steve-67 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 McLeish is a plank, end of story. Appointed for some stability by a man with a track record for appointing poor coaches. That said, I will judge him from the end of the summer onwards as he'll have achieved the objective that he accepted when he was appointed: get rid of the deadwood and high earners/ benchwarmers who aren't playing. One the end of the season comes and we see Heskey, Cuellar, Guzan, Marshall et al gone, and their wages off the bill, I hope we see the real McLeish. The one that the board thought might actually be quite good! For the recortd though, I think they got it badly wrong and should sack him at the end of next season when we get relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I was talking to the guy in front of me yesterday and he reckons it's certainly feasible that McLeish was appointed merely to ship out the deadwood and keep us up then when the summer comes Randy will send him away and get someone else in to do the rebuilding. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I was talking to the guy in front of me yesterday and he reckons it's certainly feasible that McLeish was appointed merely to ship out the deadwood and keep us up then when the summer comes Randy will send him away and get someone else in to do the rebuilding. Thoughts? I was always taught that the bloke behind me at the match spouts bollocks. I feel sorry for you. It looks like you are surrounded :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Sounds like a good enough plan if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I was talking to the guy in front of me yesterday and he reckons it's certainly feasible that McLeish was appointed merely to ship out the deadwood and keep us up then when the summer comes Randy will send him away and get someone else in to do the rebuilding. Thoughts? I was always taught that the bloke behind me at the match spouts bollocks. I feel sorry for you. It looks like you are surrounded :winkold:He seems to know a bit about what's going on. That said, he said Kranjcar was at the Swansea game but he was only relaying what he'd been told. I don't think this was based on any inside information, merely a hunch. It would make sense actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
switters Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I was talking to the guy in front of me yesterday and he reckons it's certainly feasible that McLeish was appointed merely to ship out the deadwood and keep us up then when the summer comes Randy will send him away and get someone else in to do the rebuilding. Thoughts? Doesn't make much sense. Why wouldn't you just get the person you wanted to do the rebuilding in the first place? Why would you spend millions to get an interim appointment? And why would you hire a man who's just got relegated in order to keep you up? If the season ends badly (a flirt with relegation, perhaps), it's conceivable that they will change things in the summer, but I don't think that is their intention at all. They want stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I was talking to the guy in front of me yesterday and he reckons it's certainly feasible that McLeish was appointed merely to ship out the deadwood and keep us up then when the summer comes Randy will send him away and get someone else in to do the rebuilding. Thoughts? Doesn't make much sense. Why wouldn't you just get the person you wanted to do the rebuilding in the first place? Why would you spend millions to get an interim appointment? And why would you hire a man who's just got relegated in order to keep you up? If the season ends badly (a flirt with relegation, perhaps), it's conceivable that they will change things in the summer, but I don't think that is their intention at all. They want stability.I take it nobody wanted to have to shift all that deadwood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
switters Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I was talking to the guy in front of me yesterday and he reckons it's certainly feasible that McLeish was appointed merely to ship out the deadwood and keep us up then when the summer comes Randy will send him away and get someone else in to do the rebuilding. Thoughts? Doesn't make much sense. Why wouldn't you just get the person you wanted to do the rebuilding in the first place? Why would you spend millions to get an interim appointment? And why would you hire a man who's just got relegated in order to keep you up? If the season ends badly (a flirt with relegation, perhaps), it's conceivable that they will change things in the summer, but I don't think that is their intention at all. They want stability.I take it nobody wanted to have to shift all that deadwood. Perhaps, but I'm still dubious. If they'd really wanted an interim manager to do a difficult task, surely promoting from within would be the sensible way. Kevin MacDonald would have jumped at the opportunity, however unappealing the circumstances, it would have been considerably cheaper, considerably less upsetting to fans (esp. if it was made clear from the outset what the plan was for the season) and not that much more of a risk - he'd have limited experience, but McLeish's experience is hardly that of someone you could call a safe pair of hands in this league. It makes the least sense of all on financial grounds - if you need to have a cost-cutting season, you wouldn't give a 3 year contract to someone you intend to sack after 1 year, having paid several million to release him from his previous contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I was talking to the guy in front of me yesterday and he reckons it's certainly feasible that McLeish was appointed merely to ship out the deadwood and keep us up then when the summer comes Randy will send him away and get someone else in to do the rebuilding. Thoughts? Doesn't make much sense. Why wouldn't you just get the person you wanted to do the rebuilding in the first place? Why would you spend millions to get an interim appointment? And why would you hire a man who's just got relegated in order to keep you up? If the season ends badly (a flirt with relegation, perhaps), it's conceivable that they will change things in the summer, but I don't think that is their intention at all. They want stability. I take it nobody wanted to have to shift all that deadwood. Perhaps, but I'm still dubious. If they'd really wanted an interim manager to do a difficult task, surely promoting from within would be the sensible way. Kevin MacDonald would have jumped at the opportunity, however unappealing the circumstances, it would have been considerably cheaper, considerably less upsetting to fans (esp. if it was made clear from the outset what the plan was for the season) and not that much more of a risk - he'd have limited experience, but McLeish's experience is hardly that of someone you could call a safe pair of hands in this league. It makes the least sense of all on financial grounds - if you need to have a cost-cutting season, you wouldn't give a 3 year contract to someone you intend to sack after 1 year, having paid several million to release him from his previous contract. I guess. I just need something to cling to. The thing is though, people are not happy. This guy I was talking to yesterday said the staff at VP are not happy with the manager or the direction of the club. The whole atmosphere around VP is one of disengagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOne Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The thing is though, people are not happy. This guy I was talking to yesterday said the staff at VP are not happy with the manager or the direction of the club. The whole atmosphere around VP is one of disengagement. Did this guy say how he knew all this? Does he work for the club? Or does he know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who works for the club? I just can't imagine that this would be the case. If it were true, I can't imagine Mcleish being too happy about that, being the guy to do the hard job only to then get the sack and someone else to swoop on in and get the fun job of rebuilding the team. Also, isn't Mcleish on a 3 year deal? I just don't see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The thing is though, people are not happy. This guy I was talking to yesterday said the staff at VP are not happy with the manager or the direction of the club. The whole atmosphere around VP is one of disengagement. I would suggest that most people are happy. Staff morale at VP has hugely improved since the takeover, in line with the investments that have taken place, after years and years of penny pinching decay. The 'morale' of the playing side goes up and down, which is bound to happen with the revolving door of team managers, coupled with that circle of employees being largely uneducated indivduals who have had huge wealth thrust upon them from an early age, and have no shortage of people around them to tell them how wonderful they are. Back to your original point, in football the clearing out of 'deadwood' is a component part of the rebuilding process. It would make no sense to split the task into two and hire different individuals to carry out each element. McLeish is here to stay, so you may as well, however grudgingly, cut him some slack and try to enjoy the football. The signs are there that we are going to see regular displays of passing football not seen at our club in over a decade. But then maybe the long ball/hoof all/counter-attacking game is the diet that Villa supporters prefer to stick to, having got used to it over such a long period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Back to your original point, in football the clearing out of 'deadwood' is a component part of the rebuilding process. It would make no sense to split the task into two and hire different individuals to carry out each element. This is a good point. Coupled with the fact that McLiesh is on a 3 year contract, it seems he was hired not only to clear out the deadwood but also to rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 And the expectations keep dropping. A good 2nd half at home against a newly promoted team resulted in a draw and 1 point. Further evidence of how we're going nowhere under this manager and yet it's somehow seen as something worthy of praise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The signs are there that we are going to see regular displays of passing football not seen at our club in over a decade. :shock: Where are these signs? 45 minutes of decnt football versus QPR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 And the expectations keep dropping. A good 2nd half at home against a newly promoted team resulted in a draw and 1 point. Further evidence of how we're going nowhere under this manager and yet it's somehow seen as something worthy of praise. I would suggest that YOUR expectations dropping is a very good thing indeed. And the "the newly promoted team" was managed by the very man many wanted here..... and we battered them. Absolutely battered them. We were very very unlucky and Warnock's OG IS NOT AMs fault. So our "shit/McClueless/GC" manager put out a team that played great football and battered Mark Hughes and his team. You can't have it both ways my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddywhack Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The signs are there that we are going to see regular displays of passing football not seen at our club in over a decade. :shock: Where are these signs? 45 minutes of decnt football versus QPR? We've been playing passing football all season...it's just we can't get it past the midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I don't see how we can realistically expect anything above a top half finish (8th - 10th) this season. I think we're on course to do so despite a few setbacks. The only problems were performances and style of football which imo improved quite a bit since December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The inclusion of Keane has helped in regards to playing football more pleasing on the eye but what happens when he goes back to America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Lerwill Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 And wot about the defence? ... To win you must score more goals than you concede, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts