Steven Gerrard - Aston Villa Manager

[Mook]

Stig is correct.

 

As for saying Rangers are 'irrelevant', they've done a lot more in Europe than Villa have in the last 15 years.

 

Part of the problem of modern Football is people like to label these huge clubs from smaller countries 'irrelevant' due to the disgusting way the 'Champions League' is set up with all the money going to four or five big leagues & the competition going out the window to a large extent.

 

Gerrard has gone to Villa because he'll get paid more, have more money to spend & get more chance at the Liverpool job. Not because they're a bigger club than Rangers. This is all due to the way the TV money is distributed.

[Bobby Hundreds]

I'd put Villa on par with Rangers in terms of me not giving  a shit about either and their only relevance to me is Gerrards connection. The size of either club who cares  I don't really care too much about the size of any club, Brentford is as big in a Brentford fans life as Liverpool is in a Liverpool fans, the advantage of perceived size is the quality of player you can attract. United are huge can attract and buy big players Liverpool are huge can attract but can't afford to buy big players unless we develop and sell for profit. Man City a no mark club but could then buy and attract big players because size don't mean shit,  money moves this game.

 

At Villa Gerrard will get more money, attract a better quality player and get the spotlight that the Premier league demands, so on that point Villa is a bigger job, a higher profile and strangely less demanding, he can draw and lose games at Villa its expected because they're not a big fish in a little pond.

[m0e]

On 15/11/2021 at 13:22, Bjornebye said:

https://video.avfc.co.uk/video/dm9kJTdDMF8zaG4zenF5diU3QyUyRnNlY3Rpb24lM0ZzbHVnJTNEaG9tZSU3Q2hvbWUlMkZoZXJvX2Nhcm91c2Vs?lang=en#t=0:04

 

 

First full interview 

I don't like how he comes across.

 

He's not genuine, like Klopp. Very few are, I suppose.

 

His "all in" comment in the next one was bollocks as well, because everyone knows the minute we offer him the job, he's got his bags packed already.

 

He would have been better off talking about wanting to prove his managerial credentials, and that Villa would see the benefit of that no matter what happens next.

[Curly]

On 19/11/2021 at 09:07, Chris said:

The bigger here relates to the immense popularity of the league, meaning an international broadcaster will pay that kinda money for what is the country's fourth most popular sport at best. 

That would suggest that any team who happen to be in the league at any point are bigger than Celtic and Rangers, which as a basis for the argument, is nonsense. If that was the case, Brentford are bigger than Celtic and Rangers. 
 

Bigger isnt just measured against financials - it’s on recognition, standing, history, achievements, fan base, legacy, significance.

[Curly]

1 hour ago, Mook said:

Stig is correct.

 

As for saying Rangers are 'irrelevant', they've done a lot more in Europe than Villa have in the last 15 years.

 

Part of the problem of modern Football is people like to label these huge clubs from smaller countries 'irrelevant' due to the disgusting way the 'Champions League' is set up with all the money going to four or five big leagues & the competition going out the window to a large extent.

 

Gerrard has gone to Villa because he'll get paid more, have more money to spend & get more chance at the Liverpool job. Not because they're a bigger club than Rangers. This is all due to the way the TV money is distributed.

Spot on

[Chris]

58 minutes ago, Belarus said:

That would suggest that any team who happen to be in the league at any point are bigger than Celtic and Rangers, which as a basis for the argument, is nonsense. If that was the case, Brentford are bigger than Celtic and Rangers. 
 

Bigger isnt just measured against financials - it’s on recognition, standing, history, achievements, fan base, legacy, significance.

Exactly! Hence Villa being bigger in about 5 of the parameters you set out. As well as being in a league so popular that a pillar US broadcaster would pay $2bn to air, while the Scottish league gets peanuts from a niche streaming service. 

 

And legacy? Well they are a founding member of the football league. 

[Curly]

12 minutes ago, Chris said:

Exactly! Hence Villa being bigger in about 5 of the parameters you set out. As well as being in a league so popular that a pillar US broadcaster would pay $2bn to air, while the Scottish league gets peanuts from a niche streaming service. 

“The bigger here relates to the immense popularity of the league, meaning an international broadcaster will pay that kinda money for what is the country's fourth most popular sport at best. “

 

You have now developed your argument from the above, which was your basis for suggesting villa were bigger. You suggested that they are bigger than Rangers and Celtic because they play in the premier league, which is totally flawed when you consider the teams most definitely not as big, in any way, apart from the odd season in the league.

 

The parameters laid out leave it as debatable between Rangers and Villa, not conclusive either way, as both have their points and arguments. Your point, which you have attempted to move away from, is nonsense. Participation in the premier league does not automatically elevate your size above Rangers and Celtic.

[Arniepie]

1 hour ago, m0e said:

I don't like how he comes across.

 

He's not genuine, like Klopp. Very few are, I suppose.

 

His "all in" comment in the next one was bollocks as well, because everyone knows the minute we offer him the job, he's got his bags packed already.

 

He would have been better off talking about wanting to prove his managerial credentials, and that Villa would see the benefit of that no matter what happens next.

In what way is he not 'genuine?

[Arniepie]

11 hours ago, cloggypop said:

Blerts On A Train

 

That one on the left is a nailed on nonce.

[Chris]

1 hour ago, Belarus said:

“The bigger here relates to the immense popularity of the league, meaning an international broadcaster will pay that kinda money for what is the country's fourth most popular sport at best. “

 

You have now developed your argument from the above, which was your basis for suggesting villa were bigger. You suggested that they are bigger than Rangers and Celtic because they play in the premier league, which is totally flawed when you consider the teams most definitely not as big, in any way, apart from the odd season in the league.

 

The parameters laid out leave it as debatable between Rangers and Villa, not conclusive either way, as both have their points and arguments. Your point, which you have attempted to move away from, is nonsense. Participation in the premier league does not automatically elevate your size above Rangers and Celtic.

But it does when you've won the European Cup, English League, FA Cup, are the biggest team in England's second city, are a founding member of the football league, have way way better players, AND play in the Premier League. 

[Chris]

3 hours ago, Mook said:

Stig is correct.

 

As for saying Rangers are 'irrelevant', they've done a lot more in Europe than Villa have in the last 15 years.

 

Part of the problem of modern Football is people like to label these huge clubs from smaller countries 'irrelevant' due to the disgusting way the 'Champions League' is set up with all the money going to four or five big leagues & the competition going out the window to a large extent.

 

Gerrard has gone to Villa because he'll get paid more, have more money to spend & get more chance at the Liverpool job. Not because they're a bigger club than Rangers. This is all due to the way the TV money is distributed.

 

Scottish football negotiates its own TV deals and gets pennies on the pound for it compared to the premier league. Nothing to do with how it's distributed. 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

 

Scottish football negotiates its own TV deals and gets pennies on the pound for it compared to the premier league. Nothing to do with how it's distributed. 

Both Old Firm sides have plenty of viewers not just south of the border but across the world. Do you think many outside of England (or even Birmingham) give a flying fuck about Aston Villa? 

 

Mate, I've been in Tokyo and had a beer in a Celtic supporters club there and it was rammed with Celtic fans. Same in Australia. The Old Firms sides are huge around the world. I do appreciate what you're saying about the PL, Villas European Cup and being a founding member of the Football League but they just aren't a bigger club/institution. I honestly can't even believe it's being questioned. Villa are a big club for sure but they are a shelf below the Old Firm. 

[3 Stacks]

Stevie G vs. G (S)Pott today. Whoever wins becomes our next manager in a few years. 

[Mook]

40 minutes ago, Chris said:

 

Scottish football negotiates its own TV deals and gets pennies on the pound for it compared to the premier league. Nothing to do with how it's distributed. 

The whole sport was completely rigged in 1992 though. It's got everything to do with how the money is distributed. The Scottish game was pretty healthy until that point along with a lot of other smaller countries, also left in the wilderness now unfortunately.

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Mook said:

The whole sport was completely rigged in 1992 though. It's got everything to do with how the money is distributed. The Scottish game was pretty healthy until that point along with a lot of other smaller countries, also left in the wilderness now unfortunately.

r*ngers beat English champions Leeds in the European Cup over 2 legs in the 'battle of britain' beating them home and away. Aberdeen and Dundee Utd had won European trophies in the 80's, you're spot on. Both Old Firm sides have made Uefa cup finals since 2000. Have Villa even played in Europe in that time? They were in the Championship a few years ago. 

[Curly]

48 minutes ago, Chris said:

But it does when you've won the European Cup, English League, FA Cup, are the biggest team in England's second city, are a founding member of the football league, have way way better players, AND play in the Premier League. 

You’re doing it again. I’m not debating Rangers and Villa with you. I was merely pulling you up for using the argument that featuring in the premier league automatically elevates a team above Rangers or Celtic. It doesn’t and shouldn’t.

 

In regards to the villa Rangers debate - The level of players isn’t a metric due to the money being thrown about which isn’t based on success in recent years.

 

A founding member of the football league isn’t a metric. In fact that’s laughable and teetering on Evertonian level of argument.

 

Rangers and Celtic have both been to a European final since the turn of the century, as well as compete in the competitions year in, year out. 
 

Villa have spent a lot of time over the last 10 years outside the premier league too.

 

Also, if I type villa on my phone, it doesn’t autocorrect to capitalise it. Typing Rangers it does. That probably seems irrevlevant, until I remind myself you brought up them being founder members of the football league. Ha

[Chris]

15 minutes ago, Mook said:

The whole sport was completely rigged in 1992 though. It's got everything to do with how the money is distributed. The Scottish game was pretty healthy until that point along with a lot of other smaller countries, also left in the wilderness now unfortunately.

The state of the Scottish game can also be partially attributed to the greed of Rangers and Celtic who set up a duopoly. 

[Chris]

8 minutes ago, Belarus said:

You’re doing it again. I’m not debating Rangers and Villa with you. I was merely pulling you up for using the argument that featuring in the premier league automatically elevates a team above Rangers or Celtic. It doesn’t and shouldn’t.

 

In regards to the villa Rangers debate - The level of players isn’t a metric due to the money being thrown about which isn’t based on success in recent years.

 

A founding member of the football league isn’t a metric. In fact that’s laughable and teetering on Evertonian level of argument.

 

Rangers and Celtic have both been to a European final since the turn of the century, as well as compete in the competitions year in, year out. 
 

Villa have spent a lot of time over the last 10 years outside the premier league too.

 

Also, if I type villa on my phone, it doesn’t autocorrect to capitalise it. Typing Rangers it does. That probably seems irrevlevant, until I remind myself you brought up them being founder members of the football league. Ha

You were talking about legacy. That's why I brought up them being founder members. 

[Bjornebye]

15 minutes ago, Chris said:

The state of the Scottish game can also be partially attributed to the greed of Rangers and Celtic who set up a duopoly. 

Fair point but the TV networks were insistent that the majority of coverage goes to the Old Firm teams because of the respective fanbases. Sky insisted on 18:05 kick offs for Old Firms on a fucking Sunday night in the late 90's and the police very nearly put a nail in the sky contract. I went to two of those late kick offs as a kid and quite frankly they should have. When Setanta came in they too only wanted coverage of the Old Firm sides. They just happen to be two of the biggest supported sides in the Uk and Ireland, it's hardly their fault. 

[Captain Howdy]

On 18/11/2021 at 22:50, m0e said:

The problem with shit football is that you have to win regularly.

 

I sat through some unbearable football with Houllier and Benitez and when they stopped winning, the style (and ultimately their positions at the club) became untenable.

Spot on that

[Torvald Utne]

Good to see him back from the wilderness

[cloggypop]

He's got Villa playing decent football already. 

[m0e]

3 hours ago, Arniepie said:

In what way is he not 'genuine?

I explained myself in the post you quoted.

 

Did you watch the interview?

[Barrington Womble]

51 minutes ago, Chris said:

The state of the Scottish game can also be partially attributed to the greed of Rangers and Celtic who set up a duopoly. 

Scottish football is shite because as soon as tv money made gate receipts less significant, domestically the old firm were fighting over a population of 5m and england had 10 times that (remembering all the biggest Welsh teams also take part in the English league). As the tv money grew and the PL could attract more good players, the more the PL appealed to oversees viewers. Then the champions league pumps more money into countries who have the biggest viewing figures. So this also hampered Scotland comparatively speaking. 

 

Real Madrid and Barcelona also enacted a situation financially where they chose the path to attempt to create a domestic duopoly by keeping most domestic tv rights for themselves. Are Aston Villa bigger than them too?

 

Villa are a big club with a fine history, it doesn't put them ahead of the old firm though just because they play in the premier league. 

[Dr Nowt]

I don’t think Villa are bigger than Rangers

either.
 

Bigger than Celtic, obviously, but not Rangers.