weedman

18 minutes ago, AVTuco said:

I like Samatta. I see potential in him I never saw in Wesley (sorry Wesley). I'm not sure Samatta can save us yet, but I'd hang onto him long term, even if he didn't score loads in the last ten games.

That's because Samatta has realised his potential and is basically in his prime as a player. Wesley is young (and by all accounts a few years behind development wise due to being picked up older than other players) and he's all potential hence looks a worse player today.

You'd need to compare Samatta now with Wesley in 5 or 6 years for an accurate comparison. Not saying he'll be better, but I like Wes and think he'll be a good player in time. Samatta also looks good and we desperately needed a more finished product up front in our first season back, fingers crossed he can be the difference for us in these last 10 games, a bit like Vardy was for Leicester for their great escape 

14 hours ago, Keyblade said:

If Steer is fit he should start. He's our second choice, with Heaton being the clear first choice. He's done nothing but prove himself whereas Nyland and Reina have proven they're not up to it.

I agree. It's so easy to forget about Steer because he just doesn't look like he'd be a good keeper, but Heaton aside he's been comfortably our most consistent keeper in recent times.

Reina has made mistake after mistake, flaps at crosses and looks like he's totally comfortable with the ball at his feet but falls apart as soon as he has to do any goalkeeping. Nyland has been good and I think there's a keeper there since he got over his teething problems when he 1st joined, but you can't say he hasn't made a lot of errors since joining. 

Steer has just got on with it, he's small but seems confident to come for crosses, can make saves and pass the ball. Order should be... 

1) Heaton

2) Steer 

3) Nyland 

4) Reina

We know Heaton is out, so Steer should be in unless he's injured, in which case it should be Nyland. Reina should only be a last resort, I imagine he'll retire once his contracts up 

17 hours ago, TRO said:

They don't Nick, its a model brought from the contintent and we have taken it on board.

I see fors and againsts, I am not completely taken with it.

Martin Samuel made a good case against it with Arsenal in last Fridays Daily Mail.

I think if you are building a team, the manager should do it.....if you are buying, with one eye on selling, then it might be ok.....much of what Samuel was saying too.

It was only brought in to stop complete short termism that old school managers employed. Managers do not care about the future of the club, they care about their job and their paycheck. If the average span of a manager is 2 years why should they bring in 17/18/19 year olds for 5x the price of a 32 year old? Sure the club may reap the benefits in 5 years time, but if the manager has been sacked by then what does he care? 

With the managers in control you end up with us under MON or Bruce. Good team, good players, but no sell on value and a rapidly depleting bank balance that will, eventually, run dry and leave us with a team of 30+ year olds ready to retire and no way to replace them (short of a ridiculously lucky timing takeover from a couple of billionaires) 

If we hadn't been taken over after the playoff defeat, either Bruce would have left and been able to say "I did everything I could, the finances aren't my problem really" and he still would have eventually been picked up by a bottom feeder like Newcastle, or he'd have been forced to stay as we couldn't afford to sack him and probably would have kept us away from relegation and taken all the sympathy for our poor position as it's "not his fault we're bankrupt". And he'd be paid through the whole thing! Win win for him, the only losers would be us. 

That is why you have to take transfers out of the managers hand to a certain extent, to survive as a club you need young and improving players, to survive as a manager you need experienced, expensive players at their peak who'll never really grow in value. The club has to take priority 

44 minutes ago, nick76 said:

We do block you but when people quote you it shows us. You fill pages of threads because people are disagreeing with your stupid points, so we still see them and have to wade past them to see proper discussion/debates by real posters.

Absolutely spot on. I barely post here anymore because I just can't be bothered to read through a certain poster relentlessly trolling and constant biters. It ruins what was a really good forum prior to his arrival. 

You know he's a troll because he consistently ignores any points that prove him wrong, only to repeat the same statement again 20 minutes later like no-one ever responded.

When it's quiet like now there's no point really coming here because there's no other conversation to blank him out with

Just now, PaulC said:

I know football is not essential but one life is no more valuable than another. 

All life is valuable, and to ask people to risk it is massive and should only be done in extreme circumstances, like when your essential people during a global pandemic without whom many multiple thousands would suffer and die. Not when you're a dude getting paid £20-250k per week to kick a ball around. It's chalk and cheese 

1 minute ago, PaulC said:

So you are saying it’s ok for them to risk their lives but not footballers 

Not ok. Its NECESSARY. Without them thousands would die. Without footballers a few fat cats will have to wait a month or 2 before buying a 4th Lambo. It's not remotely comparable

On 05/05/2020 at 11:05, Tomaszk said:

It's a good listen. Not overly insightful but pretty funny in parts.

Done nothing to convince me he was very lucky he had god given speed and was able to have a career in the Premier League.

Saying to Di Matteo I'll be here longer than you. After how he'd behaved the last season? Classic.

Also the end bit about Petrov. Not to say whether it's right or wrong but the way he can't fathom he hasn't been brought in to any job he wants. You don't get a job just because you ask, especially at a well run club.

He mentions other clubs inventing roles for ex-players, you don't want that unless it's warranted, becomes a right mess. Man Utd have been trying to get rid of Nicky Butt for years because he gets in the way of actual coaches.

I hear this all the time against him but being naturally gifted is surely the case for every PL player? Go watch Jack Grealish at 13 years old and tell me he isn't naturally gifted. Gabby was excellent for several years and you could tell he really worked on his game for those first 5/6 years or so, once we started the managerial merry go round he started to fall really, was OK under Lambert but awful from that point on.

I thought the interview was really good and I fully agree regarding Petrov, he'd be perfect as a youth coach because of the type of player he was, hard working, professional, obviously went through something that not many do and will have a new outlook on the back of it, he's clearly hugely liked and respected by all at the club, and was a modern enough player that he won't be a dinosaur as soon as he arrives, I can't think of any better former players to have a role here tbh

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

All the Leeds fans from last season still using the accounts. Amazingly none posted again after Derby knocked them out

It really is amazing with the history Leeds have they still jump the gun on everything. They seem to be celebrating our relegation with 10 games left and ditto for their promotion, didn't they do EXACTLY that last year only to fall away with a whimper?

It's also amazing that a group of fans that desperately tries to convince everyone they're a "big club" is still bitter about some nothing rivalry  we had for 1 season in the Championship, basically centered around them being upset that Grealish "dives" (ironic considering the last game we had their striker did a worse dive than anything I've seen a Villa player do in a decade that includes Ashley Young). They seem to find us more important than even Blues fans do, and it really is saying something to be more small time than Blues 

2 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

Yes you’re right if they can do it they will, but that’s down to money rather than what’s fairest.

The PL, until Spurs new ground, stuck to the rule that you couldn’t play games at a different stadium during a season because of integrity, so how does behind closed doors fit into that? Well it doesn’t, and it’s actually taking it to a much further extreme.

2 hours ago, nick76 said:

It may become a viable option but changes the playing field of the season.  You cant say the season has any integrity if you play part of the season under one environment and the other part under another environment.  The pressure is different, the advantage is different and it puts a different complexion on the game.  Home advantage is a proven influence over games (sometimes when you are playing badly and the home crowd get after you after twenty minutes it can be a disadvantage as well) but it plays into the psychology of tactics.  How many times have we heard managers or pundits saying the away side needs to keep the home side out for the first twenty minutes and then the fans will get on their backs.  How many times have the focus on a player, good or bad, influenced how that player plays.  To dismiss it out of hand just to complete the season is as bad as changing one of the rules of the game at this point in the season.....it impacts the integrity of the game enough to not be a real option.

Plus read my prior post on that this wont be in the easing of restrictions because 22 players, 1 ref, 2 assistants, plus subs, manager, 4th official and medics....that's around 50 people. 

First phase when restrictions are eased will be still less than 10-20 people....further there is still almost 100 games left of the PL so these players will be mixing with large gatherings every couple of days to complete the 100 games.  That isnt going to happen. 

Plus where are these tests coming from because the players wont be have to be tested once but many times during this period and I think the first responders should get priority along with vulnerable people rather than a sport.

Whose going to insurance footballers in this scenario as well.....the clubs or PL wont want the exposure of liability will they and who is going to insure the players gathering like this given how contagious this virus is and how much the players are worth.

 

Either football gets completed properly for the integrity of the game and the financial consequences of being relegated whether it is us or any other team or they end the season and decide to void it, relegate us or only promote the two teams from the championship.  Whatever the case they should end this season and start thinking about next season and stop kicking the can down the road so they can blame others.

2 hours ago, Zatman said:

Behind closed doors is a huge change of the rules. We have 6 home games left and our best form is at home, why should we lose that home advantage that say another team who has played 15 home games. 

Null and void or fans attending is the only way this finishes fairly 

Guys, I agree in part, but while all the talk of the integrity of the league, changing the rules and the playing field etc is correct, those things are gone regardless this season. Even if fans are allowed back to finish the season (which let's be honest definately won't happen), what if John McGinn scores the goals to keep us up or Wesley gets back just in time for our last game scoring to keep us up over West Ham? What if Reina decides he doesn't want to be in England any more so refuses to sign a short term extension and goes back to Spain? The "integrity" of the league is gone already.

Every option is a compromise, given the money that teams have already spent this season for whatever reason, IF its declared that its safe to resume behind closed doors then that's a better option for just about everyone than voiding the season. 

For what it's worth I still think it will be null and voided. I've said it since the first game was cancelled and I still think that, I can't see how they get around the June 30th issue and I think they're posturing to make it look like they are doing everything possible while waiting for either 1) a government announcement forcing their hand or 2) another major league voiding the season and setting a precedent 

2 hours ago, nick76 said:

Change the order to 1, 4, 3, 2

Behind closed loses integrity because of pressure and home advantage

Feel sorry for the top two in championship, so would promote without relegation

3 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

I would have to disagree that behind closed doors is fairer than null and void. What about home advantage? Where is your integrity?!

I have to disagree with you both here. Sure, that would work out better for us as we have several big home games coming up and we don't want to go down but come on guys, if the season can be completed, even if it's behind closed doors, it is 100% a better option than just voiding it. It would suck for us as home advantage could end up being pretty crucial but come on, this is an unprecedented time and something is going to have to give somewhere. 

I'm not a fan of the idea of behind closed doors matches, but you can guarantee that if that becomes a viable option they will do it, if we can't get fans in stadiums it's the next fairest way to end the season. Not perfect of course, but let's be realistic none of the available options will be, it's about finding the fairest solution to an unprecedented time.

Finishing the games, getting the TV money, getting an answer to promotions and relegation and champions etc after completing all matches is the fairest option. If that cannot happen, I just can't see the idea of promoting 2 but not relegating anyone working. It just seems so pie in the sky, for starters it's very clear that 3 teams should be promoted so by only promoting top 2 every team in the top 8 or 10 would have a grievance against the league for not allowing them the opportunity, which is potential legal action, secondly, how far down the pyramid do you go to keep the leagues even? What if there's 2 teams tied in 2nd and 3rd and one has a game in hand? 

If the games can't be completed I just can't see any realistic option apart from voiding it, which is why if behind closed doors becomes an option they will go for it 100%. If, at the end of the season we played 28 games with fans and were 19th in the league, it won't be the 10 games behind closed doors that relegated us. And at least everyone's in the same boat this way, it's just so much fairer than voiding the whole thing

3 hours ago, useless said:

Yes I agree that working out by average points per game is just as unfair, because we've had less opportunities than other teams to boost our average. Doing it like that there's also a scenario whereby teams having played less games can have an unfair advantage over teams that have played more, for example if were just above the relegation zone with a game in hand and with a better PPG average than the team in eighteenth place, we could play that game in hand, lose it and suddenly have a worse PPG average than the team in eighteenth place. So unless everyone has played the same amount of games it's always going to be unfair.

Fairest things to do in order 

1) finish the season as normal 

2) finish the season behind closed doors

3) null and void the season

4) the no relegation, promote the top 2 idea

5) Call the league done, wipe out the last result of every team who have played an extra game to make it games played even

6) Use average points to finish the season 

7) End the table as it stands 

Personally I think that only the first 3 options are remotely realistic, and with the finances involved in a full PL season they won't impact next season to finish this one.

If a new season has to start by say, the start of September latest, players and clubs will need at least say a 2 week pre season, following at least a 2 week end of season break. I think they've said it'll take 6 weeks to finish the season, and players will need at least 2 weeks to get up to speed again. So that's 12 weeks between training restarting and next season started, which is a massive push of course, but these are trying times. Working back from September 5th (latest the new season could realistically start I'd reckon), that means players have to be back in full training by June 13th at the absolute latest. 

All that assumes that they can get around the 30th June deadline, which would surprise me given what's potentially at stake (although not a lot will be official, I'm sure there are a lot of out of contract players that have preliminarily agreed new deals, are they going to risk a career ending injury on a short term contract that scuppers their new contract?) 

10 hours ago, sir_gary_cahill said:

I don’t know my own mind 

For some reason I read this in Karl Pilkintons voice

People should remember it's not just player contracts that change on June 30th.

This will also affect sponsors, kit manufacturers, advertisers in general. Everything contractual and football related runs from 1st July to 30th June.

It might not seem a big deal a team playing in Kappa for 2/3rds of the season but Nike for the last 1/3rd, but it will absolutely be a big deal to Kappa and Nike that have committed millions to those deals, especially as the latter is highly unlikely to have kit designs all done and distributed in the short time before games potentially start again. Having W88 on the shirt now but what if Bet365 have taken over from July? Can that even be changed mid season. 

I just can't see anything happening after June 30th, that's why I think they'll void it. And again, if the season cannot be completed, voiding it is the only way to realistically avoid lawsuits all round. It'll annoy teams for sure, but no-one has technically or legally achieved anything yet, so they wouldn't have any grounds to sue.

Once you start throwing promotions and relegation and European places around it opens up a huge can of worms to every team that doesn't get awarded anything when they potentially might. 

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I'm still not convinced the TV companies will demand all their money.   If they take them to the cleaners over this they had better watch their backs when the next TV rights come up for review.  BT would no doubt like to expand what they have and minimum retain their place.  Amazon are already muscling in.  There are no end of pay TV companies around now looking for an edge. 

Without the Premier league Sky Sports have no businesses model, their revenue would fall off a cliff.   I would be amazed if they took the piss even if the contract says they can. 

This is what I think too, I think there'll be some kind of deal struck like the companies getting their contracts extended in exchange for not kicking up a fuss, they'll take the hit and move on to next year. A £700m hit sounds a lot, but when they make billions every year from the football they won't want to piss off the people who decide who gets those contracts with more and more emerging rivals as you say 

3 hours ago, zab6359 said:

Arguable Dyche is the only real over achiever there! Rest are mediocre/poor PL managers!

And Dyche was relegated in his 1st season in the league 

Double post 

I really don't think the TV money or sponsorship would be a big issue, the negative PR a company would get for suing clubs or the PL for missed fixtures in the wake of a global pandemic is simply not worth it for these companies. If sky decided to sue the PL and clubs ended up in severe financial trouble on the back of it you'd see people cancelling sky en masse and even the PL refusing to deal with them afterwards. It just wouldn't be worth it. I think they won't kick up a fuss, get their contracts extended by a year as compensation and take the hit.

56 minutes ago, VillaFaninLondon said:

I agree that right this instant is probably not the classiest thing to do as a football club, but I am of the belief we need to replace him before next season unless we want another relegation battle. Two names I'd put forward to be manager would be Ralf Rangnick, who previously managed RB Leipzig and now works in a development role for Red Bull Salzburg. The other is Rafa Benitez who obviously now manages in China. I don't think either would be unobtainable but we might have to pay their existing clubs money to get their services. 

I swear people on this forum are obsessed with Rafa Benitez, he did a shit job at Newcastle for years before retiring in China on about £12m a year. Plays the exact same football as Steve Bruce and very publicly is not liked by Purslow. You say he's not unobtainable, you are wrong. We couldn't afford him even if we wanted to, and we definately don't want to as the man in charge of those decisions hates him. There's more chance of this season finishing with a 9 game winning run for us then us appointing Benitez at any point

I've never heard of the other guy so can't comment on him 

25 minutes ago, OxfordVillan said:

What I’ve been thinking 

https://www.givemesport.com/1555108-fourteen-clubs-need-to-vote-to-void-the-premier-league-which-clubs-will-vote-for-what

This is entirely assuming clubs will only vote for whatever outcome suits the club more, and ignore any implications or health issues to players, staff and their extended families. 

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Foresight? ...thats a bit rich.....if you care to look at the 3 teams that come up there is a distinct contrast in playing styles....one clearly had foresight to know what is required in this league.....thats the foresight, i would be focused on.

I guess Allardyce is classed as a Dinosaur and yet in reality he was one of the british managers who was a pioneer of the technical elements of the game and considering our last leader was classed as a Dinosaur, he is currenty trumping our progressive offering in the league.

I think you mistook my point, by foresight I meant planning for the medium to long term, rather than short.

Say we get a Steve Bruce type in again, I'd have little doubt that we'd see an improvement in the results, he'd bring in a certain type of player to solidify us (experienced players) and get good results in the short term. However 2 years down the line those experienced players are old has beens, so we have to release them and bring in more experienced players to continue playing the same way. It's an endless cycle that costs an absolute fortune while bringing in extremely little, therefore completely unsustainable in the medium to long term. 

This is literally what we have done since Randy first bought the club, where has it got us? A few good years finishing 6th followed by a decade of abject misery and embarrassment. 

A dinosaur isn't someone that "plays defensive football" it's someone that comes in, brings a short term boost before bailing and/or getting sacked just as the bust comes. That's the sort of manager we don't want. I would rather go down with Dean Smith than see Villa appoint another "dinosaur", even if it kept us up this year 

19 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

Yeah, both of these points seem to be glossed over.

This summer, we'll likely have to replace almost the entire team again. A combination of offers coming in and players not wanting to play in the Championship. Our current squad isn't massive, so I don't think 12 signings this summer is going to be far too wrong when you consider outgoings we'll have.

Criticising Bruce for loaning players is a bit weird. That's how the Championship works. With FFP, there's not exactly a lot you can do when the previous manager has already thrown a hundred million up the wall.

There is clearly a difference between having 15 players leave on a free transfer because they're all way past their prime and needing to spend £120m replacing them and selling maybe 6 players for £100-150m which we can reinvest in the team. 

That's the reason people don't want a dinosaur. No-one denies that the players brought in generally do well, it's the lack of foresight that's the issue. It's completely unsustainable to have to completely rebuild every couple of years while bringing in zero transfer money 

1 hour ago, OxfordVillan said:

Perhaps I’m in a minority of 1, but I’m not too concerned about the odd training ground set-to?! Obviously it depends how far he went, but if it is just a bust up over a tackle or something like that in training, then so what? We need a nasty bastard or two in the team, someone to get a bit growly and not take any crap. As a team I don’t think we’re in any position to cast players aside for moral reasons, and so unless Drinkwater is causing unrest amongst the rest of the players then for me he stays and we try to get some value from our outlay. His value to Chelsea at this moment is near Nil, come the summer we might be looking at Drinkwater as just the type we need to get us back out of the championship, and he might be a steal. 

6 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Sams over 60 he won’t want a long term so I don’t understand this he I’ll want a three year deal. It would probably suit him to have a year deal for now. EVen if we went down I fancy Sam to get s straight back up. He has done it before 

your last sentence makes nonsense t0 me either. You would rather go down so I agree with that completely

He might not want to work for 3 years, but he absolutely will want to earn 3 years worth of salary. Any manager taking over now will demand a 3 year contract for the simple point that they'll probably be sacked well before then and take the compensation