If we do indeed finish just above the relegation zone (i.e. 15th,16th,17th), then I don't know how that can justify McLeish's position for next season. Since the Premier League began all that time ago in 1992, we have only ever finished borderline to the relegation zone in 1995, 2003 and 2006. And all the managers in charge for that season (Atkinson, Taylor and O'Leary) were either forced to resign or sacked. Basically, we are not traditionally a side who fights relegation, and if we do we have always changed manager to make a point that it's not good enough. If Lerner doesn't do the same he clearly has no idea about the history of this club and shouldn't be allowed to keep running it. He should get rid and appoint a manager who will fight to get Villa where we traditionally finish (i.e. between 6th and 8th).
However, our squad is very weak. We really need investment, or failing that a manager who is known for making shrewd acquisitions at low prices.
Honestly, this season has been terrible. Last season was at times a nightmare but overall it beat this one hands down and at least we beat City, Arsenal and Liverpool and drew with Chelsea and United. Now we just roll over for such teams. It's a disgrace. I would go so far as to say it's possibly the worst I can remember since I started supporting this grand old club. It's so depressing. It just seems like there is no plan for this club. Most medium to big clubs have a plan of how they can compete each season and keep the prestige of the club going. Our plan just appears to be the biggest laughing stock in the Premier League where we sell our best players, don't reinvest money and appoint terrible managers who have no idea: 1. how to win and 2. how to play football.
No one will respond to this because no one seems to care about where this club is going and it seems all the Villa fans have vanished into thin air, but people really need to speak up if they want things to get better.
Our situation
posted on 25/3/12
Chronic admitting that arsenal are bigger than spurs
posted on 25/3/12
Trust me chronic, i am nearly 50 and your not bigger than Aston Villa in any way shape or form, but then again in all honesty i would not claim to be bigger than you. We are equal, now as much as you clearly do not like it my advice is deal with it!
posted on 25/3/12
Villa are definitely bigger than spurs, not even joking or wumming.
http://www.aboutaball.co.uk/aboutaball-historical-football-rankings/historical-ranking-of-english-football-clubs
posted on 25/3/12
Trust me chronic, i am nearly 50 and your not bigger than Aston Villa in any way shape or form, but then again in all honesty i would not claim to be bigger than you. We are equal, now as much as you clearly do not like it my advice is deal with it!
------
this who is bigger stuff is rubbish anyway.. not sure who started it but it wasnt me...
and verminator... yes arsenal are bigger than spurs.. its not even debateable.. i just wish you could be bigger than us somewhere else instead of encrouching on our patch you squatters.
as for villa... try attacking... its fun.
posted on 25/3/12
Villa are definitely bigger than spurs, not even joking or wumming.
http://www.aboutaball.co.uk/aboutaball-historical-football-rankings/historical-ranking-of-english-football-clubs
----
this looks like a reliable source
chelsea above spurs !!
as for villa they have won the league 7 times.. but 5 in the 1800's . i am sure that is what is contributing to that big points haul.
apart from a little flourish in the early 80s, villa have actually done virtually fack all.
posted on 25/3/12
Chronic, but chelsea ARE bigger than spurs.
Sure they have BOUGHT success but buy buying it they are making history.
They have more league titles than you.
More european pedigree.
Bigger fan base (although most of them only became fans after the oil money came in)
Bigger stadium.
posted on 25/3/12
More european pedigree.
----
i would like to point out that spurs have more european trophies than both arsenal and chelsea.
posted on 25/3/12
Chronic, you and I both know that arsenal and Chelsea have more European pedigree than spurs. Winning a cup winners cup all those years ago is not pedigree
qualifying for CL 16 times in a row, reaching semis and finals IS some sort of pedigree, whether u like it or not.
posted on 25/3/12
It's a bit like zenit claiming they have more European pedigree than arsenal because they won the super cup
posted on 26/3/12
Guys, all this is pointless. Claiming A is bigger than B has no meaning, and it's not what football is about (even though a lot of people think it is). Clubs which think they are a big club are 90% of the time ready for a fall.
Take Chelsea. In historic terms nobody would claim they were a big club. My dad would scoff when I went to their matches (a joke, he would say) because they were just down the road from where I was living at a time. They weren't a joke then; they played some highly entertaining football, they shocked the "big" guys quite often. They built themselves up gradually, and when Abramovich installed an outstanding manager on top of some already very good players, they were unbeatable for a while. It's the football which counts, not the history.
Take Spurs. I watched them when Bill Nicholson was manager. A "big" club then, so they and the pundits thought. The football was pretty grim. To see Jimmy Greaves reduced to being a cog in a machine was plain sad. The best thing he did was go to West Ham, not a big club but playing some of the best football around. Spurs downsized when Sugar became chairman, and it showed. Today they're doing fine; I'd much rather see Harry's brand of football than anything before, and it's nothing to do with how big Spurs are.
Take Liverpool. A BIG club, so they think. That's their problem. There's so much pressure on going out and crushing the opposition they crack when it doesn't happen. They won't improve until they start going back to basics and working out how to play football. Under a manager who knows how to do that.
Maybe Man U are an exception. Why? Because they have a manager who believes in playing football and won't compromise on that. It's what they do on the pitch rather than their history which makes them what they are.
So to Villa. The history doesn't matter. The assets do. The support, the ground, the facilities, the community. Valuable foundations which can be built on. Given the right manager, we'll do OK. Given some investment we'll do even better. MON might not have been the manager for the long term but he showed what could be done in the short. The future lies on the pitch, not in the past. Stuff how big a club is.