Would YOU have MON back ??

[Nev]

Nev

There was a post from pelty back in the summer along the lines of we'd turned down two bids and it was a surprise to the board and milner when MON told the media he wanted to leave.

Oh and in answer to the original question no no and thrice no. The traitorous twat can go and hang.

OK, so we are saying that Milner did not want to go to Man City at all but was forced out by MON? I seem to recall the deal being completed after he left?

Without wishing to go over old ground but I thought accepted wisdom was that early in the summer Milner had not requested a move and we had rebuffed bids from Citeh.  As I said above and it was confirmed by pelty earlier in the season when MON came out with his he wants to leave stuff this was a surprise to milner and the board, in fact Milner came out and said exactly that about 3 days later.  Citeh renewed their interest and the board had to back their Manager in his decision to sell the player.  Why MON did it I don't know but it spectacularly backfired as we lost one of our two best players and ended up having to accept having the deal cheapened with the inclusion of the headcase Ireland.  I know Milner hasn't been pulling up trees at Citeh but I know which club got the better deal.

I was under the impression that the accepted wisdom was that Milner wanted to leave. It's the first I've heard that MON had forced him to leave.

[AV82EC]

Nev

There was a post from pelty back in the summer along the lines of we'd turned down two bids and it was a surprise to the board and milner when MON told the media he wanted to leave.

Oh and in answer to the original question no no and thrice no. The traitorous twat can go and hang.

OK, so we are saying that Milner did not want to go to Man City at all but was forced out by MON? I seem to recall the deal being completed after he left?

We are "saying" no such thing.  I am speculating based on the postings of Pelty and also comments made to me by one of the playing staff who I met and had a long conversation with last year.

Which brings me back to my point. The opinions of Martin O'Neil aired on here regarding the circumstances of his departure are based on pure speculation and nothing else.

But we're not speculating on his departure we're speculating on why he sold Milner, though it has to be said the two issues are not unrelated.

However the reason he left, and yes its going to be speculation until he comes out and tells us, is that he'd been asked to reduce the wage bill by the board and he felt this was restricting his ability to operate in the transfer market.  He decided he couldn't operate in that environment and left.  I'm sure there are probably a whole range of other factors but looking at the evidence that did exist from the summer that to me seems to be the over riding factor.

[AV82EC]

Nev

There was a post from pelty back in the summer along the lines of we'd turned down two bids and it was a surprise to the board and milner when MON told the media he wanted to leave.

Oh and in answer to the original question no no and thrice no. The traitorous twat can go and hang.

OK, so we are saying that Milner did not want to go to Man City at all but was forced out by MON? I seem to recall the deal being completed after he left?

Without wishing to go over old ground but I thought accepted wisdom was that early in the summer Milner had not requested a move and we had rebuffed bids from Citeh.  As I said above and it was confirmed by pelty earlier in the season when MON came out with his he wants to leave stuff this was a surprise to milner and the board, in fact Milner came out and said exactly that about 3 days later.  Citeh renewed their interest and the board had to back their Manager in his decision to sell the player.  Why MON did it I don't know but it spectacularly backfired as we lost one of our two best players and ended up having to accept having the deal cheapened with the inclusion of the headcase Ireland.  I know Milner hasn't been pulling up trees at Citeh but I know which club got the better deal.

I was under the impression that the accepted wisdom was that Milner wanted to leave. It's the first I've heard that MON had forced him to leave.

Nev

I'm not going to write you a timeline but Milner said he wanted to leave only after we'd agreed to sell him and you can make your own mind up as to whether that was engineered by MON or not.

[Eigentor]

MON lost interest. He was a good manager, he had his ways of doing things -- and they worked, to an extent. But, it seemed, his only idea of how to improve the team was spend, spend, spend.

Several players commented that he wasn't his usual self in pre-season. Whether that was because he was rejected by Liverpool or because he had taken Villa as far as he could without spending even more on players, I don't know.

Even so, the point is, he didn't want the job anymore, he had lost interest. He resigned, he didn't even bother about the fact that the timing was as bad as possible. His comments about Milner wanting to leave was unhelpful. Maybe we could have kept our best player if he hadn't made them. Some view the comments as deliberate sabotage. I see them as evidence that MON, at that point, didn't care anymore.

This season has been bad, but I'm not sure if it would have been much better with a disinterested MON in charge, going through the motions.

[Nev]

Nev

There was a post from pelty back in the summer along the lines of we'd turned down two bids and it was a surprise to the board and milner when MON told the media he wanted to leave.

Oh and in answer to the original question no no and thrice no. The traitorous twat can go and hang.

OK, so we are saying that Milner did not want to go to Man City at all but was forced out by MON? I seem to recall the deal being completed after he left?

We are "saying" no such thing.  I am speculating based on the postings of Pelty and also comments made to me by one of the playing staff who I met and had a long conversation with last year.

Which brings me back to my point. The opinions of Martin O'Neil aired on here regarding the circumstances of his departure are based on pure speculation and nothing else.

But we're not speculating on his departure we're speculating on why he sold Milner, though it has to be said the two issues are not unrelated.

However the reason he left, and yes its going to be speculation until he comes out and tells us, is that he'd been asked to reduce the wage bill by the board and he felt this was restricting his ability to operate in the transfer market.  He decided he couldn't operate in that environment and left.  I'm sure there are probably a whole range of other factors but looking at the evidence that did exist from the summer that to me seems to be the over riding factor.

I couldn't agree more, given what we've heard that is the only conclusion I can come to. The timing is the key issue though. I just don't buy the line that he deliberately timed his departure to cause maximum harm to the club, when he had shown no real signs of being a vindictive person before. I beleive his relationship with the board deteriorated throughout the summer to such a point that he thought his position was untenable and as such saw no option but to leave. He would hold the board responsible for the timing and vice versa, hence the rather fudged pronouncements.

Personally I will reserve judgement until the truth comes out.