Next Aston Villa manager

[Tomaszk]

1 minute ago, DaveAV1 said:

There are other names too but the PL has unique spending power. If we genuinely want to compete at the top we need to appoint someone capable of managing a top club. 
 

I agree it’s unlikely either of those two go to Leicester or Brighton but unless we show ambition with our next managerial appointment we will at best continue to just make up the numbers for years. We need a moment when we genuinely make other clubs think “Woow! Villa really mean business.” Unless we don’t really mean business? 

The owners mean business. I cannot help anyone who doesn't think this.

They have hired Purslow to make every football position.

[VillaParkAvenue]

8 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

There are other names too but the PL has unique spending power. If we genuinely want to compete at the top we need to appoint someone capable of managing a top club. 
 

I agree it’s unlikely either of those two go to Leicester or Brighton but unless we show ambition with our next managerial appointment we will at best continue to just make up the numbers for years. We need a moment when we genuinely make other clubs think “Woow! Villa really mean business.” Unless we don’t really mean business? 

I agree about the PL spending power and general attractiveness.

But I would prefer it if the club appointed someone who made other clubs think "Wow, Villa are really smart". Would hate us to appoint a big name just for the sake of it, without ensuring it's a good fit. And after the last couple of seasons "in transition", I'm not sure Villa could handle a newly installed manager jumping ship after five months just because some CL club calls.

[Peter Griffin]

11 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

We need a moment when we genuinely make other clubs think “Woow! Villa really mean business.” Unless we don’t really mean business? 

Why do we need that? I suspect they are more concerned about actual success at Aston Villa rather than perception and nor do I think they get a kick out of bragging about what they are doing. 

[nick76]

21 minutes ago, messi11 said:

Not going to happen sadly. Gerrard gets the Leeds and forrest games
Guess southamton will be called off too

I know, i'm just saying it should happen. 

At some point the Board will fire him and after one game it will happen.  At some point the board will say enough and make a decision, they wont be on a he's got two games to show what he can do narrative.  Once it is in the minds of the board and there is a suitable alternative it's just a matter of time and another game wont change that.  It may have already happened and they are agreeing with a new manager in the background as we speak or it could the Leeds game, the Forest game or six games down the road. I just dont play into one or two games to save his job narrative, they either are going to 1) stick with him for quite some time through this hardship and hope we come out of it or 2) they are already planning the next man to come in or 3) after one game they will have had enough and just fire him....given what we know of this board it's only likely to be scenario 1 or 2, they arent impulsive in my opinion.

[VillaAlex]

Purslow won't have any idea who someone like Tedesco is I think.

[nick76]

8 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

Why do we need that? I suspect they are more concerned about actual success at Aston Villa rather than perception and nor do I think they get a kick out of bragging about what they are doing. 

So why hire Gerrard?  That's the only thing I dont get so far with the board.  Gerrard was only a name with some rookie experience with Rangers.  I agree they want success and thus I still dont understand why they chose an inexperienced manager like Gerrard unless it was for the name ie perception.  If they wanted genuine success on the pitch there were better candidates than Gerrard surely.  Bringing in Gerrard brought in a name, a brand, an attraction to lift the profile of the club....that's less about success and more about perception and profile.  If he was genuinely brought in for success on the pitch it was an incredibly risky move by some intelligent savvy owners which doesnt make any sense.  The profile had to be first to lift profile of the club and second because it was so risky was the success on the pitch.  Maybe they were hoping to bring in Gerrard to lift the profile, bring in some playing and hope for moderate success and then bring in a top coach once we were established more, just unfortunately it's back firing at the moment because while he's lifting the profile of the club we are going backwards on the pitch and the club/fans are more odds than at any time under their ownership.

[duke313]

1 minute ago, nick76 said:

So why hire Gerrard?  That's the only thing I dont get so far with the board.  Gerrard was only a name with some rookie experience with Rangers.  I agree they want success and thus I still dont understand why they chose an inexperienced manager like Gerrard unless it was for the name ie perception.  If they wanted genuine success on the pitch there were better candidates than Gerrard surely.  Bringing in Gerrard brought in a name, a brand, an attraction to lift the profile of the club....that's less about success and more about perception and profile.  If he was genuinely brought in for success on the pitch it was an incredibly risky move by some intelligent savvy owners which doesnt make any sense.  The profile had to be first to lift profile of the club and second because it was so risky was the success on the pitch.  Maybe they were hoping to bring in Gerrard to lift the profile, bring in some playing and hope for moderate success and then bring in a top coach once we were established more, just unfortunately it's back firing at the moment because while he's lifting the profile of the club we are going backwards on the pitch and the club/fans are more odds than at any time under their ownership.

My thinking at the time is that they thought Gerrard would become a top manager with us, and that we would get him in before he would be out of our league so to speak before he moved on to bigger and better things.  It's looking more and more like Purslow overestimated Gerrards ability as a a manager, and we are now paying the price on the pitch.

[Peter Griffin]

5 minutes ago, nick76 said:

So why hire Gerrard?  That's the only thing I dont get so far with the board.  Gerrard was only a name with some rookie experience with Rangers.  I agree they want success and thus I still dont understand why they chose an inexperienced manager like Gerrard unless it was for the name ie perception.  If they wanted genuine success on the pitch there were better candidates than Gerrard surely.  Bringing in Gerrard brought in a name, a brand, an attraction to lift the profile of the club....that's less about success and more about perception and profile.  If he was genuinely brought in for success on the pitch it was an incredibly risky move by some intelligent savvy owners which doesnt make any sense.  The profile had to be first to lift profile of the club and second because it was so risky was the success on the pitch.  Maybe they were hoping to bring in Gerrard to lift the profile, bring in some playing and hope for moderate success and then bring in a top coach once we were established more, just unfortunately it's back firing at the moment because while he's lifting the profile of the club we are going backwards on the pitch and the club/fans are more odds than at any time under their ownership.

We all have different opinions and thought processes. Have you considered that NSWE may like what they saw in Gerrard the person, his mentality and attitude etc, the attributes that @TRO has posted about SG? 

[nick76]

4 minutes ago, duke313 said:

My thinking at the time is that they thought Gerrard would become a top manager with us, and that we would get him in before he would be out of our league so to speak before he moved on to bigger and better things.  It's looking more and more like Purslow overestimated Gerrards ability as a a manager, and we are now paying the price on the pitch.

Yeah which is strange given that while Rangers fans on the whole loved him some of the genuine ones did tell us about his limitations around subs, having favourites, sticking too long with formations/tactics not working and not sorting issues early, which have shown quite prominently in watching Villa for the last 10 months.  I'm still surprised they went for him, it was such a risky move and while all managerial appointments are risky this seemed outside the normal bounds you would consider.

[duke313]

2 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Yeah which is strange given that while Rangers fans on the whole loved him some of the genuine ones did tell us about his limitations around subs, having favourites, sticking too long with formations/tactics not working and not sorting issues early, which have shown quite prominently in watching Villa for the last 10 months.  I'm still surprised they went for him, it was such a risky move and while all managerial appointments are risky this seemed outside the normal bounds you would consider.

I remember he was linked with the Newcastle job as well, but Gerrard himself turned it down after that "do I look happy" interview he gave.  Which leads me to think Purslow had already contacted him about the Villa job at that point.

[nick76]

5 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

We all have different opinions and thought processes. Have you considered that NSWE may like what they saw in Gerrard the person, his mentality and attitude etc, the attributes that @TRO has posted about SG? 

Maybe but TRO is more seduced about Gerrard the player and believes it translates so easily to the same to a managerial career but we know looking at elite ex footballers that some it translates well and some it doesnt, it almost isnt a factor you can use to determine whether an elite footballer can become an elite manager.  I would've assumed that NSWE would've looked at those attributes but would've gone a lot deeper on other traits that are needed to be a manager, the skillset to be a manager.  We all know people in a business environment that are confident, eager and have that presence but are actually not as good at their job.  I've worked with many in my life that you would think are brilliant but lack the substance or are very technical people at a job and we promote them to manager but dont have the managerial skillset to do that part of the role.   I think they leant more on Purslow's recommendation in the end because he is the CEO and more knowledgeable in the football world, which is not unreasonable given the trust the board put in their executive management, unfortunately it just hasnt worked out this time. 

[nick76]

6 minutes ago, duke313 said:

I remember he was linked with the Newcastle job as well, but Gerrard himself turned it down after that "do I look happy" interview he gave.  Which leads me to think Purslow had already contacted him about the Villa job at that point.

Yep as soon as we knew we were interested in him, you could look back a few weeks when he turned down the Newcastle job and realise the Villa job was already well in the works for him.  That's why I think the board are working in the background as we speak to bring in Gerrard's replacement and as soon as they have something solid or hit a trigger point then Gerrard will be fired and the new guy will come in.  These guys dont like uncertainty and thus the two game narrative to turn things around doesnt fit with them imo, when they make a decision, they line up their ducks and execute the plan when ready.  It's also why I have a conspiracy theory in my head thats why we didnt do anything bigger on transfer deadline week because we knew we were in the process of changing managers.

[avfc1982am]

I think Gerrard was always in the back of Purslow's mind to take the reins from Smith when the time came. I'm sure if/when Gerrard's time is up in the boards mind the replacement will have already been in preliminary discussions. If there is one thing you can't deny this board, is that there will be a plan to replace Gerrard, and we are most definitely not privy to the intimate details of how that plan is going to happen or when. Lifes a bitch when you're out the loop.   

[Vive_La_Villa]

I don’t think any managers will get sacked during the 10 days of mourning including Gerrard.  Just feels like will be a time no big decisions are made. Of course I could be totally wrong about that.

So new manager until at least after the international break.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Vive_La_Villa

[Peter Griffin]

2 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Maybe but TRO is more seduced about Gerrard the player and believes it translates so easily to the same to a managerial career but we know looking at elite ex footballers that some it translates well and some it doesnt, it almost isnt a factor you can use to determine whether an elite footballer can become an elite manager.  I would've assumed that NSWE would've looked at those attributes but would've gone a lot deeper on other traits that are needed to be a manager, the skillset to be a manager.  We all know people in a business environment that are confident, eager and have that presence but are actually not as good at their job.  I've worked with many in my life that you would think are brilliant but lack the substance or are very technical people at a job and we promote them to manager but dont have the managerial skillset to do that part of the role.   I think they leant more on Purslow's recommendation in the end because he is the CEO and more knowledgeable in the football world, which is not unreasonable given the trust the board put in their executive management, unfortunately it just hasnt worked out this time. 

My reference to @Tro was just to help me avoid writing the same stuff again. It is not about been seduced, it is the characteristics that he mentions are characteristics that I think most of us would want to see in a manager. There is also the fact that he understand PL football as he was one of the best midfielders to play PL football and one of the best midfielders in the world. I understand this does not necessarily translate to being a good manager but they are positive signs. He had a few years in Scotland and transformed Rangers and stopped Celtic getting 10 in a row. Again, no guarantees he would be a success in the PL but the CV is starting to show quite a few things that would interest a club. 

Appointing SG was a risk and a risk that the club decided they are happy to take. If he works out then great and if he doesn't then we replace him and move on. There is nothing wrong with the CEO appointing a manager that doesn't work out, lots of CEOs do this every single year. Just look at Spurs. 

[MaVilla]

48 minutes ago, VillaAlex said:

Purslow won't have any idea who someone like Tedesco is I think.

Ye I cant see Purslow shopping at Tedesco for sure, more of a Waitrose man imo.

[nick76]

3 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

My reference to @Tro was just to help me avoid writing the same stuff again. It is not about been seduced, it is the characteristics that he mentions are characteristics that I think most of us would want to see in a manager. There is also the fact that he understand PL football as he was one of the best midfielders to play PL football and one of the best midfielders in the world. I understand this does not necessarily translate to being a good manager but they are positive signs. He had a few years in Scotland and transformed Rangers and stopped Celtic getting 10 in a row. Again, no guarantees he would be a success in the PL but the CV is starting to show quite a few things that would interest a club. 

Appointing SG was a risk and a risk that the club decided they are happy to take. If he works out then great and if he doesn't then we replace him and move on. There is nothing wrong with the CEO appointing a manager that doesn't work out, lots of CEOs do this every single year. Just look at Spurs. 

I’ve never said it was wrong for a CEO to get things wrong, in fact I have only really ever praised Purslow on this forum and never asked for him to lose his job. All I’ve said is the board, rightly would’ve heavily relied on their CEO’s recommendation which is consistent with most companies.

As for the first paragraph, it is about being seduced that traits can translate from one skill set to another.  We can’t judge that just because Gerrard was a leader on the pitch that he’s a leader as a manager to the players.  It’s a very different trait.  TRO and I have been over this ground many times so I don’t fully agree with some of the things you’ve portrayed in that paragraph but it’s going over the same ground at what TRO and I have discussed on this thread many times so I won’t bother again.

[zab6359]

1 hour ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Brighton more likely to find the " Next Potter " , Leicester have no money to spend so can't see any " name " going there after Rodgers.

We are probably the most exciting from a project perspective IMO.

Projects don’t attract established top managers though so who are we looking at? Domestically Rodgers is probably the best we can attract, I don’t follow European football enough to know about hidden gems that are out there.

[avfc1982am]

5 minutes ago, zab6359 said:

Projects don’t attract established top managers though so who are we looking at? Domestically Rodgers is probably the best we can attract, I don’t follow European football enough to know about hidden gems that are out there.

I think your wrong, top managers become top managers because they know how to see a project through. Most will have gone to the unlikeliest of places and produced a bit of magic. It's what makes a truly great manager and not a chancer imo. Look at Mourinho last season and what he did for Roma, never underestimate the challenge that certain individuals want. 

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, VillaAlex said:

Purslow won't have any idea who someone like Tedesco is I think.

would really hope Lange would though