How long do we have to wait

I don't understand why Villa went for McLeish when Hughes was available. Maybe they did interview Hughes? Or maybe Hughes himself expressed no interest in taking over at Villa (although if that's the case, I can't think why - one of the best jobs to have in football if you ask me).

McLeish....probably the worst manager in the world.

My understanding is that Lerner and Al Fayed are friends and Lerner was unwilling to employ Hughes after he had walked out on Fulham because he didn't want to jepordise their friendship.

so a friendship with some half baked arab is more important than friendship and doing things right with the villa fans,who,lets be honest could remove their support and leave the yank right in the sh..t

sorry for you guys.

I was hoping mcleish would never be seen in the PL after going down again. Then lerner went and employed him. Its as if Lerner only look at alex's stats, which probably do look good considering league finish and money spent, but it only tells half the story.

The most boring days in football is when your team plays a mcleish coached side.

true

guys you really need to see past mcleish, the book stops with lerner, randolf really has let the side down with lack of ambition.
everything good he did in 3yrs hes destroyed in 1yr and now were are back to the level doug left us at. i really cant see villa improving anymore under lerner.

Yes templar. The 'buck' stops with Lerner. Partly.
When he first came in, he talked a good fight and endeared fans with free travel to chelsea. He even put his money where his mouth is.
His realisation now though, that the premier league is tough, had forced him to pull back and make cuts. He now wants a club that is financially sound that makes money developing and selling youth (kinda reminds me of someone).
He will probably splash out a bit if there is a serious threat of relegation as, that would cripple the club.
I can draw a lot of parallels with him and Doug. I also recall Deadly saying (on Randy's appointment) that he had handed the club to someone who would continue to run it in the right way. Did he mean his way?
Its no bad thing that we are in a reasonable shape money wise. Its not Randy's fault that Citeh, Chelsea et all have endless amounts of money that we can't compete with.
It all began with Doug imho.
We should have invested more after we were the first english club back in europe following the english ban. We should have invested after finishing runners up to liverpool.
In short, we didnt capitalise. Our history back then was as good as anyones and better than most.
Villa missed the boat years ago.

"We should have invested more after we were the first english club back in europe following the english ban"

-------------------------------------

It was a different game entirely back then. The gap between the best and the rest wasn't exaggerated by the extraordinary wealth that Champions League football and television rights bring to the upper echelon clubs. Even in the 80s, significant investment (or just more investment) wouldn't have guaranteed any long-term success. For the amounts that the very top clubs (the Uniteds and Liverpools) generated wasn't significantly greater than the likes of Villa.

Lerner is in no way to blame. He has a certain amount of money and quite clearly was prepared to invest, but he could bankrupt himself in doing so and still fall way short of the wealth that is at the disposal of clubs like City (that's with a "y" by the way) and Chelsea. During his tenure, he's seen Liverpool taken over by richer people than he is, and the wealth of the people on the Arsenal board (not to mention the money that that club actually generates) makes Lerner seem like a pauper in comparison.

So he's trying a different tact - which is perfectly understandable. He can't compete with such clubs in terms of investment and personal wealth, so instead of throwing his own money at the club (which lets face it, isn't enough to ensure that Villa are successful), he's trying to run the club more economically. And I, even as a City fan, think he should be applauded for that.

McLeish may well prove to be the wrong managerial appointment by Lerner. Won't be the first time that's happened, and certainly won't be the last. But, attractiveness of football being played aside, Villa are, in truth, no better or worse off than they were when O'Neill was manager. And in terms of O'Neill, look at some of the signings he made with Lerner's money. I recall many Villa fans at that time not exactly over the moon with the ambition showed by O'Neill (who signed many average players and spent a lot of money doing so).

Dont take it personal ripley. Its how city is pronouced in manchester and its easier than writing the whole name. A bit of coloquealism. Wideley accepted as such by most.
It may have been a different game however, something you said with regards to investment cements my opinion for me.
Back then there wasn't the gulf of wealth, granted. There were opportunities to build on success though. If our success had been built on back then, we could be in a similair position to Arsenal or Man U of now maybe.
Our chairman at the time didnt see it that way. His belief was, if the team has done well one season, there is no reason why they should not do well the next.
We went on to lose, Bosnich, Yorke, Keown and many others that went on to better things. Why? Because other clubs moved with the times or tried to stay ahead. They could all see the lack of ambition. We at best, stood still and eventually went backwards.
Back then, it would not have taken the sums required now to be considered as investment (even taking into account inflation). Other clubs with the money can now flash the cash for any player they want and simply outbid anyone else. Those that dont have the same funds can rely on current and recent history. There are precious few capable of that.
Within 10 years I think football will be an elitist sport with the grounds full of corporate fans and the average supporter being forced to listen to what they can on the radio unless they pay sky £70 a month just for sports.