Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Oscar Arce on August 11, 2010, 10:57:08 AM
-
SSN just said there will be a club statement this morning.......
-
Stream for SSN if anybody needs it:
http://www.streamick.com/index.php?tv=ssn
-
50 minutes of this morning to go and counting.
-
The problem is that no-one can check the OS because of the new site building.
Flipping numpty's.
-
Does this work ?
http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/NewsIndex
-
Ohhhh, that's cheeky.
-
I hope the statement is a bit more dignified than MONs departure.
-
Does this work ?
http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/NewsIndex
Good work mate
-
Merson: Ace Ash Will Star for England
What bastards!
-
9 minutes to go.
-
Merson: Ace Ash Will Star for England
What bastards!
who ??
-
Ian Holloway is on SSN at the moment. I'm sure he'll eventually be worn down like the rest of them, but for the moment he really is a breath of fresh air.
-
9 minutes to go.
Maybe Randy is working to US time?
-
When SSN say "within the hour", they usually mean "Just before you - yes, you, personally - have to leave the house so you miss it. Stay tuned."
-
probably a club statement to announce the official website re-design...
-
Breaking news from Villa Park!
..............after the break. Followed by longest run of adverts since Pearl and Deane. (not sure about the 'e' at the end).
-
They're saying it's now. So should be within the next 15 minutes?
Live to the training ground, who's gonna deliver it?
-
Villa 'about' to issue statement regarding reasons for MON's departure. Going live to the training ground apparently....
-
Here it comes
-
no longer shared a common view as to how to move forward.
-
Very none committal.
-
worth waiting for
-
Well, that was dull.
"No longer shared the same views about how to take the club forward"
-
Priority is supporting Kev Mac and sorting out Milner situation, whilst appointing a new manager
-
I think the media are still just tying it transfers. It's not. It's partly transfers, but it's the simple fact that we spent a lot of money on players that didn't contribute. I don't Randy is naive and is insisting on a smaller squad. What he'll have asked MON is why have you shelled out x million in transfers and wages on these players if you're never going to play them?
-
Can't get sound on my laptop at work - is that all they've said ("No longer shared the same views...."??????!!!!!!
-
Not going to comment further on differences with MON as it will distract from the other issues that need sorting. Diginifed and restrained by Lerner
-
ahahah
The reporter just said, when asked what about O'Neill's future, that O'Neill doesn't appear to have a Plan B.
Nothing new there then.
-
ahahah
The reporter just said, when asked what about O'Neill's future, that O'Neill doesn't appear to have a Plan B.
Nothing new there then.
You cow Pauline, I was just about to post that!
-
Yawn. Sheds no light. Oh well. O'Neill is in the past, time to move forward. New manager, new players, new season.
-
ahahah
The reporter just said, when asked what about O'Neill's future, that O'Neill doesn't appear to have a Plan B.
Nothing new there then.
You cow Pauline, I was just about to post that!
*sorry*
-
They reckon there's no timeframe in place for appointing the new boss now. Yesterday it seemed we would have him in place by the trip to Newcastle.
-
"Finally, there have been no changes in our approach to building the club, aiming always to be as competitive as possible given our size and resources."
Is this a white flag to trying to compete right at the top end of things?
-
I think the media are still just tying it transfers. It's not. It's partly transfers, but it's the simple fact that we spent a lot of money on players that didn't contribute. I don't Randy is naive and is insisting on a smaller squad. What he'll have asked MON is why have you shelled out x million in transfers and wages on these players if you're never going to play them?
To put it crudely I imagine it goes something like - the wage bill target is now £x and we will not sanction any additions that threaten that target, therefore if you can't sell Sidwell and Luke Young sell somebody else if you want to sign Robbie Keane.
Very pleased with Lerner's statement, nothing to be gained by raking over the coals.
-
The last bit sounded very much like a surrender to me.
A very tedious statement.
-
that clears things up then.
-
The last bit sounded very much like a surrender to me.
A very tedious statement.
What did you expect him to say? "Mon's a twat and has left us in the shit and I hate him"
Short and sweet. We disagreed, he left, life goes on and we have matches to win etc etc
-
"Finally, there have been no changes in our approach to building the club, aiming always to be as competitive as possible given our size and resources."
Is this a white flag to trying to compete right at the top end of things?
Those are caveats, which I'm not sure we had four years ago. I think they are trying to manage expectations now.
-
"given our size and resources"?
Interesting last few words, perhaps we aren't as big a club as some on here like to believe!
-
The last bit sounded very much like a surrender to me.
A very tedious statement.
What did you expect him to say? "Mon's a twat and has left us in the shit and I hate him"
Short and sweet. We disagreed, he left, life goes on and we have matches to win etc etc
Did it take him 48 hours to prepare it?
-
MON told he didn't have complete control.
Threw toys out and left.
As we all thought.
-
I wouldn't read too much into the size and resources thing.
Old Trafford is almost twice the size of Villa Park and is full every week, they have global brand and have dominated English football for the past two decades. I won't take it as an insult if we haven't got the resources to yet match that but trust that Randy is trying to build something solid and lasting here so that we can compete at the top level.
-
MON told he didn't have complete control.
Threw toys out and left.
As we all thought.
You know, reading between the lines of the statement I can clearly see that message to.
I can also see a naked Isla Fisher everytime I look a a full moon through 3D specs and the face of Jesus in my morning cornflakes.
-
I think the resources part is obviously in reference to the fact we're not bank-rolled by an oil-rich multi, multi, multi billionaire.
I'm not reading too much into that.
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
-
I wouldn't read too much into the size and resources thing.
Old Trafford is almost twice the size of Villa Park and is full every week, they have global brand and have dominated English football for the past two decades. I won't take it as an insult if we haven't got the resources to yet match that but trust that Randy is trying to build something solid and lasting here so that we can compete at the top level.
Agree, I see nothing wrong in what he's said. We have to work with the resources we've got as do every club. Man U, Man City and Chelsea, it's the same for these clubs too. The only difference being that the resources available at these clubs are far greater that what are available to us.
Something we know already.
-
I think the resources part is obviously in reference to the fact we're not bank-rolled by an oil-rich multi, multi, multi billionaire.
I'm not reading too much into that.
We are still in the transfer window remember, so Randy obviously had to make sure that other buying/selling clubs don't think that they can take the piss while we are without a manager. Indeed, he states that there is no change in the approach to building the club which means that their aim is to still get CL football.
-
The best statement we'll see this week is a statement of intent from the players: pre-match huddle, get the fans behind them, tear West Ham a new one.
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
Man City are the exception to just about every football finance rule ever written. I may be reading too muich into it and time will tell, but's almost 'we know our place in the scheme of things' comment.
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.
-
The Mat Kendrick story in the Mail today said that they want to reduce wages to 60% of turnover. That will have a profound effect on our stated ambitions.
-
The best statement we'll see this week is a statement of intent from the players: pre-match huddle, get the fans behind them, tear West Ham a new one.
They might play better now that they are not constrained by a certain 'style'...
-
The Mat Kendrick story in the Mail today said that they want to reduce wages to 60% of turnover. That will have a profound effect on our stated ambitions.
Not necessarily, if that's 60% of an ever increasing turnover.
-
Chicken and egg though. If 4 years of investment without strings haven't got us a to a position where we can sustain the current squad's wages I can't see how we're going to get to a point where we can sustain those of a better squad.
-
Although we now have to accept the wage to revenue ratio, which will have an impact on our ability to compete that the highest level, I still think it's a good thing.
Randy will not be around forever, and building a club that has a wage bill at 60% of the revenue the club generates means that we will be sustainable in the future.
-
The Mat Kendrick story in the Mail today said that they want to reduce wages to 60% of turnover. That will have a profound effect on our stated ambitions.
Not necessarily, if that's 60% of an ever increasing turnover.
Do you want to put that into context and explain how you think we might do that?
-
Although we now have to accept the wage to revenue ratio, which will have an impact on our ability to compete that the highest level, I still think it's a good thing.
Randy will not be around forever, and building a club that has a wage bill at 60% of the revenue the club generates means that we will be sustainable in the future.
Agreed it is what we should strive for in the mid to long term but I think it will have some impact on our short term ambitions.
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now.
Great! I hope it means that he'll be telling the new manager that he'd best be buying players that he intends to use once in a while and, perhaps just maybe, in the position that they've bought in to play.
That'd be fucking fantastic, that would!
Other than that, there are to be no changes with how Randy will build the club.
That's BUILD. Not dismantle, not reduce, not to leave derilict. Build.
I for one am very happy if the current board at Villa keep doing things how they've been doing things.
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.
Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.
If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.
Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.
-
The Mat Kendrick story in the Mail today said that they want to reduce wages to 60% of turnover. That will have a profound effect on our stated ambitions.
Not necessarily, if that's 60% of an ever increasing turnover.
Do you want to put that into context and explain how you think we might do that?
Well, one obvious way would be by extending the North Stand, raising the capacity by 10,000.
The other would be by building a team that plays attractive football, thus putting the bums on the seats.
-
The Mat Kendrick story in the Mail today said that they want to reduce wages to 60% of turnover. That will have a profound effect on our stated ambitions.
Not necessarily, if that's 60% of an ever increasing turnover.
Exactly right, as I put on another thread, changing that percentage means either reducing wages or increasing income, do a bit of both for now (which we've started with the current departures and with the new sponsors) and then keep the income rising is the sensible approach here and is how any decent business is run. This is what the general has been saying on the site for months. The 40% excess year on year pays to push us on, therefore increasing income and allowing us to push on further.
-
Well turnover for the next accounts will be at least 90 million given the sponsorship- not taking into account the cup runs and prize money.
-
I'm going to be really disappointed if we are not going to get Ireland in the deal for Milner especislly as it looks the Milner money isn't being put into the transfer pot.How are we going to buy Keane without shifting the deadwood ??
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.
Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.
If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.
Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.
If we can't sell them and you want to continue with the blame game then it doesn't reflect well on any of them, Randy was the man signing the cheques. I tend to think it is more to do with the changed economic climate and clubs now trying to do what we're aiiming to do with wages where in the past players such as Young, Sidwell and Reo Coker would have found a home at another PL club without too much difficulty.
-
I'm going to be really disappointed if we are not going to get Ireland in the deal for Milner especislly as it looks the Milner money isn't being put into the transfer pot.How are we going to buy Keane without shifting the deadwood ??
I've just said this in the transfer thread, but we are managerless, so who will be negotiating these deals for new players that, for all we know, our new manager may not want to play.
And who decides which players to sell?
I'll bet we buy nobody in the transer window
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.
Chris, I cannot imagine that being financially responsible wasn't the plan all along, and it simply got out of hand. Or that the investments made haven't given the required or desired return. I don't think Lerner has a problem with a new manager spending money, but there needs to be a framework which everyone agrees to. If by shifting out some of the players who haven't performed and supplementing the club with new players that will actually contribute as part of a squad, then they have a system whereby each asset is providing some return. With some of the kids also coming through it would be a more sustainable plan.
I still think it is a complete myth that the new manager won't have money to spoend, but it won't be predicated on having to sell first. But we will have to sell players that the new manager deems expendable.
-
Thought this was the appropriate place to post this.
It is now time to move on from Martin O'Neill and look to the future.
He deserves credit for elements in which he has done well the signings of Ashley Young, Milner and Dunne being just a few.
I thank him for achieving 3 consecutive 6th place finishes and 2 Wembley appearances.
The owner of the club has decided that our wages are not sustainable based on our revenue, the wages to turnover in the latest accounts could be over 100%, is this sustainable? No chance.
The club has this summer accelerated the drive to get in further money through sponsorships, partnerships and corporate entertainment. This needs to happen we need to maximise income as much as possible. It is a two pronged approach bring in more money on the one hand and reduce costs on the other, more players will leave but we need to be able to exist as a club in the future, if we continued down the path of excessive wages to turnover then we would be well on our way to doing a Portsmouth, this might sound like Doug Ellis in disguise but the reality is do you want a club to support if Randy Lerner was to leave tomorrow.
We need to cut our cloth accordingly, other clubs are doing it, Everton under Moyes seem to manage. Our accounts last year did not make a pretty picture and as for this year I dread to think how bad the loss could be. Randy knew this when he bought the club that there would need to be a period of investment and potential losses, what I guess he did not bank on was Man City and financial crisis all over the world, I am sure it has affected his outlook in the short term.
Take Man City out of the equation this summer, and have clubs in the premier league been spending any money? I truly believe the situation with Portsmouth has made many owner or board take a long hard look at the finances and tighten the purse strings. We are not alone and the thought that managers wont arrive because we do not have the funds to spend is a concerning one.
I think its a case of wait and see now, the owner is trying to do right by the club and I am dam sure he is not going to jeopardise a quarter of a billion pound investment so far by making rash decisions that do not benefit him or the club.
-
Lets not forget that Young and Sidwell almost left. If they had, along with the Shorey deal and Harewood and Bouma coming off the wage bill, it's very conceivable that the issue would be largely resolved and Martin would still be our manager.
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.
Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.
If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.
Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.
If we can't sell them and you want to continue with the blame game then it doesn't reflect well on any of them, Randy was the man signing the cheques. I tend to think it is more to do with the changed economic climate and clubs now trying to do what we're aiiming to do with wages where in the past players such as Young, Sidwell and Reo Coker would have found a home at another PL club without too much difficulty.
and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.
Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.
If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.
Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.
If we can't sell them and you want to continue with the blame game then it doesn't reflect well on any of them, Randy was the man signing the cheques. I tend to think it is more to do with the changed economic climate and clubs now trying to do what we're aiiming to do with wages where in the past players such as Young, Sidwell and Reo Coker would have found a home at another PL club without too much difficulty.
and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?
I hope you're not counting appearances that constitute 5 minutes at the end of game.
-
and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?
Reserves and youth team players for starters.
There's no point having someone like Habib Beye hosing out 40k a week to do nothing - no 30 games a season there, I note. Why not use Lichaj? Or get someone who'll do the job for 20k a week?
Incidentally, "appearances" doesn't tell the story.
Sidwell has started a total of 23 league games in two years. I appreciate that there were also 18 lots of 10 minute cameos, but that hardly suggests a player used much.
Reo-Coker has started 61 league games in three years, but how many of those were last year?
Is it wise to have a 9m transfer fee and high wages tied up in our third/fourth choice centre back?
We have a budget to work to, there isn't a never ending supply of money, it seems sensible that, when wages to turnover is so worryingly high, we might want to look at getting more value out of our assets or whether we're allocating our resources particularly well.
-
I hope you're not counting appearances that constitute 5 minutes at the end of game.
Of course he is.
He's also taking an average over three years rather than look closer at the appearances said players have made recently.
-
It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue.
Where's the issue? We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.
The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.
Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.
If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.
Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.
If we can't sell them and you want to continue with the blame game then it doesn't reflect well on any of them, Randy was the man signing the cheques. I tend to think it is more to do with the changed economic climate and clubs now trying to do what we're aiiming to do with wages where in the past players such as Young, Sidwell and Reo Coker would have found a home at another PL club without too much difficulty.
and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?
I hope you're not counting appearances that constitute 5 minutes at the end of game.
I'm counting all the times they have played for Villa. The fact is that each of them started as a first choice player when they joined. We replaced them in the first team with better players last season and they were relegated to the subs bench in exactly the way that every club would wish to improve their team. When we ship those players out, who takes their place on the bench? Collins, Petrov and Downing? It probably should be but its not going to be now is it?
-
and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?
*gregpalm*
Truly desperate usage of stats there. NRC started 6 games last season.
-
I hope you're not counting appearances that constitute 5 minutes at the end of game.
Of course he is.
He's also taking an average over three years rather than look closer at the appearances said players have made recently.
I'm taking an average over the time they have been here. They started as first team players, we brought in better and they were relegated to the bench. Exactly as people on here have advocated as the right way to do things since Lerner took over.
-
I'm counting all the times they have played for Villa. The fact is that each of them started as a first choice player when they joined. We replaced them in the first team with better players last season and they were relegated to the subs bench in exactly the way that every club would wish to improve their team. When we ship those players out, who takes their place on the bench? Collins, Petrov and Downing? It probably should be but its not going to be now is it?
But the point is, we haven't shipped any of them out, other than Shorey.
I can't keep up with you. First of all, you were demanding massive investments. Then you changed your mind, fair enough, and supported the incremental, more measured growth, but now you seem to be refusing to admit the need to not be reckless with money.
-
Edit: sorry - messed up the quotes.
Do you not understand that the club has declared a move from incremental growth (which I was happy with) to swingeing cuts (which has pissed me off a little)?
-
I hope you're not counting appearances that constitute 5 minutes at the end of game.
Of course he is.
He's also taking an average over three years rather than look closer at the appearances said players have made recently.
I'm taking an average over the time they have been here. They started as first team players, we brought in better and they were relegated to the bench. Exactly as people on here have advocated as the right way to do things since Lerner took over.
Except some of them, ie Shorey and Beye, have barely been near the bench let alone the pitch for a good while now.
The point is, they're still here, they're still not getting used, and they're still on big wages.
Do you not see why it might make sense to move them on, get in players who will cost less, and use that saved money perhaps where it is better needed?
-
I have to say the new software has seen some epic quote fails of late.
-
Do you not understand that the club has declared a move from incremental growth (which I was happy with) to swingeing cuts (which has pissed me off a little)?
Swingeing cuts? How would losing Beye or Davies or Shorey or Sidwell or NRC really have affected us?
Doing something about the wage bill. It's not exactly George Osborne setting about the economy, is it?
-
I'm going to be really disappointed if we are not going to get Ireland in the deal for Milner especislly as it looks the Milner money isn't being put into the transfer pot.How are we going to buy Keane without shifting the deadwood ??
i think reading from what lerner has said, i dont think the money was made available for oneil to spend !!
new manager would get a bit as long as deadwood is shipped out and the wages are reduced
general and lerner have both said its the wages we need to get rid of....
-
I can't understand the worry myself. We'll be fine. The same squad that finished 6th last year with one less player is going to tumble down the league? I don't think so. Perhaps now when Petrov is breathing thru is backside after an hour we'll see NRC as his replacement or Luke Young instead of a centre half. Ash might even get dropped/dragged off when he has one of those games when he forever crosses to the first defender. And you never know Carew may stay on and partner,say, Nathan instead of being swapped for the goal machine that is Heskey. Our best player this pre season has been Albrighton, MON wouldnt have picked him on Saturday, we all know that.
Better times ahead...........we win our next 2 games and its already a better start than last year.
Bring it on
-
Except some of them, ie Shorey and Beye, have barely been near the bench let alone the pitch for a good while now.
The point is, they're still here, they're still not getting used, and they're still on big wages.
Do you not see why it might make sense to move them on, get in players who will cost less, and use that saved money perhaps where it is better needed?
It's a good point. And regardless of the number of full or part appearances they have made, how many of these players have really contributed something meaningful when they have got a game?
-
Except some of them, ie Shorey and Beye, have barely been near the bench let alone the pitch for a good while now.
The point is, they're still here, they're still not getting used, and they're still on big wages.
Do you not see why it might make sense to move them on, get in players who will cost less, and use that saved money perhaps where it is better needed?
It's a good point. And regardless of the number of full or part appearances they have made, how many of these players have really contributed something meaningful when they have got a game?
And you can't tell me that Randy or Faulkner wouldn't have noticed that. That some players play all the time, and others on similar wages, and hefty transfer fees play very infrequently. If you are going to have fringe players, which every club does, then they have to be on fringe money. If you're going to pay 6m for a full back, then given our status within the game, he better have a role to play. I understand and accept we are better defensively with Cuellar, but the plan needs to much better thought out than that if that ends up being the direction we went in. If he isn't part of the plan, then sell him which is all they asked MON to do.
-
Lerner and Faulkner pictured arriving at VP and going into The Holte Pub on SSN. According to the BBC website, there will be a further statement today, specifically to address the vacant manager situation. Anyone else heard this?
-
I have to say the new software has seen some epic quote fails of late.
The reply box that pops up isn't big enough.
Or rather, it displays the start of the quote rather than the end.
Pain in the arse.
-
...
Swingeing cuts? How would losing Beye or Davies or Shorey or Sidwell or NRC really have affected us?
Doing something about the wage bill. It's not exactly George Osborne setting about the economy, is it?
Actually it is. It doesn't matter what I say, you'll choose not to believe it, which is why I asked Risso if he would put the reduction to 60% of turnover into context early.
-
And you can't tell me that Randy or Faulkner wouldn't have noticed that. That some players play all the time, and others on similar wages, and hefty transfer fees play very infrequently. If you are going to have fringe players, which every club does, then they have to be on fringe money. If you're going to pay 6m for a full back, then given our status within the game, he better have a role to play. I understand and accept we are better defensively with Cuellar, but the plan needs to much better thought out than that if that ends up being the direction we went in. If he isn't part of the plan, then sell him which is all they asked MON to do.
Exactly right. The truth is that the amount of games these guys have played, and their contribution during those games, simply does not justify the amount of money spent on buying them and paying them.
-
And you can't tell me that Randy or Faulkner wouldn't have noticed that. That some players play all the time, and others on similar wages, and hefty transfer fees play very infrequently. If you are going to have fringe players, which every club does, then they have to be on fringe money. If you're going to pay 6m for a full back, then given our status within the game, he better have a role to play. I understand and accept we are better defensively with Cuellar, but the plan needs to much better thought out than that if that ends up being the direction we went in. If he isn't part of the plan, then sell him which is all they asked MON to do.
I think there's a danger when money men try to qualify the running of a football team in such black and white terms. What do you think the reaction would be in Fergie was told to flog £18m Michael Carrick as he plays less game and scores less goals than Paul Scholes?
-
Except some of them, ie Shorey and Beye, have barely been near the bench let alone the pitch for a good while now.
The point is, they're still here, they're still not getting used, and they're still on big wages.
Do you not see why it might make sense to move them on, get in players who will cost less, and use that saved money perhaps where it is better needed?
It's a good point. And regardless of the number of full or part appearances they have made, how many of these players have really contributed something meaningful when they have got a game?
And you can't tell me that Randy or Faulkner wouldn't have noticed that. That some players play all the time, and others on similar wages, and hefty transfer fees play very infrequently. If you are going to have fringe players, which every club does, then they have to be on fringe money. If you're going to pay 6m for a full back, then given our status within the game, he better have a role to play. I understand and accept we are better defensively with Cuellar, but the plan needs to much better thought out than that if that ends up being the direction we went in. If he isn't part of the plan, then sell him which is all they asked MON to do.
Well that's the other part of it that's confusing me. Didn't Paul Faulkner take over the "transfer deals" role when he was appointed CEO in May?
I thought that whole business with declaring the 6 players up for sale was that Lerner, O'Neill and Faulkner had agreed who was going and for what price. After that, it was down to Faulkner to negotiate the sales. Isn't that what happened?
-
Lerner and Faulkner pictured arriving at VP and going into The Holte Pub on SSN. According to the BBC website, there will be a further statement today, specifically to address the vacant manager situation. Anyone else heard this?
I hadn't heard this. Could be interesting. We'll have to wait and see.
-
And you can't tell me that Randy or Faulkner wouldn't have noticed that. That some players play all the time, and others on similar wages, and hefty transfer fees play very infrequently. If you are going to have fringe players, which every club does, then they have to be on fringe money. If you're going to pay 6m for a full back, then given our status within the game, he better have a role to play. I understand and accept we are better defensively with Cuellar, but the plan needs to much better thought out than that if that ends up being the direction we went in. If he isn't part of the plan, then sell him which is all they asked MON to do.
I think there's a danger when money men try to qualify the running of a football team in such black and white terms. What do you think the reaction would be in Fergie was told to flog £18m Michael Carrick as he plays less game and scores less goals than Paul Scholes?
I dare say those conversations occur at Man U also John. I suspect when Ferguson signed Veron, or even with Berbatov, it causes conversation in the board room as to their worth and effectiveness given the outlay. The major difference is Ferguson has won everything in the game and has enoormous credibility at the club, and Man U's turnover can support having more of those type players and wages on the books than we can. Ferguson hasn't spent much of the Ronaldo money, but I bet he would have loved to. But there are other financial issues there that he clearly understands and begrudgingly accepts. He might be the biggest person at the club, but I'm sure when asked to he'll sing from the same song sheet as the Glazers. I don't think MON was buying into that.
-
I thought that whole business with declaring the 6 players up for sale was that Lerner, O'Neill and Faulkner had agreed who was going and for what price. After that, it was down to Faulkner to negotiate the sales. Isn't that what happened?
What if nobody wanted them?
What if the players didn't want to move?
NRC has already suggested he'd sit his contract out, and Habib Beye said earlier this year that there was interest in him from elsewhere, but nobody would buy him as "they wouldnt pay his as much money as Villa do".
-
If we have to wait for Randy and Faulkner to get served in the Holte Hotel before they make a statement, I'd say it'll be tonight before we get it from them.
I waited an hour for me lasagne and chips in there last month
-
And you can't tell me that Randy or Faulkner wouldn't have noticed that. That some players play all the time, and others on similar wages, and hefty transfer fees play very infrequently. If you are going to have fringe players, which every club does, then they have to be on fringe money. If you're going to pay 6m for a full back, then given our status within the game, he better have a role to play. I understand and accept we are better defensively with Cuellar, but the plan needs to much better thought out than that if that ends up being the direction we went in. If he isn't part of the plan, then sell him which is all they asked MON to do.
I think there's a danger when money men try to qualify the running of a football team in such black and white terms. What do you think the reaction would be in Fergie was told to flog £18m Michael Carrick as he plays less game and scores less goals than Paul Scholes?
I dare say those conversations occur at Man U also John. I suspect when Ferguson signed Veron, or even with Berbatov, it causes conversation in the board room as to their worth and effectiveness given the outlay. The major difference is Ferguson has won everything in the game and has enoormous credibility at the club, and Man U's turnover can support having more of those type players and wages on the books than we can. Ferguson hasn't spent much of the Ronaldo money, but I bet he would have loved to. But there are other financial issues there that he clearly understands and begrudgingly accepts. He might be the biggest person at the club, but I'm sure when asked to he'll sing from the same song sheet as the Glazers. I don't think MON was buying into that.
Indeed.
Does anyone think that Fergie has never been told he needs to move some players on to buy?
-
Yes, Fergie and Man Utd is a different situation, but I think the same principal applies of non-football people not being able to adequately judge a player's football value. For instance, how often to we hear that competition is good for players, yet would a board not say 'play one of them and use a kid instead as reserve' by the methodology you are advocating?
And I'm not defending Martin's (lack of) use of the squad with that, just pointing out that who stays and goes is not the simple mathematical matter some are suggesting our board is adopting.
-
If we have to wait for Randy and Faulkner to get served in the Holte Hotel before they make a statement, I'd say it'll be tonight before we get it from them.
I waited an hour for me lasagne and chips in there last month
Haha! apparently the Holte is cordened off for a meeting? seems odd to hold it there, unless there going to get pissed and debate the new manager? that's what we as fans do....
-
If we have to wait for Randy and Faulkner to get served in the Holte Hotel before they make a statement, I'd say it'll be tonight before we get it from them.
I waited an hour for me lasagne and chips in there last month
Haha! apparently the Holte is cordened off for a meeting? seems odd to hold it there, unless there going to get pissed and debate the new manager? that's what we as fans do....
That sounds to me like a press conference.
Didn't he hold his last meet-up with the press in there?
-
Reasonable statement without either going into great depth or berating the former manager.
Lerner is obviously looking to protect his investment whilst ensuring we don`t become another Pmpey, Leeds or Newcastle.
I do find it a little odd that MON wasn`t restrained earlier, in particular in relation to wages etc. It smacks of "horse and stable door" economics.
Whats done is done - I don`t see any harm in re-aligning expectations somewhat...its not exactly a level playing at the minute.
I think we should put our faith in our owner in these hard times.I for one am willing to do so.
I want to see Villa competing as a club in 10 years time rather than see us bankrupt ourselves for 4th.
-
Have to say, as far as 'big announcements' go this is one of the least surprising, most diplomatic and unbelievably sensible I've seen in a while.
-
I thought that whole business with declaring the 6 players up for sale was that Lerner, O'Neill and Faulkner had agreed who was going and for what price. After that, it was down to Faulkner to negotiate the sales. Isn't that what happened?
What if nobody wanted them?
What if the players didn't want to move?
NRC has already suggested he'd sit his contract out, and Habib Beye said earlier this year that there was interest in him from elsewhere, but nobody would buy him as "they wouldnt pay his as much money as Villa do".
Not sure? Im off work and tempted to drive down there to see what I can see. How sad haha!!
-
Lerner and Faulkner pictured arriving at VP and going into The Holte Pub on SSN. According to the BBC website, there will be a further statement today, specifically to address the vacant manager situation. Anyone else heard this?
I hadn't heard this. Could be interesting. We'll have to wait and see.
So they were just going for a pint and a bag of scatchings I take it. Get some bloody work done you pair of dossers, we pay your wages.
-
If we have to wait for Randy and Faulkner to get served in the Holte Hotel before they make a statement, I'd say it'll be tonight before we get it from them.
I waited an hour for me lasagne and chips in there last month
Haha! apparently the Holte is cordened off for a meeting? seems odd to hold it there, unless there going to get pissed and debate the new manager? that's what we as fans do....
I just went to get my Vienna ticket and there were no visible signs of it being cordoned off, although the doors were shut. But then it is windy today.
-
If we have to wait for Randy and Faulkner to get served in the Holte Hotel before they make a statement, I'd say it'll be tonight before we get it from them.
I waited an hour for me lasagne and chips in there last month
Haha! apparently the Holte is cordened off for a meeting? seems odd to hold it there, unless there going to get pissed and debate the new manager? that's what we as fans do....
I just went to get my Vienna ticket and there were no visible signs of it being cordoned off, although the doors were shut. But then it is windy today.
Mate text to say no access to the Holte today?
-
I thought that whole business with declaring the 6 players up for sale was that Lerner, O'Neill and Faulkner had agreed who was going and for what price. After that, it was down to Faulkner to negotiate the sales. Isn't that what happened?
What if nobody wanted them?
What if the players didn't want to move?
NRC has already suggested he'd sit his contract out, and Habib Beye said earlier this year that there was interest in him from elsewhere, but nobody would buy him as "they wouldnt pay his as much money as Villa do".
Not sure? Im off work and tempted to drive down there to see what I can see. How sad haha!!
How peculiar.
Which one are you thnking of making an offer on?
-
Wish i could pop down.
-
How the heck did I get quoted in the above post?? haha! gremlins at play
-
If we have to wait for Randy and Faulkner to get served in the Holte Hotel before they make a statement, I'd say it'll be tonight before we get it from them.
I waited an hour for me lasagne and chips in there last month
Haha! apparently the Holte is cordened off for a meeting? seems odd to hold it there, unless there going to get pissed and debate the new manager? that's what we as fans do....
I just went to get my Vienna ticket and there were no visible signs of it being cordoned off, although the doors were shut. But then it is windy today.
Mate text to say no access to the Holte today?
It looked shut, but then I have no idea how busy it would be at this time of day anyway.
As an aside I'm the 27th person to get a Vienna ticket ha ha!
-
If they're doing anything in secret cordoning off the Holte is hardly the way to go about it.
-
As an aside I'm the 27th person to get a Vienna ticket ha ha!
I got mine at 11.30am, wonder what number I was !
-
"...aiming always to be as competitive as possible given our size and resources"
To me, this is basically saying to the fans, we're never going to finish top 4, 5th-8th is where we're aiming and maybe, with a bit of luck, we might win a cup, but that's probably doubtful, because we're not big enough and don't have the resources.
Live with it. And don't complain when Gareth Southgate is manager because, as we are "aiming always to be as competitive as possible given our size and resources", Gareth is the best we could get.
-
It doesn't say that to me.
-
It doesn't say that to me.
What would you take that last bit to mean then?
-
I take it to mean that we’re not Man City and that we cannot afford to have players sitting on the sidelines picking up big money and then expect to chuck more on top. Fundamentally, the wages to turnover ratio is far too large and out of kilter with our main rivals; Spurs and Everton.
-
I take it to mean that we’re not Man City and that we cannot afford to have players sitting on the sidelines picking up big money and then expect to chuck more on top. Fundamentally, the wages to turnover ratio is far too large and out of kilter with our main rivals; Spurs and Everton.
Which means 5th-8th as Man City will now cruise past Spurs in the league. I'm not getting at them (that much!), but football just seems really shit. I keep saying it, but it's true. I'm starting to not see a point in it. It's pretty much a given as to who is going to finish where. Everybody knows the top 4, next top 4, the next group, then the next and then who's going to get relegated. Really though, who cares if you're not going to finish top 4. At least Blues have the excitement of having stayed up reasonably well and will look to do so again. We have nothing to look forward to other than carrying on as we are finishing 5th to 8th.
-
No it doesn't. Who finished 4th?
-
No it doesn't. Who finished 4th?
Obviously Spurs, but, as I said, Man City will easily finish above Spurs this season.
-
If they're doing anything in secret cordoning off the Holte is hardly the way to go about it.
The Milner/Ireland well-publicised swap? Although all I've heard that it is on is on here.
-
No it doesn't. Who finished 4th?
Obviously Spurs, but, as I said, Man City will easily finish above Spurs this season.
They may, they may not. But your point about not being able to compete is not true. Everton and Spurs have smaller wage to turnover, yet both have finished 4th recently.
-
No it doesn't. Who finished 4th?
Obviously Spurs, but, as I said, Man City will easily finish above Spurs this season.
They may, they may not. But your point about not being able to compete is not true. Everton and Spurs have smaller wage to turnover, yet both have finished 4th recently.
Agreed, and that wage ratio could be to their advantage in the next couple of years, particularly as Spurs' turnover is significantly more than City's.
-
I take it to mean that we’re not Man City and that we cannot afford to have players sitting on the sidelines picking up big money and then expect to chuck more on top. Fundamentally, the wages to turnover ratio is far too large and out of kilter with our main rivals; Spurs and Everton.
It could mean "We're going to put the prices up, suckers".
-
Christ on a bike I am amazed at the doom mongers on here. So we have lost the manager, big deal. If we look closely then maybe we can see that a lot of money has been spent by Oneil yet he still only sticks with the same handful of players and system. Time for a change methinks. This may just be to our benefit if the right person for the job comes in. As for disecting Randys statement re finances/resources, I would be more worried if he had said "we are in huge debt and will be lucky to avoid relegation/receivership"
STOP PANICKING.
-
Christ on a bike I am amazed at the doom mongers on here. So we have lost the manager, big deal. If we look closely then maybe we can see that a lot of money has been spent by Oneil yet he still only sticks with the same handful of players and system. Time for a change methinks. This may just be to our benefit if the right person for the job comes in. As for disecting Randys statement re finances/resources, I would be more worried if he had said "we are in huge debt and will be lucky to avoid relegation/receivership"
STOP PANICKING.
Well said
I think this is as an exciting time as when MON / Randy took over
Big decision but get it right and we could be reborn again
-
Christ on a bike I am amazed at the doom mongers on here. So we have lost the manager, big deal. If we look closely then maybe we can see that a lot of money has been spent by Oneil yet he still only sticks with the same handful of players and system. Time for a change methinks. This may just be to our benefit if the right person for the job comes in. As for disecting Randys statement re finances/resources, I would be more worried if he had said "we are in huge debt and will be lucky to avoid relegation/receivership"
STOP PANICKING.
Well said
I think this is as an exciting time as when MON / Randy took over
Big decision but get it right and we could be reborn again
Bizarrely I feel quite re-energized by this. Don't get me wrong, and there are plenty of posts to prove it, I was a MON supporter. But in the last 9 months, I began to feel that we've got as far as we could with him. In my opinon, as a club, he has left us in a much better place than when he arrived, so for me this is just evolution. The MON era ran its course, and now we are in the next phase of the Lerner era, where he finds the manager to take us forward again. There's some stuff to fix, but it's not like we are anything close to what we were back in 2006. I'm finding all of this quite interesting to be honest.
-
All I know is that when I read we made a 45m pre-tax loss for the 2008/09 season it made my eyebrows raise quicker than a young italian model's whilst talking to Berlusconi. The 09/10 season will no-doubt reveal 100% wages to turnover, and that's way, way beyond our means.
I'm all for a bit of Keynesian demand-side spending in order to bring in success and thus grow turnover, but if a third-consecutive 6th place and 2 wembley appearances cannot return a bumper year, then we have to take the belt-tightening approach for a bit before it's too late.
In a way I'm very glad that Lerner finally put his foot down, I just wish it had happened in May after Milner apparently indicated he was off, rather than 5 days before the season when O'Neill wanted to splash the cash.
But... it is what it is. Bring on the season.
-
I had written an article before Monday's late rewrite about how I wasn't looking forward to the season and was bored with it all. I can't bllody wait until Saturday now. It could all fall apart but this has woken me from my Villa slumbers.
-
I think a lot of people feel the same.
-
We should forget about the League and just go for the 3 cup competitions we are in.
(Only half joking as well)
-
We should forget about the League and just go for the 3 cup competitions we are in.
(Only half joking as well)
You're insane /first_reaction
However, I think you've actually made quite an interesting point /further_thought
-
I genuinely do think that we can write off finishing in the top 4.
I also think we should finish in the top 8, which means lets really go for the cups. If we fall short it will most likely be to one of the top 4.
We would then most likely get into Europe again next year.
If this is the category we are resigned to be in, lets make realistic targets, as in the cups.
-
As it stands we've lost our manager and our player of the season and have not addressed our goal scoring problem. I'm all for a bit of positivity but there are too many unknowns at present for it to be based on anything but wishful thinking.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him. If ever there was a classic case of throwing your toys out the pram, this was it.
Let's see how the board sort the mess out, MON has not made it easy for them but despite all this, I really am glad MON has gone. He really is a complete and utter selfish wanker.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him. If ever there was a classic case of throwing your toys out the pram, this was it.
Randy really isn't like that, and I'm not surprised in the least by his dignity.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him. If ever there was a classic case of throwing your toys out the pram, this was it.
Let's see how the board sort the mess out, MON has not made it easy for them but despite all this, I really am glad MON has gone. He really is a complete and utter selfish wanker.
I agree, thought the board handled it with great dignity.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him. If ever there was a classic case of throwing your toys out the pram, this was it.
Randy really isn't like that, and I'm not surprised in the least by his dignity.
You're right. Saying that, he must have wondered who he'd been working with for the last four years and what a poor judge of character he is.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
-
I too find the prospect of the season ahead infinitely more exciting than it was three days ago. The expectation of weeks and months of moaning and backbiting when every defeat was impending doom and every victory not good enough filled me with such dread that the painting of the spare bedroom was fast becoming not too bad a way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
Of course Chris is right that we have lost our manager and our player of the season and not solved our goal scoring problem but that is essentially all the same problem which will now being addressed. We shall soon have a new manager. The circumstances which created the inevitability of the loss of Milner namely the profligate waste of money by the manager to such a point that we were never able to buy Milner's loyalty are being corrected. As for our goal scoring problem, somebody must surely want him.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
Yes, but if he's going around issuing statements like that without approval then he should be sacked. I think it was a very calculated act, it's their choice but it's a long way from dignified.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Dirty work or putting the record straight? Sometimes the true hurts but that doesn't make it dirty.
-
As for our goal scoring problem, somebody must surely want him.
There's been quite a few posts on here the last couple of days that have made me smile. That comment, however, had me laughing out loud.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
Yes, but if he's going around issuing statements like that without approval then he should be sacked. I think it was a very calculated act, it's their choice but it's a long way from dignified.
Whereas MON leaving us in the lurch five days before the season starts is?
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Dirty work or putting the record straight? Sometimes the true hurts but that doesn't make it dirty.
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you're giving them credit for not saying anything now you're defending them for their digs at the ex-manager.
As i said to Dave, it's their choice if they want to have a pop but you can't then try to hold them up as a paragon of virtue. When they wrestle with pigs they get dirty.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
Yes, but if he's going around issuing statements like that without approval then he should be sacked. I think it was a very calculated act, it's their choice but it's a long way from dignified.
Whereas MON leaving us in the lurch five days before the season starts is?
A crap thing to do but two wrongs don't make a right. I said yesterday that I thought the General should not have said it as the best approach would have been to behave like his boss usually does but they've chosen to indulge in name calling so have last the right to claim the moral high ground on this one.
-
The best statement we'll see this week is a statement of intent from the players: pre-match huddle, get the fans behind them, tear West Ham a new one.
Is absolutely spot on IMO.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Dirty work or putting the record straight? Sometimes the true hurts but that doesn't make it dirty.
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you're giving them credit for not saying anything now you're defending them for their digs at the ex-manager.
As i said to Dave, it's their choice if they want to have a pop but you can't then try to hold them up as a paragon of virtue. When they wrestle with pigs they get dirty.
Read it again Chris. I was referring to the statement from Randy Lerner.
I agree with you about wrestling with pigs, though. I would have thought the General had learnt his lesson but I guess not. Still, at least he had the interests of the Club at heart.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
Yes, but if he's going around issuing statements like that without approval then he should be sacked. I think it was a very calculated act, it's their choice but it's a long way from dignified.
He gave his opinion, something he's been doing for four years and of which you have always been in total approval.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
I'm sure he does, but I can't help but think that there wasn't some plan there. The General is a non-executive member, yet he as close to Randy as anyone. To me the General throwing bombs as a non-exective member is just convenient.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoPKXbsZh6I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoPKXbsZh6I)
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
I'm sure he does, but I can't help but think that there wasn't some plan there. The General is a non-executive member, yet he as close to Randy as anyone. To me the General throwing bombs as a non-exective member is just convenient.
Incidentally, Pelty has been proven to be the most "ITK" poster anywhere on the internet.
Food for thought for all those who got their knickers into a twist and dismissed him a few weeks ago.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
Yes, but if he's going around issuing statements like that without approval then he should be sacked. I think it was a very calculated act, it's their choice but it's a long way from dignified.
He gave his opinion, something he's been doing for four years and of which you have always been in total approval.
"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it", G K Chesterton.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
Yes, but if he's going around issuing statements like that without approval then he should be sacked. I think it was a very calculated act, it's their choice but it's a long way from dignified.
He gave his opinion, something he's been doing for four years and of which you have always been in total approval.
"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it", G K Chesterton.
"And the time is right when I say it is," C. Smith
-
Chris
Genuine question. Do you feel let down by Martin?
What is your gut feeling on this, ie how would you apportion blame? Percentages would do.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
Yes, but if he's going around issuing statements like that without approval then he should be sacked. I think it was a very calculated act, it's their choice but it's a long way from dignified.
He gave his opinion, something he's been doing for four years and of which you have always been in total approval.
"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it", G K Chesterton.
"And the time is right when I say it is," C. Smith
That doesn't even make sense, and to think you make a living from words.
This started because Mark praised the dignified way Randy didn't rise to the bait, something I agree with and said so earlier in the thread. I think it would have been even better if that behaviour had been consistent for all board members. I'm not knocking their right to say it or for those who agree with it to say so it's just my opinion that we gained nothing from it and looked like we were point scoring.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
I'm sure he does, but I can't help but think that there wasn't some plan there. The General is a non-executive member, yet he as close to Randy as anyone. To me the General throwing bombs as a non-exective member is just convenient.
Incidentally, Pelty has been proven to be the most "ITK" poster anywhere on the internet.
Food for thought for all those who got their knickers into a twist and dismissed him a few weeks ago.
which only adds weight to the argument that there was some method and design to the comments that made most major newspapers yesterday. The General has made a million comments on various boards, most of them quite non-descript and repetitive. Any media reading those would deem them hardly worthy of printing. Yet, when the time was right he gave his most one sided account of events ever. Nothing diplomatic at all.
-
That doesn't even make sense, and to think you make a living from words.
This started because Mark praised the dignified way Randy didn't rise to the bait, something I agree with and said so earlier in the thread. I think it would have been even better if that behaviour had been consistent for all board members. I'm not knocking their right to say it or for those who agree with it to say so it's just my opinion that we gained nothing from it and looked like we were point scoring.
What you're saying is that it's okay for the general to talk to us at any other time but when the biggest story since he became a director breaks you expect him, and the rest of the board, to shut up and let the manager who let us all down run media rings round the club.
-
Chris
Genuine question. Do you feel let down by Martin?
What is your gut feeling on this, ie how would you apportion blame? Percentages would do.
Not let down, that's personalising it too much. He hasn't done anything to me but I'm not happy with the situation and his part in it and I'm not happy with the timing of his departure, I don't t think there any excuses for that.
I think this was an avoidable mess and was a failure of management all the way down. Not being in possession of the full facts I have to apportion it 50/50.
Until a week ago I had pride in the way the club was run, we were rarely in the news for the wrong reasons. That changed on Monday but was continued because of what the General said yesterday. I'm hoping that Randy's statement starts to redress the balance and we get back to some positive headlines over the next few days and weeks.
-
That doesn't even make sense, and to think you make a living from words.
This started because Mark praised the dignified way Randy didn't rise to the bait, something I agree with and said so earlier in the thread. I think it would have been even better if that behaviour had been consistent for all board members. I'm not knocking their right to say it or for those who agree with it to say so it's just my opinion that we gained nothing from it and looked like we were point scoring.
What you're saying is that it's okay for the general to talk to us at any other time but when the biggest story since he became a director breaks you expect him, and the rest of the board, to shut up and let the manager who let us all down run media rings round the club.
If you want to put it like that, what I wanted them to do was claim the moral highground. Do you think having it plastered all over the tabloids helped the club? It was just point scoring as far as I could tell.
-
Regarding the General's comments yesterday, i'm siding with Chris on this one. Whilst i'm sure his aim was to be honest with us, i feel he went a little too far with it. On more than one occasion he's been telling us to 'trust MON', then to come out with the statement he did just seemed wrong and a tad bit unproffessional, however good his intentions were.
The statement the club made today was enough.
-
That doesn't even make sense, and to think you make a living from words.
This started because Mark praised the dignified way Randy didn't rise to the bait, something I agree with and said so earlier in the thread. I think it would have been even better if that behaviour had been consistent for all board members. I'm not knocking their right to say it or for those who agree with it to say so it's just my opinion that we gained nothing from it and looked like we were point scoring.
What you're saying is that it's okay for the general to talk to us at any other time but when the biggest story since he became a director breaks you expect him, and the rest of the board, to shut up and let the manager who let us all down run media rings round the club.
If you want to put it like that, what I wanted them to do was claim the moral highground. Do you think having it plastered all over the tabloids helped the club? It was just point scoring as far as I could tell.
There's no point claiming the moral high ground if you're being ripped to bits everywhere else.
-
I think it was planned and I think the General was right to give the club's perspective however "unofficial" it was.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
I'm sure he does, but I can't help but think that there wasn't some plan there. The General is a non-executive member, yet he as close to Randy as anyone. To me the General throwing bombs as a non-exective member is just convenient.
Incidentally, Pelty has been proven to be the most "ITK" poster anywhere on the internet.
Food for thought for all those who got their knickers into a twist and dismissed him a few weeks ago.
I seem to recall somebody on here saying
'I don't think he has a fucking clue.'
-
That doesn't even make sense, and to think you make a living from words.
This started because Mark praised the dignified way Randy didn't rise to the bait, something I agree with and said so earlier in the thread. I think it would have been even better if that behaviour had been consistent for all board members. I'm not knocking their right to say it or for those who agree with it to say so it's just my opinion that we gained nothing from it and looked like we were point scoring.
What you're saying is that it's okay for the general to talk to us at any other time but when the biggest story since he became a director breaks you expect him, and the rest of the board, to shut up and let the manager who let us all down run media rings round the club.
If you want to put it like that, what I wanted them to do was claim the moral highground. Do you think having it plastered all over the tabloids helped the club? It was just point scoring as far as I could tell.
There's no point claiming the moral high ground if you're being ripped to bits everywhere else.
It's eaxctly the time to do it. Anyone can claim it when it's easy, it's when it takes some effort that people show you what they're made of.
-
I'm just surprised Randy gave such a dignified statement regarding a manager that couldn't even be arsed to tell him he was quitting. Four years working together and O'Neill couldn't even be bothered to call him.
No, he got the General to do his dirty work yesterday.
Does the general not have a mind of his own then?
I'm sure he does, but I can't help but think that there wasn't some plan there. The General is a non-executive member, yet he as close to Randy as anyone. To me the General throwing bombs as a non-exective member is just convenient.
Incidentally, Pelty has been proven to be the most "ITK" poster anywhere on the internet.
Food for thought for all those who got their knickers into a twist and dismissed him a few weeks ago.
I seem to recall somebody on here saying
'I don't think he has a fucking clue.'
Really!
He was wrong about Heskey at least, reports all put Ashley Young as the top earner.
-
Really!
He was wrong about Heskey at least, reports all put Ashley Young as the top earner.
Fucking hell Chris!
He was absolutely spot on about the biggest story in the Lerner era but you are going to try to discredit him over Heskey's wages?
-
I think it was planned and I think the General was right to give the club's perspective however "unofficial" it was.
I'm not so sure it was planned, but I fully understood why the General did what he did.
If anything, I thought it was quite respectful, given the circumstances. He could have said a whole lot worse.
I genuinely think the board carry no blame in this.
If you set the conditions, tell staff (which effectively what MON was, despite his inflated sense of worth) what's required and the parameters within which they can operate; if all this is clear -and you get their acknowledgement that they accept- how are you then liable if they just decide one day "fcuk it" ?
MON wasn't expected to work under harsher conditions than most of his peers. We were entering a period when we had to tighten our belts, in line with many clubs. If he left purely because he didn't have free reign at the till for once then he's a brat. And deserving of very little sympathy. If he's left because of the deteriorating relationship he had with the playing staff, that was largely self inflicted. And again, he would deserve very little sympathy.
I would tend to side with the board in all this, as they haven't let us down yet.
MON has on a number of occasions previously shown that if he doesn't get his way he can be prone to the tantrum. This bears all the hallmarks of a similar (though more extreme) response.
-
As for our goal scoring problem, somebody must surely want him.
There's been quite a few posts on here the last couple of days that have made me smile. That comment, however, had me laughing out loud.
Me too Pauline - as did your comment about the job vacancies on the new OS!
-
Really!
He was wrong about Heskey at least, reports all put Ashley Young as the top earner.
Fucking hell Chris!
He was absolutely spot on about the biggest story in the Lerner era but you are going to try to discredit him over Heskey's wages?
He gave opinions mostly not facts, but as they chimed with yours naturally you'd say they were spot on. I don't believe he spent money on a fair amount of garbage, I do believe he was working on improving the team, I think that wages are the responsibility of the chairman and CEO and having to reduce the wage bill before you sign new players is a sell to buy policy by any other name.
It does raise the question though, if this was the official thinking and was how they felt about the manager why the fuck didn't they do something about it?
And before I get the usual tiresome responses, I'm not excusing anything O'Neill has done this week.
-
heheheh
-
Really!
He was wrong about Heskey at least, reports all put Ashley Young as the top earner.
Fucking hell Chris!
He was absolutely spot on about the biggest story in the Lerner era but you are going to try to discredit him over Heskey's wages?
He gave opinions mostly not facts, but as they chimed with yours naturally you'd say they were spot on. I don't believe he spent money on a fair amount of garbage, I do believe he was working on improving the team, I think that wages are the responsibility of the chairman and CEO and having to reduce the wage bill before you sign new players is a sell to buy policy by any other name.
It does raise the question though, if this was the official thinking and was how they felt about the manager why the fuck didn't they do something about it?
And before I get the usual tiresome responses, I'm not excusing anything O'Neill has done this week.
the wages on the players are fine if you're going to play them, or they are coming off the bench and making a significant contribution. We paid transfers fees for certain players like they are starters, are paying them a wage per week like they are starters, yet sitting them on the bench for the most part. That's naturally going to draw the attention of the blokes signing the weekly payroll.
I agree with you that it is a joint responsibility, but you have to imagine they put a lot of trust in MON, maybe naively. Once they sharpened up to some of the balance issues, they had a right to question him. I'm guessing that was the big change that MON couldn't accept. That he was being challenged in his decision making. We all get challenged at work every day, why should he be any different?
-
And before I get the usual tiresome responses, I'm not excusing anything O'Neill has done this week.
Well said Chris.
I know you were a MON supporter, but it's a more mature response than some other answers this week from either side of the bizarre barriers that Villa fans build for themselves.
-
I agree with you that it is a joint responsibility, but you have to imagine they put a lot of trust in MON, maybe naively. Once they sharpened up to some of the balance issues, they had a right to question him. I'm guessing that was the big change that MON couldn't accept. That he was being challenged in his decision making. We all get challenged at work every day, why should he be any different?
I would also say that, even if it is a joint responsibility, surely the thing to do is to work together to rectify and get the best out of the situation.
It sounds like one party didn't fancy even trying to do that. In fact, he fancied it so little, he left right before the start of the season.
-
He was wrong about wages...... Priceless comeback
-
He was wrong about wages...... Priceless comeback
all wages, or just those players that he didn't utilize? Because I'm glad he was able to justify the contracts of Dunne, Milner, Bouma, Collins, Cuellar, Delph, Warnock, Fonz, Laursen, Ash, Gabby and Carew to name but a few in that time.
-
He was wrong about wages...... Priceless comeback
all wages, or just those players that he didn't utilize? Because I'm glad he was able to justify the contracts of Dunne, Milner, Bouma, Collins, Cuellar, Delph, Warnock, Fonz, Laursen, Ash, Gabby and Carew to name but a few in that time.
I'm guessing he's referring to Chris' response rather than O'Neill's management.
-
And before I get the usual tiresome responses, I'm not excusing anything O'Neill has done this week.
Well said Chris.
I know you were a MON supporter, but it's a more mature response than some other answers this week from either side of the bizarre barriers that Villa fans build for themselves.
It's certainly a bit more mature than railing against the Board for not being clairvoyant enough to second guess MON flouncing off when he did.
-
He was wrong about wages...... Priceless comeback
We don't even know if that was the case.
It was reported at the time we signed Heskey that he was on between £60-£62k a week. To see off attention from Liverpool (damn) and because he would have been a free agent in the summer. Someone on this site about two/three months later posted that they had had it confirmed by someone working at the club that Ivanhoe was indeed on £62,000.
The improved contract for Ash was widely reported to be around £50-55k.
I've only seen it this week being reported as £65k, so -unless he's renegotiated a new contract that none of the press or the official club media outlets picked up on, I wouldn't take it as gospel.
Richard Dunne was mentioned as being on £70k a week in some newspaper recently too. This I doubt, as the reason for the whole delay during his move to us from Citeh was the payoff he was waiting on to make up the shortfall.
I'd say pelty -in contrast to all of the above- might be in a better position than most to know. And if Ivanhoe is on anything approaching that it's fcuking lunacy. It just sends out all the wrong signals. One of your least effective/ most derided players being top earner (or even anywhere near that level) ?
Madness.
-
The Board have handled the situation and are handling it superbly, even the General's comments were spot on and just what was needed to counter the media's previous bias towards O'Neill.
Can't see they have done anything wrong, they haven't run away, they didn't sack O'Neill and they even slipped in a new policy statement most have glossed over, very neat management, no wonder Mon couldn't cope when he'd been found out.
Thing is its about time the Emperors followers faced the fact he's run off , he's gone and all that's left is to see over time what he can do in the media to regain some cred, because there aren't many sane club owners out there who will be willing now to give him the free hand he had at Villa.
Obviously backing him as they did has proven to be a folly, such is life, personally I can't wait in the hope RL chooses a modern thinking manager who has at least some experience of tactics and overseas players. Its such a pity Liverpool didn't pick Mon instead of Hodgson.
The guy I feel sorry for is the one who has to sort out the mess left behind, luckily, unless RL sells them in the interim, he'll have some decent players who haven't done much in the last few seasons to work with, even if he will not have time to drill them into a serious footballing side who have done little in the way of serious training, tactics, or squad rotation, before the season is a few games old.
As to the rumour RL would only offer 5 mill for MacGeedy, bloody superb if so, he's obviously got more clue about players value than Mon ever had :)
-
I wonder what MON will have to say about us when he's an pundit (I'd say analyst but..) on MOTD with his Beeb buddies in a few weeks.
-
Before all of this, I was a supporter of MON and believed he had done a good job, although I was starting to have doubts about the use of certain players in the team and not tackling the deficiencies in the team that I thought stood out a mile. MON resigning in the way he did has not changed my view in what he did for us but put very serious doubts in my mind that he could ever have taken us on further under a realistic financial plan and that the reasons for what I thought were deficiencies in the team was probably his inflexible attitude.
There have been many comments about Randy being partially/totally to blame for the players contracts as if he was unaware of the increasing problem, insinuating that this was due to his inexperience. My view is that he allowed MON to spend heavily initially to get us back to top 6 and when we almost made top 4 the season before last MON went back to Randy saying that we were very close to breaking in to the top 4 and he needed a further high investment to do this. Randy agreed to this and we saw significant spending last summer for another crack at it. I think MON went back to Randy again before the end of last season saying that he again needed to spend big. By this time Randy, having gambled at extending his investment, realised that realistically we had missed our chance of breaking in to the top 4 before the new Man City owners had got their game together. Randy had gambled in full knowledge of what it was doing to our wage bill but knew that this could be rectified over time by careful financial management without too many drastic measures.
I think that Randy told MON back in May (if not before - and it could well have been back at around the time of the chelsea game) that the club could not continue throwing money at trying to get into the top 4 but would need to adopt a more long term strategy. He possibly said that there would be money to buy players but we had to get rid of some of the players that were on high wages and not figuring in MONs plans together with considering the futures of any existing 1st team players that were going to be replaced by any incoming players. I think all of this was discussed before Man City coming forward with the offer for Milner, which MON was probably delighted with as he probably thought it solved all of his problems about funding the purchase of new players but forgetting about the increased wage bill. Since the Man City offer for Milner, MON has not seemed very active in trying to sell the 'deadwood'. I also think that MON did not want Ireland but preferred to have cash only, although Man City have probably said that there would be no deal if we did not take a player in part exchange so as to reduce their spending and clear a player off their books that would not figure in their 25.
I think Randy, having seen this, had possibly told MON very recently that he would not be getting the balance of the money from the Milner deal as he had made no attempt at shifting any players. I know transfers are difficult these days but it has taken a long time to get the Milner deal moving and, strangely, we only started to see some light at the end of last week when MON appeared to be removed from the negotiations. MON reflected on this over the weekend and quit on Monday.
Randy was in the UK over the weekend and MON could have told him he was resigning but no, he waited until Randy had left the country and with that lost my total respect. The club was battered by the media when the news of MON quitting came out and many supporters starting to very seriously question the Owner. Supporters were crying out for a statement from Randy as it appeared (from media speculation) that we were going to be selling everybody and Randy had done the dirty on MON. The General made a very straight statement saying how it was as he (may be with Randys knowledge, I don't know) thought that MON had let the club down and the supporters should know how it was. Why anybody should say that it was over the top beats me. If it had been a very toned down statement, supporters would naturally have said that we weren't being told the full story. So this only leaves one question, do you believe the General or not. Randys statement was very professional and just stated that they had differing views on how the club could go forward. Although it did not say it, it very clearly said to me, "I am the owner who has put the money into the club and if there is differing opinion I will listen but my decision is the one we will go with".
So where do we go from here. I do not think we will be selling any of our top players after Milner. The new manager will be given time to reduce the wage bill and in the meantime will be given some money to buy one or two players if there is time before the window closes.
-
I had written an article before Monday's late rewrite about how I wasn't looking forward to the season and was bored with it all. I can't bllody wait until Saturday now. It could all fall apart but this has woken me from my Villa slumbers.
Loved your first article of the season last year Stuart so sure I'll succumb and buy this in person at some point. Did you think about leaving the old article in as well as adding the new one?
-
Incidentally, Pelty has been proven to be the most "ITK" poster anywhere on the internet.
Food for thought for all those who got their knickers into a twist and dismissed him a few weeks ago.
I seem to recall somebody on here saying
'I don't think he has a fucking clue.'
I'd hope he would be considering.
-
Before all of this, I was a supporter of MON etc.............
A very good post OMVF which I agree with and I think is represenatative of a substantial swathe of our support.
I could have readily accepted MON, at the end of last season, feeling that his record of six successive sixth place finishes was as good as it was going to get with no prospect of new fresh net transfer funds. But the realisation that this was the grumpy end to an uneasy impasse is difficult to take.
-
Before all of this, I was a supporter of MON etc.............
A very good post OMVF which I agree with and I think is represenatative of a substantial swathe of our support.
I could have readily accepted MON, at the end of last season, feeling that his record of six successive sixth place finishes was as good as it was going to get with no prospect of new fresh net transfer funds. But the realisation that this was the grumpy end to an uneasy impasse is difficult to take.
Yes I agree, a well put together piece - When the dust settles I think a fair number of us will reflect upon the manner in which MON left...if what is being reported is accurate of course - to resign after Lerner had left these shores and not to face the players is I feel, unprofessional. Still MON will get the opportunity to put his side of the story to all and sundry when he no doubt appears on the MOTD sofa next to Lineker et al. The fawning over MON by Lineker and Hansen will be unbearable I would imagine.
-
And before I get the usual tiresome responses, I'm not excusing anything O'Neill has done this week.
Well said Chris.
I know you were a MON supporter, but it's a more mature response than some other answers this week from either side of the bizarre barriers that Villa fans build for themselves.
It's certainly a bit more mature than railing against the Board for not being clairvoyant enough to second guess MON flouncing off when he did.
Except I haven't said any such thing, I'm just not as willing to believe whatever the board decide to spoonfeed us over this.
-
Can anyone answer the question I posed on the previous page in the discussion on Pelty's post?
It does raise the question though, if this was the official thinking and was how they felt about the manager why the fuck didn't they do something about it?
If it was the official line then they were almost negligent in not doing anything about it. If not then Pelty was just sounding off and no importance should be attached to it.
-
I had written an article before Monday's late rewrite about how I wasn't looking forward to the season and was bored with it all. I can't bllody wait until Saturday now. It could all fall apart but this has woken me from my Villa slumbers.
Loved your first article of the season last year Stuart so sure I'll succumb and buy this in person at some point. Did you think about leaving the old article in as well as adding the new one?
That's for the editor but he asked for a rewrite so I presume it won't be in. I still have the original article though so might put it forward again at the end of the season and do another on how I am feeling then to go with it.
-
Can anyone answer the question I posed on the previous page in the discussion on Pelty's post?
It does raise the question though, if this was the official thinking and was how they felt about the manager why the fuck didn't they do something about it?
If it was the official line then they were almost negligent in not doing anything about it. If not then Pelty was just sounding off and no importance should be attached to it.
Maybe they thought that O'Neill would agree to the terms that Randy was going to set out to him when he first flew over to talk face-to-face? After all, O'Neill is still a very good manager as I'm sure you'll agree, so maybe Randy thought that a good "clear the air" talk would pull MON round to Randy's vision of the next couple of years?
Having to pay him a years wages for terminating his rolling contract may or may not have been in his thoughts as well, who knows.
Obviously this didn't happen so as soon as Randy left again, O'Neill walked.
-
Can anyone answer the question I posed on the previous page in the discussion on Pelty's post?
It does raise the question though, if this was the official thinking and was how they felt about the manager why the fuck didn't they do something about it?
If it was the official line then they were almost negligent in not doing anything about it. If not then Pelty was just sounding off and no importance should be attached to it.
Maybe they thought that O'Neill would agree to the terms that Randy was going to set out to him when he first flew over to talk face-to-face? After all, O'Neill is still a very good manager as I'm sure you'll agree, so maybe Randy thought that a good "clear the air" talk would pull MON round to Randy's vision of the next couple of years?
Having to pay him a years wages for terminating his rolling contract may or may not have been in his thoughts as well, who knows.
Obviously this didn't happen so as soon as Randy left again, O'Neill walked.
Or they were planning to get rid of him but wanted to do it to their own timescale and on their terms and O'Neill called their bluff.
As you say who knows but if it was because of not wanting to pay the compensation it smacks of constructive dismissal.
All of this is speculation and none of it particularly edifying, for either party.
There's more to this affair than we're being told.