weedman

8 hours ago, PieFacE said:

I think the opposite. Think it's going to be much harder. Stoke, Baggies and Swansea will all be quite strong. 

Why is everyone so concerned about the relegated teams? How have relegated teams done in the last few years? With the exception of Newcastle, terribly. Last year Boro were huge favourites and limped into the playoffs, Sunderland got relegated and Hull did bugger all. What makes Baggies, Stoke and Swansea so much better than any of the other relegated teams from recent years? Maybe 1 of them will challenge but no way will all 3 be up there, and I highly doubt any of them will be as good as Wolves or Fulham were last year 

30 minutes ago, Johnnyp said:

Brentford mauling Rotherham 1st day out. According to the stats and reports they are passing them off the field, creating chance after chance. Steady. I know it's Rotherham . My point is for the folks here who don't like Smith, when Brentford lose a game he's flawed, not a good manager. When they win, according to the anti Smith brigade "Ah it's the Brentford setup, all he does is pick the team really ". So which one is it lads.

Whether they win or lose the setup is the same. He's a head coach, he takes training and picks the team, everything else is done by others. 

Its not that it's a bad setup, in fact I think it's the future and means that managers coming and going doesn't require a full overhaul every time, it's that a" head coach" ONLY works with all the rest of the team in place. We don't have that therefore he would be a terrible appointment at the moment. 

Also, both the options you gave were for "anti Smith" people, if that's how you want to label people, there was no "pro Smith" option. 

1 hour ago, Junxs said:

Every player who makes an appearance in the first team has to have a squad number, Bruce has signalled his intentions when it comes to Jake Doyle-Hayes by not handing him one.

Whelan has nothing to with it, but Bruce deserves every criticism for this. I actually would not be surprised to see another 30+ aged slow central midfielder added to the squad to add more experience. 

But youth players don't need a number assigned until they actually play, they just get given a number whenever they make an appearance. It's only the older players (over 21? Maybe 23?) that you actually have to assign a number to before the season. Really think too much is being made of this. 

4 minutes ago, Junxs said:

*cough* Onomah *cough* Cleverley *cough* 

You could argue Tuanzabe couldnt get into the team in his natural position either, Sam Johnstone was bloody awful in the first 6 months as well, people were even saying there must be some kind of stipulation in the loan. 

Samba was a year loan (kind of if you consider it was a 1 year contract) and he played ahead of some good strikers who needed game time

I could go on

I'm not going to argue how good or bad the loan players were, I'm simply saying that when they played it was because they were the best options at the time. The notion that Steve Bruce refuses to play our fantastic youth players and signs inferior players to replace them is utterly ridiculous, can anyone give a logical reason why anyone would do that?

I'm sure some people think we have a youth team full to the brim of absolute superstars and Bruce refuses to play any of them for no reason whatsoever. Truth is, maybe, just maybe, our youth team isn't all that different to most youth teams, and the players aren't quite as good as some believe they are? Take Onomah and O'Hare as examples. Onomah was actually one of our better players off the bench in the run in, from the limited times I've seen O'Hare he certainly looks a decent prospect, but he seems a few years behind Onomah in terms of development. As a manager (especially a manager that has been told we MUST get promoted at all costs) why would you play the inferior player? 

18 minutes ago, Junxs said:

It's one of the reasons I want us to introduce some of our youth players, It's a stupid time to be loaning in young players who are most likely no better than what we already have, and on top of that they will bugger off at the end of the season. 

If they're not better than we already have, we won't loan them, and even if we did, we wouldn't play them. You think any manager would deliberately play worse players than he has to for absolutely no reason? 

4 minutes ago, Rodders said:

David Villa and JiSung Park was the dream double transfer.

David Villa and Dean Ashton were both linked in the same window which led to a lot of excitement about an Ashton Villa front line 

Wait, why are some people saying "not a Bruce signing"? We've had an on loan, inexperienced keeper for virtually all of his spell as manager haven't we? Judging from his tenure so far I'd call it a very typical Bruce signing!

Fingers crossed he does well because from watching pre season Steer doesn't look like he'll cut it (although it's hard to judge on only pre season) 

10 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

I've already written Bruce's excuses for him, so he doesn't have to worry about it when we inevitably start badly...

"We've lost a lot of good players this summer".

"The financial concerns really impacted our focus prior to the new owners coming in".

"I didn't know if I had a job until the end of July".

"The fans are hysterical".

"Thierry Henry".

Surely you don't consider the first 3 things on that list invalid? We've had a terrible summer, up until a week ago we couldn't even pay the bills let alone consider transfers, and up until yesterday no one even knew who would be managing the team for the first game, including the manager. We've lost key players and haven't replaced them with anyone, with a manager spending most of the summer being told there was absolutely no money to replace them. 

There is an awful lot of work to do in the next week to get us as ready as possible, work that, in any other circumstances would have been done months ago. It is completely irrelevant who the manager is, these issues are present no matter what and it's as close to a certainty as you can get in football that we won't be fully up to speed when the season starts 

7 minutes ago, NeilS said:

I think I read one of our new owners (Sawiris) is CEO of a massive fertiliser business worth €5bn, maybe they could sponsor the pitch? OCI N.V Official sponsors of the Villa Park Pitch

On this note a friend of mine had a meeting with a championship team about generating extra revenues and one of the things they talked about was sponsoring the pitch, apparently there are rules in the PL against it but its far less strict in the championship. He's mystified more clubs don't do it considering the pitches almost always look fantastic and there would be a fair few companies hoping to take some credit for that 

6 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

What does this even mean?! The bloke pulling the strings? Theirry and Zola have the same agent? I dont get it?! 

Me too! Do we have the same owners as them or something?! 

I'm so on the fence about this whole thing. It could work out brilliantly but it equally could be a disaster (there are far more examples of the latter than the former) It's just such a huge gamble and huge gambles are exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. 

Its easy to say the "tried and tested" method hasn't worked, but as a club we've flipped from tried and tested to complete gamble almost at will and since MON neither have worked. 

There are merits to both sides, I'd be excited with a new direction but equally wary about how long we'll stick around if it's not going great, that's when we'll look to someone with a bit of experience to steady the ship before we get bored of the style and take a gamble on an unknown again etc etc, the cycle seems never ending. 

Its easiest to just sit back and see how everything goes, get behind the team and manager regardless of who it is and have some trust that our new owners actually have a clue what they're doing. Fingers crossed! 

59 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

I'm not sure whether I want Bruce to go or not to by honest. Can see it from both sides and I agree with points from both sides.

This is where I am, I think sensibly that he should probably stay, but wouldn't be overly bothered if he didn't (although cautious whether we'd actually get anyone better) 

Been reading through this to see what our new Leeds supporting friends thought of it, and quite how terrible it all was but alas, no sign of them. Strange considering they were only here to "help", you'd have thought they'd be the first to congratulate us? 

Also, I used to live in Egypt (when I was 2) and can confirm they're all a great bunch of lads

52 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Yeah he could have took the Hogan, Whelan and Elmo money and got him. Wouldnt have damaged the squad at all

Elmo our best right back and one of our better performers last year? I'd say that would have damaged our squad, it would have meant Hutton at RB (not so bad defensively but not going to offer a lot going forward) and Taylor at LB (terrible), it would also have really hindered Snodgrass who linked up really well with Elmo.

You're not gonna hear me argue that Neves wouldn't be an improvement on Whelan, or that Hogan was worth what we paid for him but EVERY manager will sign duds, we needed a striker at the time and Hogan was looking good and on form, there aren't a lot of managers that would see the team needing a striker as we only had 1 really, but deciding not to sign the guy who was available, on great form, and relatively young (and who offered one thing we were really lacking - pace) because we may have been able to spend that money on a midfielder 6 months later. 

Also taking out 3 players for every 1 signed (to improve on quality) would have seriously hit us in the quality of squad depth, and we were lacking in that area as it was. 

Its also worth pointing out that players like Neves going to the Championship is not the norm, he was signed because he happened to not be getting too much game time and his agent is running Wolves and convinced him to sign to put himself in the shop window, it's a very specific set of circumstances that the vast majority of Championship clubs don't meet

Look, there almost certainly were other players available who were better at the same cost, but when you sign an unknown 22 year old for £1m it may turn out well once in every 10 goes (at best), when you are limited to a handful of those AND given the remit to achieve promotion no matter what you sign the players that you know will do a job, even if they are limited in certain areas. He then used the loan market to get a bit of extra quality rather than workmanship. Every manager in world football is trying to find the guaranteed £1m player that will succeed and become a £10m+ player down the line, every single one of them, its why Chelsea are hoovering up every player under the age of 20 and Barcelonas youth academy has about 800 players in it, 95% of those don't work out 

If you're expecting a new manager to sign no duds, spend next to nothing on transfers, reduce the wage bill, have us challenging for promotion AND playing free flowing attacking football I think you are going to be very disappointed no matter who is in charge of us

5 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Neves probably on same wages as Whelan, Lansbury or Jedi

Yet he quality and has sell on value. They didnt buy over the hill duds and so what of have connections. Bruce is meant have contacts 

Can't believe Bruce chose to spend £1m on Whelan when Neves was available for exactly the same amount! 

6 hours ago, Zatman said:

Because he had probably highest budget in 2nd tier history and failed his objective badly

The highest budget in 2nd tier history?! I believe you need to take a closer look at that 

7 hours ago, praisedmambo said:

 

What is going on and where did the money go then dick head? (NOTE: This is back in September of 2016)

To think we've made loads of money on player sales too. The whole situation is so ****. 

Tbf, the parachute payments aren't there so clubs can buy lots of players, it's there to cover wages due to the huge disparity between PL and Championship incomes. 

People seem to really struggle to comprehend this and everyone seems to assume all relegated teams have this huge advantage of parachute money where the vast majority will be spent covering the income shortfall due to inflated PL wages. The way to get the most benefit seems to be by being a yo yo club, where the overall club costs haven't had a chance to inflate so much but even then it's not a huge amount as now even clubs like Cardiff and Huddersfield will have to spend £20m and £50k a week on squad players because everyone in the world knows that they have the resources to do so 

If a PL team ever finishes with less than 11 points I will join their forum just to see if they get bombarded with Derby fans telling them how much worse it will definitely get for them, you know, to "help" 

2 minutes ago, Kuwabatake Sanjuro said:

The quality and design look shocking, at least now when the main kit is released I won't be disappointed as I have zero expectations of a good kit.

Wycombe showing how a training kit should be done.

Everything about that is horrible except the badge, definitely like a round badge 

30 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

I think you will find that it was based on mostly the football that was served up, not a particular dislike of Bruce. When results and football improved the criticisms died off. 

However picking a position and sticking to it if things don't change is correct - what didn't change was the lack of a long-term plan, a strategy for the long term building of a team etc - this was what a lot of criticism was about. 

3 games into the season we were terrible, showed no progress from the previous season and looked like we did not have a clue. We were supposed to have had the mystical transfer window and a pre-season and come out all guns blazing. We were awful. Concerns being expressed at the time were absolutely justified then, and ultimately at the end of the season.

 

I have to add:

Saying sticking to a position is wrong, even if it turns out to be right is one of the most baffling statements I have read on here, and there is some real competition for that accolade, so well done.

As for your last two paragraphs.... they make no sense at all, and certainly do not reflect what went on in here, unless you are referring to the Bruce supporters. 

To say nothing changed from when he took over to the end of last season is proving my point, a lot changed, the football got better, the results got better, our league position got better etc. I have no problem with criticism, especially as I agree, our start to the season was poor and I was very skeptical of our chances at the time, but things DID improve, there were a lot of positives last season. 

Choosing to still want Bruce out regardless of any progress is one thing (for whatever reason, there are plenty of valid ones both ways), choosing to completely ignore anything positive because you want Bruce out is totally different and completely wrong regardless of what ends up happening, because noone knows what will actually happen until it happens. It's the same the other way around as well, choosing to ignore anything negative about Bruce because you want him in is also wrong. I feel this is the main thing that causes the never ending circular argument on here 

I didn't say sticking to a position is wrong, I said blindly sticking to a position and ignoring anything that is currently happening is wrong, regardless of the ultimate outcome. Having an opinion is one thing, it's the really early definitive statements that I have a problem with (the "we will never get promoted" type ones), followed by ignoring anything that's happening to back that statement up, because regardless of what happens, unless you have a time machine and already know what will happen you simply don't know that. 

Edit (trying to find a way of explaining my point) - people saying "it's coming home" is clearly a bit of fun, some people really believe England will win the the world cup and some people don't, and both views are equally valid, however the people who have gone out and got tattoos with "England 2018 World Cup winners" are wrong, if England happen to win they will have been really lucky, but that doesn't mean getting the tattoo in the first place was right. Does that make sense? 

10 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Agree with a lot of this. My opinion changed massively over the course of the season. I just don't think you can mock people who were convinced, stood by their opinion and ultimately were proved right. 

You claim its illogical and desperate not to look fickle but that's an incredibly dismissive view and is as pathetic as the one you describe in your post. Lots of people gave very logical and reasoned arguments as to why they felt bruce would fail and why their opinion didn't change even when results improved. You choosing to belittle and dismiss them doesn't make it so.

 

Oh there have been a lot of very reasonable and thought out posts on both sides of the Bruce argument, for sure, and the way I wrote that definitely has come across as a bit dismissive of those opinions which I didn't mean to, however I stand by the point that anyone who said that we had "no chance of being promoted" at the start of last season were wrong regardless of what ultimately happened, because we clearly did have a good chance of being promoted. We were the 4th best performing team in the league last year and narrowly lost the playoff final, which of course ultimately is not good enough, but it is certainly better than "Bruce is a dinosaur", "we're never getting promoted" posts etc

I hate the labelling of people on here as either Bruce in or Bruce out, you say anything positive about him and your accused by some of being blind and burying your head in the sand, anything negative and some will accuse you of not being a true fan etc. Its ridiculous. Bruce has good qualities and bad ones, he's a championship manager. 

He is clearly a decent manager for this level, more defensive than is currently in fashion with the trend towards all out attack and possession based football (which I find really boring aside from Pep teams, as they add the flair as well, watching Spain play for example is mind numbingly boring), he's not going to suddenly become a world class manager, he's not suddenly going to send teams out gung ho because he favours defensive solidarity (as do a lot of very successful teams, Man Utd, for one). At the end of the season I wanted him gone, get a new guy in and see where it takes us, but with all the uncertainty going on in my opinion it would be foolish to get rid of him now, with a weaker team defensive solidarity is more likely the best way to go - see Cardiff. I accept that many people will have different opinions to me, and there are good arguments for and against, but I for one won't be making and definitive statements about what will or won't happen either way because none of us know 

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

Were they not the ones ultimately proved right? 

This is a terrible way of thinking, simply picking a position and sticking to it relentlessly regardless of what is happening is wrong, even if it turns out to be right in the end, making an informed desision based on what is happening is the right way to go, even if you turn out to be wrong in the end 

Claiming that we had "no chance of being promoted with this dinosaur in charge" 3 games into the season was wrong, even though we didn't end up getting promoted, whereas stating "its not pretty but we're doing well, comfortably in the top 6 and have a good chance of getting promoted" was correct, even though we ultimately fell short 

Ever since I can remember people are so desperate to not be "fickle" and to be proved "right" that they make definitive statements ridiculously early, have absolutely no intention of ever changing their mind regardless of any circumstances then use illogical confirmation bias to try and drum that standpoint home for as long as possible before declaring themselves victorious over all the "idiots" who kept an open mind. 

As an example I'd bet that if there was a genuine Man City fan who was dead against Pep Guardiola before he joined them, that person will still be dead against him now, despite his huge success there, and why? Because changing your mind is weak, fickle and would mean you have to admit being wrong to start with