yet they continue to buy it. Whilst it is not their fault that the product is so bad, all clubs know that they can count on fans to continue to turn up and pay out, so there is no rush to fix things. If the fans stopped going to a few games, TV showing largely empty stadium, the management would be forced to take action.

So unless you feel that fans had no choice but to go to the games, how exactly is it stupid to blame them for continuing to back such a situation?

Fans want to watch football, I get it, and put that desire ahead of the long term future of the club. In most cases it doesn't need to happen, but it has been clear for a number of years that Villa were going down this road and yet the fans tacidly accepted it.

In most industries if the product isn't good enough sales will be hit, not so in football and that has an impact on what the management of a club feels they need to do. It is clear that Villa thought they only needed to tread water and survive in mid table obscurity and the fans are willing to accept it. Now its bit them in the bum and no point complaining now

Bounty Hunter

In most industries if the product isn't good enough sales will be hit, not so in football and that has an impact on what the management of a club feels they need to do. It is clear that Villa thought they only needed to tread water and survive in mid table obscurity and the fans are willing to accept it. Now its bit them in the bum and no point complaining now

Relegation will cost Villa a sh!t tonne of money, that should be motivation enough from a financial sense if thats the only type of motivation we are talking about. The fans should be commended for not abandoning the club cos they are doing so bad not blamed in any way.

The fans don't want the manager out so they are turning up and supporting Garde and trying to motivate the team to do better. Less fans showed up when McLeish was in charge for example. Lerner etc though needed to heed the warning of potential relegation before now. Now it's too late.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Gavlor wrote: »

With that attitude You should really support Everton

Edit: the premier league needs Aston Villa and Leeds Utd in the long term. It's all well and good Watford, palace & Leicester doing well this season but next year it'll be back to the usual top 7 dominating. At least villa, leeds and maybe a Sheffield club could break the mould .

As for the North East, the 3 clubs are one big circus.

Leeds, the Sheffield clubs and looking a sure bet that villa can't even manage to stay in the top flight so what would have you think they could challenge for a european spot, not to mind a CL spot?

obezyana

Maybe the Villa board seemed to think they were too big and too good to go down. They should of stuck with Sherwood I think he would of kept them up.

They may just end up going the same way Leeds went or maybe a spell in the Championship will do them a world of good. They bring nothing to the PL so I won't be sorry to see them go down. It will of course be sad to see them go the way of Leeds (if it happens) which is a real probability.

They have zero ambition and finally the people who run the club are going to get what they put into the club......a Championship level team in a Championship level club with mid table Championship level ambition.

Gavlor

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Leeds, the Sheffield clubs and looking a sure bet that villa can't even manage to stay in the top flight so what would have you think they could challenge for a european spot, not to mind a CL spot?

I was referring to potential considering the size of the clubs, facilities, fan base & history.

Not just a snapshot of the last few years.

Do you think Watford, palace etc are bigger clubs than villa & Leeds?

obezyana

Gavlor wrote: »

I was referring to potential considering the size of the clubs, facilities, fan base & history.

Not just a snapshot of the last few years.

Do you think Watford, palace etc are bigger clubs than villa & Leeds?

Maybe it's time for clubs/owners/fans to forget obsessing about this big club nonsense and focus on having ambition. The likes of Palace, Watford etc are perfect examples of clubs with ambition. Whether they keep that ambition the longer they stay in the top flight who knows but one thing is for sure Villa just don't show ambition to remain in the PL.

The big clubs in the PL that show ambition and have the name (and money) to sign better players are

Man U
Man City
Chelsea
Arsenal
Spurs
Liverpool.

The others playing catch up are at least trying to catch up, they are trying to do better things. Villa aren't one of them. Even the likes of Bournemouth are showing a desire to play to good football and fight for their PL status.

Watford, Stoke, Palace, West Ham, Everton, Southampton etc all have good managers with good players all hungry to remain in the PL. This is why none of those are in trouble.

CSF

Leroy42 wrote: »

They pays the money. If they don't like what is happening it seems that many fans feel the best course of action to ....continue to go to the games but maybe not applaud as much.

The product being sold to them is terrible, yet they continue to buy it. Whilst it is not their fault that the product is so bad, all clubs know that they can count on fans to continue to turn up and pay out, so there is no rush to fix things. If the fans stopped going to a few games, TV showing largely empty stadium, the management would be forced to take action.

So unless you feel that fans had no choice but to go to the games, how exactly is it stupid to blame them for continuing to back such a situation?

Fans want to watch football, I get it, and put that desire ahead of the long term future of the club. In most cases it doesn't need to happen, but it has been clear for a number of years that Villa were going down this road and yet the fans tacidly accepted it.

In most industries if the product isn't good enough sales will be hit, not so in football and that has an impact on what the management of a club feels they need to do. It is clear that Villa thought they only needed to tread water and survive in mid table obscurity and the fans are willing to accept it. Now its bit them in the bum and no point complaining now

And just what do you think a boycott would achieve? Get Lerner out? He wants to go. Make Lerner try harder or fund managers more? He's done that plenty, he's just pretty clueless. Or is this like one of those green and gold scarf things that actually achieve nothing but make people feel they're a part of something meaningful?

It's all well and good talking about product as someone who chose to support the best team but we don't all have the luxury of throwing the toys out of the pram if the style of football isn't to our likings.

Realistically, unless Guzan and Agbonlahor are going to agree to a '100k retweets and we will terminate our contracts for free' then the only way fanpower will achieve anything is by getting behind a team and manager who seem to be trying and unfortunately failing. Lerner wants out anyway.

Leroy42

Gavlor wrote: »

I was referring to potential considering the size of the clubs, facilities, fan base & history.

Not just a snapshot of the last few years.

Do you think Watford, palace etc are bigger clubs than villa & Leeds?

It depends of what you use as the criteria for judging a club size. If you take the current position, then Leeds are a Championship club, Vila soon will be, the same with Wednesday.

So teams like Palace, Watford etc are bigger clubs. They have more money (well more in terms if incoming anyway), more ability to attract bigger name players, more appealing to sponsors.

The only criteria with which to place teams like Villa ahead of them is history. But its the very notion of history that leads clubs to think they cannot not possibly go down. It leads to clubs like Villa to sleepwalk into the crisis they find themselves in.

No team has a devine right to win, or even compete. What you find is that success tends to bring future success if handled correctly. Win something, build something and better players will start to come, better managers, better results lead to more fans, more money, more sponsors, better players and around we go.

But as Liverpool have found, past glories will only insulate you for so long. Utd are finding they have to pay more and more to get players to move to them, as the potential success is diminishings so money is used to compensate. Whilst in the current situation Utd can afford it, that will not last and eventually the money will start to decrease and the merry go round turns the other way.

In terms of the fans, it is the very notion that fans must be seen to support the players/manager despite what is being produced that enables club to get away with selling their top players each year. Fans are of the opinion that they are somehow bad people if they refuse to accept bad performance. It seems to prove you are a fan if you continue to support your team no matter what.

But it is that very trueism, that fans will accept anything, that allows boards of clubs to act they way they do. There is literally no consequence for them.

Villa assumed they were good enough, by dint of others being worse, of staying in the gravy train of the EPL despite doing nothing about it. Of course they didn't set out to get relegated, but the lack of any clear plan and it appears the stronger desire to spend as little as possible was the driving force.

K-9

Gavlor wrote: »

I was referring to potential considering the size of the clubs, facilities, fan base & history.

Not just a snapshot of the last few years.

Do you think Watford, palace etc are bigger clubs than villa & Leeds?

That's like me saying Liverpool should be in the CL every year because of our history and size!

No team has a right or deserve to be in anything because of history or size. If the likes of Palace or Southampton establish themselves at others expense, so be it.

Forest, Leeds, Wednesday, Bolton etc. are all there because better ran clubs are in the PL. Plus with the TV
money the way it is going, even stadium size isn't as big a deal for the likes of Palace.

SantryRed

Gavlor wrote: »

With that attitude You should really support Everton

Edit: the premier league needs Aston Villa and Leeds Utd in the long term. It's all well and good Watford, palace & Leicester doing well this season but next year it'll be back to the usual top 7 dominating. At least villa, leeds and maybe a Sheffield club could break the mould .

As for the North East, the 3 clubs are one big circus.

I'm sorry, the Premier League needs no one. Watford, Palace and Leicester are signs of some well run clubs doing things right. I'm delighted to see some new blood in the Premier League and to see clubs who have been hanging on for years going down. It's freshening things up and you could argue it's one of the biggest reasons for the season we are seeing! Teams not afraid to have a proper go.

K-9

Probably the best atmospheres are at clubs promoted the last few years too.

Things change quickly, few years there was a load of club in the NW in the PL.

CSF

K-9 wrote: »

Probably the best atmospheres are at clubs promoted the last few years too.

Things change quickly, few years there was a load of club in the NW in the PL.

It's the same in most countries too, clubs on a rush of positive momentum generally perform better than clubs in a prolonged rut.

Obviously I'd have rathered to stay up, but going down might be the low point that brings on a rush of positive momentum. Unfortunately it might not even yet be the low point and you're not much less likely to be a Blackburn or worse a Leeds than you are to bounce back at the first attempt.

obezyana

K-9 wrote: »

Probably the best atmospheres are at clubs promoted the last few years too.

Things change quickly, few years there was a load of club in the NW in the PL.

Palace have created a fantastic atmosphere at Selhurst Park and teams dont like going there now. It's noisy they have a good team they play good attacking football and they show a desire to compete. This is what Villa need.

CSF

obezyana wrote: »

Palace have created a fantastic atmosphere at Selhurst Park and teams dont like going there now. It's noisy they have a good team they play good attacking football and they show a desire to compete. This is what Villa need.

This is a very short-term view aswell though. Before midway through last season Palace looked perennially doomed also. Things change mighty quickly in football, and the ones I'd be aspiring towards are the ones who can overachieve consistently. Stoke I guess. Maybe Swansea.

obezyana

CSF wrote: »

This is a very short-term view aswell though. Before midway through last season Palace looked perennially doomed also. Things change mighty quickly in football, and the ones I'd be aspiring towards are the ones who can overachieve consistently. Stoke I guess. Maybe Swansea.

Maybe so but at least they are trying whereas Villa don't. The money coming into the PL should be motivation to want to stay in the division. Villa seemed to have not seen or planned for this. Other clubs have even some championship clubs have invested to make the best attempt at getting to the promised land. They see potential they see the money the rewards and your right most of em will probably be short lived and some will even go the way of Villa but and this is the important bit, Villa have been piss poor for the last few years and they have been declining at a rapid rate but yet and still the owner and the people running the club let it happen because they did not have the foresight or the ambition to fight for their status in the PL. They like some fans believed the crap that they were to big to go down.

K-9

Palace had to establish themselves though. West Brom have done that after being a yo-yo club.