Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: eastie on December 18, 2010, 05:29:05 AM
-
Houllier quoted in many sources today as confirming Stephen Ireland has told him he wants to leave the club and also that other unhappy players may be leaving in January.
Bit worried by geds comment that 'its a huge shock coming from Manchester city to here'- not sure what he means by that comment but he says he hopes to recoup most of the £8m transfer fee- can't see that happening , maybe £5m if we are lucky.
On iPod so cannot paste the articles but they are widely quoted via BBC and today's press.
-
It also seems Ireland's agent is denying the claims. Who will want to spend the money anyway - he hasn't impressed, Villa would want to recoup some money and he's on big wages. I think Ireland will prove another millstone round the neck for Villa in terms of wages unless he improves massively.
Plus Houllier is obviously quite comfortable cutting his players loose in the media if he feels the need to - Carew, Dunne and Oreland, for example - but he's also been praising other players - Bannan, ALbrighton, Young. Not sure what to make of that.
-
I dunno what you're not sure of what to make of. He loves the players that have the right attitude and give their all. Whereas he thinks the players who have shit attitudes and play under their abilities are complete pricks. It also seems to me that most of the pricks are also some of the highest paid.
Where the fuck does Ireland think he can go to rejuvenate his career? Maybe he just wants to wear something blue or a replica Peru kit? I dunno, but I can't imagine that any manager would take a chance on him given his attitude. He may well have the talent but if he's acting the twat because he can't play for Man City anymore, then no-one will want him.
The ****** should do the honourable thing and retire. Can Villa collect on some for of insurance for this?
Fuck me, it gets me pissed off. These clowns earn unfathomable amounts of money and they still aren't happy.
It's shit-for-brains players like Ireland that makes me want to just give football up.
-
If he doesn't want to play for the Villa, then let him go.
-
What a Cnut.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/9301248.stm
-
If true - dont let the door hit ur over paid, worthless, shite attitude. Flabby arse on way out !
-
Get him out.
Always knew he was a prick.
-
You cant really get rid of someone these days they have contracts which are expensive to pay off.
-
You cant really get rid of someone these days they have contracts which are expensive to pay off.
Quite. A reported £70,000 a week four-year contract is quite an issue for us when trying to offload a player who few others will want. He made sure he got his huge pay off before leaving Man City, so I would imagine it will be the same scenario at Villa too. I suspect the best we can hope is to loan him out, and get half of his wages covered.
Absolutely awful signing.
-
Waste of space, and someone on the board needs shooting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1339653/Stephen-Ireland-told-quit-Aston-Villa--8million.html?ITO=1490
-
I agree that the board gets a lot of undeserved criticism these says. Even so, I think it is possible to question the wisdom of signing a £8m player on a £70,000 a week four-year contract when we are managerless and, also, want to trim our wage bill.
I'll admit that these comments are partly down to hindsight, but given GH's history at Liverpool (first thing he did was to get rid of the "spice boys") and Ireland's reputation it's not a complete surprise that they don't seem to get along very well.
-
Yes the board have to take the blame for signing another clubs reserve player on £65000 a week on a long term deal when we didn't even have a manager- utterly ridiculous to do such a thing and questions must be asked as to who made that decision.
-
Good positive action by Houllier to get rid of him so quickly, just hope there are more queing up to take him off our hands than the job lot MON was trying to get shot of last summer.
I thought he was the sort of player we needed but it does go to show there is more to signing a player than what he's like on the pitch, but it was well known he was a nutter.
-
If you move from one company where you have spent many years to a new company it takes time to settle in some take longer than others. it all comes down to attitude, you can see whats happening, all the players that have been taking short cuts and were unfit have had a reality check and they don't like it. For one i'm with GH, if you don't want to put one hundred percent in for Villa then piss off. I would imagine all the players that are looking to move we don't want anyway.
-
Spot on robbo- at least come march out squad won't be out on their feet this time- if they dont like the stricter regime they can fuck off elsewhere!
-
Anyone who wants to go should go.
-
He's a great player, he just never wanted to be here which is why I suspected it'd never work, I think he got a bit used to the champagne Charlie lifestyle at City too, I suspect Mark Hughes at Fulham's got his eye on this one.
I'll go back to what I've said 100 times before, and to be fair this is aimed at Sidwell too. We're just not geared towards playing through the middle and that position in our team as such is a thankless task. It's early days under Gerrard and I can see he's trying to get us to keep the ball on the deck but we've still got that over reliance on our wingers. During the MON days it was centre half trap the ball, give it to Petrov, quick pass wide to Young/Milner/Downing, run forward and take it wide, fire in cross for a quickly advancing Gabby or towering Carew. All the while Ireland/NRC/Sidwell would advance all the way from our box to theirs, screaming for a square ball/cut back only to be completely ignored and trundle back to the halfway line completely dejected.
-
Strauss gone, I reckon that is game over.
Wrong thread!
-
Agreed rancid, I would prefer one winger and a stronger midfield.
-
Get him out.
Always knew he was a prick.
I agree, there hasn't been a single piece of good news since he became manager.
-
I don't get that Rancid, Ireland has been shit cos the previous manager played with width, Milner didn't have any problems getting forward through the middle.
You play to your strengths and our best players are our wingers so it makes sense to use them. At the moment there is no-one gambling from midfield to get in the box, whether that's tactical or lack of ability I don't know.
-
Stephen, if you miss playing for a club who are hopelessly inferior to their neighbours, you can always fuck off to Small Heath.
-
What I find annoying more than anything is that Ireland hasn't really given it a chance at the club has he? Shite position to be in with 3 managers this season but no that issue is resolved and we're slowly starting to get on track to now through your toys out the pram and ask to leave is bollocks!!
GH needs the January window to grow the squad. It seems to me that MON had is golden boys and now he's gone there is definitely unrest in the camp. These certain players are no longer getting their own way (dunne, carew) and they're getting pissed off. The good thing about that is it's allowing the young blood to really shine through and show up the old guard for the has beens they truly are.
Ireland should surely be patient and see how this plays out. Like you guys I don't want a player here who doesn't want to play for us but this just doesn't make sense. Who's Ireland going to play for now? No manager will want to touch him for the hassle and the wages. Every manager will surely look at him and see that when it gets tough and it's backs to the wall time. When things aren't going the players way ireland isn't someone you actually want in your squad.
Or he could knuckle down, learn under a good manager in GH, play in an exciting young squad and become part of a new era at villa park.
-
A great shame, as he is a good player yet to show what he can actually do.
-
What I find annoying more than anything is that Ireland hasn't really given it a chance at the club has he? Shite position to be in with 3 managers this season but no that issue is resolved and we're slowly starting to get on track to now through your toys out the pram and ask to leave is bollocks!!
GH needs the January window to grow the squad. It seems to me that MON had is golden boys and now he's gone there is definitely unrest in the camp. These certain players are no longer getting their own way (dunne, carew) and they're getting pissed off. The good thing about that is it's allowing the young blood to really shine through and show up the old guard for the has beens they truly are.
Ireland should surely be patient and see how this plays out. Like you guys I don't want a player here who doesn't want to play for us but this just doesn't make sense. Who's Ireland going to play for now? No manager will want to touch him for the hassle and the wages. Every manager will surely look at him and see that when it gets tough and it's backs to the wall time. When things aren't going the players way ireland isn't someone you actually want in your squad.
Or he could knuckle down, learn under a good manager in GH, play in an exciting young squad and become part of a new era at villa park.
Has GH given Ireland a run of 7/8 games no to see what he can do ?? He hasnt. Ireland didnt want to come and GH didnt sign him so it was never gonna work. What I dont get is if you want to sell him why "have a go at him in public" ???
-
A waste of rations and an oxygen thief, adapt or die. gazza should take him fishing and have a word.
-
I must admit i for one thought he would be a good signing for us just goes to show, you think they are going to be good then they let you down i would cash in on him come january.
-
Hopefully his old boss mark Hughes will take him but fulham can't pay him what we are - Sunderland were interested too I believe .
-
If he is played in the right position and given a run of games, he will do well but that isnt going to happen @ Villa
-
I remember seeing him come against villa once and changed the game. I thought ,I wish we had him, we are missing someone like ireland and would have snapped him up for 8 mill, no problem... so disappointed he could not get his head down and do the business.... there's too many of these cnuts in modern football...
-
When he has been so annoymous in the games he has played we can't afford to trust him with a run of games.
He's got to prove himself to us not the other way round.
-
We don't have much luck with midfielders
-
what is it with villa buying talented players with mental problems? Curcic, Collymore and now the wig wearing twat. Cut our losses and get rid i'd say. DON'T stick him on loan to celtic - They can't afford him, and the "decent player in crap league" con didn't work for redknapp when he shipped Keane up there last season probably because our ex-manager walked out. Permanent transfer only,or at least wait till MON gets a new job.
-
what is it with villa buying talented players with mental problems? Curcic, Collymore and now the wig wearing twat. Cut our losses and get rid i'd say. DON'T stick him on loan to celtic - They can't afford him, and the "decent player in crap league" con didn't work for redknapp when he shipped Keane up there last season probably because our ex-manager walked out. Permanent transfer only,or at least wait till MON gets a new job.
Not sure why MON would sign him, he disn't sign him this time did he?
Agree on the loan thing though. Get rid.
-
He's a grade A wanker.
-
Officially my most hated Villa player ever (I'm slightly post Hodge).
-
could be wrong but i got the feeling Ireland's transfer was one that was ongoing during MON's time and they took the decision to continue with it as it was rather far down the line.. Certainly he was linked to us during MON's tenure. I've heard rumours otherwise so i guess i'm presuming.
-
could be wrong but i got the feeling Ireland's transfer was one that was ongoing during MON's time and they took the decision to continue with it as it was rather far down the line.. Certainly he was linked to us during MON's tenure. I've heard rumours otherwise so i guess i'm presuming.
I would say that's a fair guess.
-
We don't have much luck with midfielders
Not so sure about that bud. Milner, Young, Petrov and Downing were all good, Coker's not bad and Delph shows massive promise. Sidwell has been fairly poor but not a disaster, but then Ireland has. Defenders have been the problem. As things stand at this moment in time only Young and Cuellar have been any good vs Davies, Dunne, Collins, Shorey, Warnock, Beye and Knight who have been mediocre to dismal. Strikers, well we haven't much to talk about really as we have only signed 2 of note in the same time (the last 4.1/2 years). They have been moderately successful.
-
I'd love to see a team take the bull by the horns and refuse to pay a player his full wages if he says he wants to play for someone else, thing is they can all afford the most expensive lawyers I suppose.
-
He came, he did f**K all, and now he's heading for the door. As long as we get our money back its for the best before we waste any more money paying his wages. Tosser.
-
The whole sorry episode shows what a bad deal for us the Milner sale was. We should have said to Citeh - and more pertinently, to Milner - you're not going anywhere until a new manger is in position. If Citeh were so keen they'd be back next month in any event - and then, and only then, if our new manager fancied Ireland, he could have been a part of the deal.
As it is contrast us and Everton. Everton screwed every last penny out of them for Lescott; we seemed to be content on taking an overpaid, overvalued make-weight, who by Mancini's own admission was not part of his plans.
Let in not be said that under Randy it is only MON that has bought badly.
-
could be wrong but i got the feeling Ireland's transfer was one that was ongoing during MON's time and they took the decision to continue with it as it was rather far down the line.. Certainly he was linked to us during MON's tenure. I've heard rumours otherwise so i guess i'm presuming.
I would say that's a fair guess.
Or it could be the complete oposite and that MON was totally against replacing Milner with Ireland. We actually have no idea although by the looks of it the lunatics have taken over the H&V asylum
-
Get as much as possible, hopefully £7 - 8 Million and move on.
Why the angst against him ?
OK, he's a professional footballer earning a massive salary at Villa but he never wanted to join in the first place - I blame Citeh.
-
I agree that the board gets a lot of undeserved criticism these says. Even so, I think it is possible to question the wisdom of signing a £8m player on a £70,000 a week four-year contract when we are managerless and, also, want to trim our wage bill..
Absolutely bang-on right to question the wisdom of the board signing S.I without a manager in place.
Ironic thing is MON may have left because of the J.M transfer leading to ireland coming V.P.
-
People blaming the board is way off, we were too far down the road with the Milner deal when MoN walked, at the end of the day why would we not want a quality player (so we thought) down the Villa.
He's obviously a complete tosser either that or he does not like Houllier either way ship out the baldy twat and get some people in who want to play for the club. The same goes for Carew, Sidwell & Salifou
Wonder who the other unhappy players are? Hopefully Beye & Friedel
-
Goodbye, Mr. Ireland. You won't be missed.
-
The General said that MON was fully on board with the Ireland signing and that it had nothing to do with his leaving.
-
People blaming the board is way off, we were too far down the road with the Milner deal when MoN walked...
No deal is done until the contracts are signed. There are plenty of business deals that founder on last minute hitches, a change of mind by one of the parties or unforeseen changes in circumstance.
The Villa board should have put everything on hold the moment MON walked. They could have suggested to Citeh that they might like to try again in January, but everything was now on hold until a new manager was in post.
That they didn't and carried on probably tells us everything we need to know as what precipitated the MON flounce.
-
Wonder who the other unhappy players are? Hopefully Beye & Friedel
Let's not forget that there are probably also a few players that are happy with the change of manager: e. g. Reo-Coker, Clark, Bannan, Albrighton and Luke Young. Downing, Collins, Cuellar, Petrov and Heskey seems capable of adapting to the new regime. That leaves Dunne, Beye, Ireland and Carew. Personally I think Friedel is old and clever enough not to get mixed up in internal politics (witness his "I didn't see the incident" comments about the supposed Dunne episode).
-
A truely Hodge-esque performance from Stephen Ireland and what a complete waste of everybodys time and money.
If that's how he feels then good riddence and let's hope he's gone by January 2nd at the latest. I've no doubt the greedy bastard will want some sort of ill deserved pay out to sulk off somewhere else.
It's idiots like Ireland in the game that makes you wonder why you really bother with it.
-
True , but the general also said mon had a great relationship with randy not long before he left - I'm sure the general is wise enough to only tell us what he wants us to know- I think most of us saw Ireland as an exciting signing but it dragged on a long time and it seems he was reluctant to leave city.
Some signings come good and some don't and I think we will have to accept maybe £5m and cut our losses on this one- best to get rid sooner rather than later as he may be a disruptive influence -he's friends with dunne so hopefully he will fuck off as well.
-
Can see this transfer window (it, like the New Year generally, just can't come soon enough) being extremely cathartic for Villa. Lot of deadwood (inc Ireland) needs shifting, lot of places need filling...
-
He'll probably demand (and very likely get) a loyalty bonus.
-
This seems a very strange stick to beat the board with, we got a fantastic player for a relatively good fee, the new manager has played him but he hasn't looked the least bit interested. There is only one person to blame and its Ireland, he has been utterly unprofessional and should be ashamed of himself.
-
I'm more worried about who else will leave come Jan. Ireland has done f**k all for ius so not bothered, but others...?
-
He'll probably demand (and very likely get) a loyalty bonus.
Sick isn't it. Ireland is to loyalty what King Herod is to childcare.
I wished I could get angry but I just kind of numb to this shite.
-
Thought he would be a sensation for us. I was sensationally wrong.
-
This seems a very strange stick to beat the board with, we got a fantastic player for a relatively good fee, the new manager has played him but he hasn't looked the least bit interested. There is only one person to blame and its Ireland, he has been utterly unprofessional and should be ashamed of himself.
Whilst I agree that Ireland's attitude has been shocking, I think it is a perfectly reasonable stick with which to beat the board. No player should be bought or sold during a managerial interregnum.
-
A disastrous deal, all told. Some transfers don't work out, but not for the want of trying. Ireland's attitude since the moment he first stepped onto the pitch in a Villa shirt has been utterly disgusting. We can perhaps blame that on the bloke's fragile psychological state, and in future I think all of our transfer medicals should involve a psychiatrist's report. He's cost us a fortune, he's cost us points and he's been a complete embarrassment - get the fuck rid for whatever we can get for him.
-
Good player he may be, but it's obvious that where hard work and dedication are alien to him. He's has been given a fantastic opportunity to revive a flagging career, but he just can't be bothered can he? His comfort zone with all the trappings is all that appeals to him.
He'll never be a top player. He might get a move to another Premier League club, but whoever takes him on will have the same problems. He'll fade out very quickly.
Good riddance you tosser. You have no idea how lucky you are to have worn the Villa shirt.
-
This seems a very strange stick to beat the board with, we got a fantastic player for a relatively good fee, the new manager has played him but he hasn't looked the least bit interested. There is only one person to blame and its Ireland, he has been utterly unprofessional and should be ashamed of himself.
He may be a fantastic player. But he hasn't looked like one for some time now. The point is, whether a player is successful or not depends very much on the manager. Some managers rate some players, other managers rate others. Some managers can get average players to perfom well but fail to inspire stars. Etc etc. This is the reason why signing a player when we are managerless seems peculiar.
-
Oh how you all mocked me! :)
Let's hope the business gets done quickly. But, as I said on page 1, I just can't see any manager viewing him as anything but damaged goods.
-
So we are going to see the end of this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/picturegalleries/6226400/Top-10-footballers-tattoos.html?image=6
-
He'll probably demand (and very likely get) a loyalty bonus.
Sick isn't it. Ireland is to loyalty what King Herod is to childcare.
I wished I could get angry but I just kind of numb to this shite.
he will end up on some reality TV show... the ponce
-
Good riddance to the useless tosser, he has looked a complete waste of space, and there are not many sights more pathetic than seeing him meander around the pitch in a Villa shirt with absolutely no conviction whatsoever.
Personally though i would keep him for the next four years, but not let him near the first team and find ways to make him suffer.
-
So we are going to see the end of this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/picturegalleries/6226400/Top-10-footballers-tattoos.html?image=6
maybe he should have tattooed his scalp ...
-
Ireland seems a typical example of the modern young footballer who forgets why they have all this wealth in the first place.
He had a couple of good years after establishing himself but has failed to maintain the hunger or edge for the game. He will get another relatively good contract somewhere, he may even come to national prominence again putting in half a good season for someone. After about the age of 28 you will hear little or anything of him, probably retired before 30.
Give me players who no matter what prominence they achieve never ever forget that its their performances week in week out, season after season out, that count first last and always. They are the ones who you spend their careers in the top flight after the age of about 32 going on and on at the highest levels. The Brad Freidels, the Emile Heskeys, the Kevin Philliphs, and yes the David Beckhams.
Look at when we had Dean Saunders and Dalian Atkinson, in my opinion Atkinson had more ability than Saunders but go and check their career stats.
-
I bet Sidwell wants him to stay so he can look like a better player.
-
In future I think all of our transfer medicals should involve a psychiatrist's report.
Interesting point, if you want a £12k pa job answering the phone at NatWest you have to do some kind of psychcometric test to establish your suitablility yet football appears to be able to take a much more relaxed view of deal like this which is likely to cost us the thick end of £10m
-
Who does he expect will sign him? After his stint here no big club will want him. Its so annoying as the weirdo obviously has talent,but his brain must be wired differently. We'll have to add him to the pile with other players like Curcic,Collymore as wasted talents at the Villa.
-
So we are going to see the end of this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/picturegalleries/6226400/Top-10-footballers-tattoos.html?image=6
Thats an awful tattoo
-
Decent player on his day he may well be but he had a reputation of bring troublesome before we signed him and was by no means a safe signing , anyone who can lie about their gran dying to miss a game has to be looked at rather dubiously- If we had got the best out of him it would have been a major coup but the gamble has failed.
Maybe our best chance of getting rid is a player exchange with someone., but we will not get £8m back for him.
-
If we'd have had a little more faith in Bannan a little earlier we wouldn't have needed to take the gamble.
Ah well, onward and upward.
-
Are Man C still paying a slice of his wages? Once he moves to Fulham for £6m he will have 3 clubs paying his wage, hilarious.
-
he will be no loss to us, as he has been nothing short of crap since he arrived...
personally, i would refuse to pay the nutty little bald ******...
-
I dunno what you're not sure of what to make of. He loves the players that have the right attitude and give their all. Whereas he thinks the players who have shit attitudes and play under their abilities are complete pricks. It also seems to me that most of the pricks are also some of the highest paid.
Where the fuck does Ireland think he can go to rejuvenate his career? Maybe he just wants to wear something blue or a replica Peru kit? I dunno, but I can't imagine that any manager would take a chance on him given his attitude. He may well have the talent but if he's acting the twat because he can't play for Man City anymore, then no-one will want him.
The c*** should do the honourable thing and retire. Can Villa collect on some for of insurance for this?
Fuck me, it gets me pissed off. These clowns earn unfathomable amounts of money and they still aren't happy.
It's shit-for-brains players like Ireland that makes me want to just give football up
well said if he or anybody else dont want to play for OUR GREAT CLUB !!!! kindly F$$K off
-
He clearly is not all there is he?
-
Ought to get Statutory Sick Pay if he's unable to perform his duties to any illness not arising from actually playing football.
That might help him get his head together.
-
Really gutted how shit he`s attitude has been. Was really happy when we signed him, thought he was gonna be just what we need. Houllier has the experience to see it would be more damaging to keep him and glad he has acted quickly ..........
-
Just wondered if Legion and Karl Bridges want to cast their eyes back to the comments I made after the Chelsea game on the post match thread.
I look forward to their apologies.
-
Just wondered if Legion and Karl Bridges want to cast their eyes back to the comments I made after the Chelsea game on the post match thread.
I look forward to their apologies.
Apologise for what? Just scanned through that thread and all I did was embolden part of your post to clarify something:
Ireland looks like a pig in a poke - of course it could all end well as we probably haven't seen the best of him - but when it was clear to all concerned we needed to buy either a solid central midfielder or a goal scorer the board decided on a poor man's Merson. I'd have thought it a golden rule that boards should not spend significant chunks of money on players without the manger's approval or more specifically when there is no manager to give the approval. I'll wager he won't be here this time next season.
IMO that statement will come back and bite you.
Care to be more specific about which bit?
.
-
He's not gone yet has he? Someone has got to stump up a lot of money to buy him and pay his wages. If you are after an apology for me voicing my opinion then you can keep waiting. I don't think I denigrated you in any way.
On a side note, all this talk of getting our £8m back. We didn't actually pay that for him, it was a valuation. Also how can he get a loyalty bonus if he has asked to leave?
-
for some reason he just dont fit in
-
Also how can he get a loyalty bonus if he has asked to leave?
My understanding is that he is probably entitled to a cut of the fee unless he puts in a written transfer request, despite him doing what equates just that by getting these stories placed in the papers.
It stinks.
-
I agree that the board gets a lot of undeserved criticism these says. Even so, I think it is possible to question the wisdom of signing a £8m player on a £70,000 a week four-year contract when we are managerless and, also, want to trim our wage bill.
I'll admit that these comments are partly down to hindsight, but given GH's history at Liverpool (first thing he did was to get rid of the "spice boys") and Ireland's reputation it's not a complete surprise that they don't seem to get along very well.
The details of the contract would have been set out before MON left. Don't forget it only dragged its heels because ireland also wanted a 'loyalty' pay-off from Man City before going. As it was already a done deal it was unlikely that we would have risked the deal falling through and losing Milner for less money 5 - 10 months later. Can't blame the board for this one.
As for the player, if he was a valued contributor then I'd be gutted and angry. As it is he's done nothing so won't be missed. yes, he may go somewhere and be great, but as it is he clearly doesn't either want to be here, or doesn't want to be away from Man City. Either way I'd not shed a tear should he go.
-
If only Jimmy Milner would turn around and say the same thing!
-
Jimmy Milner has contributed more the the Villa this season than Ireland has.
-
That he wants to leave Villa? Thick twat, you've already left. No point signing someone that dim.
-
Jimmy Milner has contributed more the the Villa this season than Ireland has.
He's contributed more than Dunne, Warnock, Luke etc etc
-
Also how can he get a loyalty bonus if he has asked to leave?
My understanding is that he is probably entitled to a cut of the fee unless he puts in a written transfer request, despite him doing what equates just that by getting these stories placed in the papers.
It stinks.
So surely GH says OK Stephen we will do our best to get you a move but do us a favour, just put it in writing.
-
Stupid decision by Paul Faulkner to accept cash+Irleland deal. We have effectively lost 8m in the Milner transaction.
Complete waster. I just hope someone is mad enough to sign him and we can get some money back.
-
I wouldn't let him leave unless we get what we ask for him.
Put it in writing son..not just verbally announce it.
If there are no takers in January, then I would let the bastard rot and have him train on his own at Bodymoor Heath, or a venue closer to his home and beloved citeh.
Twat of the highest order.
-
Nah, he'll just whine and whinge throught he press, or his agent will, and make it difficult to keep a player who may cause unrest within the squad, and dresing-room.
-
So surely GH says OK Stephen we will do our best to get you a move but do us a favour, just put it in writing.
or Stephen do us a favour and put in some storming performances so that some one wants you in January!
-
At Liverpool GH was good at getting rid of players he didn't want. Hopefully he can do the same here, so we don't have to put up with having a lot of unhappy deadbeats on high wages around. But times may have changed.
-
Jimmy Milner has contributed more the the Villa this season than Ireland has.
He's contributed more than Dunne, Warnock, Luke etc etc
Luke? The Luke Young that scored the winner against Everton? As opposed to the third goal in a match that was already won.
-
Jimmy Milner has contributed more the the Villa this season than Ireland has.
He's contributed more than Dunne, Warnock, Luke etc etc
Luke? The Luke Young that scored the winner against Everton? As opposed to the third goal in a match that was already won.
Well not Luke then, but I thought the less than serious nature of the post wouldn't need to be explained.
-
Thought he would be a sensation for us. I was sensationally wrong.
You are not alone there.
-
I agree that the board gets a lot of undeserved criticism these says. Even so, I think it is possible to question the wisdom of signing a £8m player on a £70,000 a week four-year contract when we are managerless and, also, want to trim our wage bill.
The details of the contract would have been set out before MON left. Don't forget it only dragged its heels because ireland also wanted a 'loyalty' pay-off from Man City before going. As it was already a done deal it was unlikely that we would have risked the deal falling through and losing Milner for less money 5 - 10 months later. Can't blame the board for this one.
The board had their reasons but were they good reasons? We rejected an offer of £18m for Milner earlier in the summer. Then we accepted an offer of £26 later which included Ireland valued at £8m. If MON wanted Ireland for £8m, then ok. But when MON left, I would have wanted the board to say: "Hang on, we don't know if the new manager will rate Ireland at £8m. We don't even know if he will want him at all. (Ie, we no longer know the value of this deal.)" Clearly, Man City didn't want to sign Milner. They wanted to sign Milner AND get rid of Ireland. Without a manager to evaluate the football decision of signing a player, we should not have let them have it both ways.
-
I agree that the board gets a lot of undeserved criticism these says. Even so, I think it is possible to question the wisdom of signing a £8m player on a £70,000 a week four-year contract when we are managerless and, also, want to trim our wage bill.
The details of the contract would have been set out before MON left. Don't forget it only dragged its heels because ireland also wanted a 'loyalty' pay-off from Man City before going. As it was already a done deal it was unlikely that we would have risked the deal falling through and losing Milner for less money 5 - 10 months later. Can't blame the board for this one.
The board had their reasons but were they good reasons? We rejected an offer of £18m for Milner earlier in the summer. Then we accepted an offer of £26 later which included Ireland valued at £8m. If MON wanted Ireland for £8m, then ok. But when MON left, I would have wanted the board to say: "Hang on, we don't know if the new manager will rate Ireland at £8m. We don't even know if he will want him at all. (Ie, we no longer know the value of this deal.)" Clearly, Man City didn't want to sign Milner. They wanted to sign Milner AND get rid of Ireland. Without a manager to evaluate the football decision of signing a player, we should not have let them have it both ways.
Agreed. But there's a way of conducting transfer negotiations and as seen with Delph we were commended for how we go about our business. It seems that the deal for the swap was all but done and without knowing any legal issues - probably none - its very rare that a deal will be scuppered at the 11th hour if you still want to be seen as an honourable club to deal with. We should take the hit on this one as it may work in our favour later down the road when we go back to Man City when buying or selling someone else.
-
Jimmy Milner has contributed more the the Villa this season than Ireland has.
He's contributed more than Dunne, Warnock, Luke etc etc
Luke? The Luke Young that scored the winner against Everton? As opposed to the third goal in a match that was already won.
Well not Luke then, but I thought the less than serious nature of the post wouldn't need to be explained.
Sorry Peter I just presumed from the first two names you mentioned your post was serious.
-
It seems to me that Ireland sees us (the club, players & fans) as being beneath him. Quite where he thinks he's going to go to from us I can't imagine. He's had, at most, one good season at Man City. You'd hope that someone around him would have a quiet word in his ear but I doubt he'd take any notice.
It annoys me beyond words when a runt like Ireland seems to treat those who pay his vast salary with complete contempt.
-
I think it's very easy to criticise the board with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight vision, but at the time I thought it was a brilliant deal - even with MON gone. A couple of seasons ago when Ireland was at his best with Citeh I thought I'd love to see him at Villa. So at the time I thought £18m plus Ireland was excellent business - and like many others, including the board, I've been proved very wrong. There's a great player in there but for whatever reason he doesn't want to show that with us so good riddance.
-
I agree that the board gets a lot of undeserved criticism these says. Even so, I think it is possible to question the wisdom of signing a £8m player on a £70,000 a week four-year contract when we are managerless and, also, want to trim our wage bill.
The details of the contract would have been set out before MON left. Don't forget it only dragged its heels because ireland also wanted a 'loyalty' pay-off from Man City before going. As it was already a done deal it was unlikely that we would have risked the deal falling through and losing Milner for less money 5 - 10 months later. Can't blame the board for this one.
The board had their reasons but were they good reasons? We rejected an offer of £18m for Milner earlier in the summer. Then we accepted an offer of £26 later which included Ireland valued at £8m. If MON wanted Ireland for £8m, then ok. But when MON left, I would have wanted the board to say: "Hang on, we don't know if the new manager will rate Ireland at £8m. We don't even know if he will want him at all. (Ie, we no longer know the value of this deal.)" Clearly, Man City didn't want to sign Milner. They wanted to sign Milner AND get rid of Ireland. Without a manager to evaluate the football decision of signing a player, we should not have let them have it both ways.
Agreed. But there's a way of conducting transfer negotiations and as seen with Delph we were commended for how we go about our business. It seems that the deal for the swap was all but done and without knowing any legal issues - probably none - its very rare that a deal will be scuppered at the 11th hour if you still want to be seen as an honourable club to deal with. We should take the hit on this one as it may work in our favour later down the road when we go back to Man City when buying or selling someone else.
Thinking of Ireland and Dunne (this season), it will hopefully be some time before we buy or sell someone from Man City!
I see the "honourable club" argument, but I think the manager suddenly leaving is a valid reason for cancelling a deal. Still, I'll admit it's easy to criticise when you don't know the details. Maybe Man City refused to pay more than £18m, and the board considered it impossible to keep a player wanting to leave, so they thought the best they could do was to get as much out of the deal as possible.
-
It seems that MON rated and wanted him and when he left the board wanted KMc to get the job, he also rated him so it made sense to complete the deal.
I think we should hire someone to drown him in that absurd fishtank he has so we can claim off the insurance.
-
When Milner made it clear he wanted to leave it was the best deal we could get, Ireland was exactly the sort of player we needed, it's just a shame he doesn't want to know.
Mind you Man City don't seem too keen on their part of the deal but then money doesn't matter to them.
-
That is important. We were all clamouring for an a creative midfielder and thought we had him. Turned out to be a dud. TWhat makes it more galling is that he was the one player coming in. With our injury situation we neededevery senior pro to roll up their sleevs to help the kids, and the team, through a tough couple of months. ireland, at exactly the time we need him has gone missing. For that, the lack of heart, desire, wanting to roll up his sleeves a put in a shift, his card will be marked by the manager. fair enough.
-
When Milner made it clear he wanted to leave it was the best deal we could get, Ireland was exactly the sort of player we needed, it's just a shame he doesn't want to know.
Mind you Man City don't seem too keen on their part of the deal but then money doesn't matter to them.
This.We got a player that doesn't fit into our team and 16 million.They just got a player that doesn't fit into the team.
-
Kind of sad that everyone would probably have been better off if this transfer-swap had never taken place.
-
Kind of sad that everyone would probably have been better off if this transfer-swap had never taken place.
Everyone apart from the player's agents.
-
if the telegraph is right Dunne and Ireland were not even in the squad today.
Click (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/8210622/Aston-Villa-manager-Gerard-Houllier-to-hold-talks-with-Randy-Lerner-over-Stephen-Irelands-future.html)
-
Yep, Football post-1992 in all its glory.
-
The most galling thing of all is that there probably isn't one of us who, if we'd been paid what Ireland has in what will probably be his no more than five month Villa career, would have to ever work again.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
-
It's all the board's fault.
They should have known MON was to abandon the club in 5 days time. They should have known that Ireland is a tosser, The General did nothing to stop the deal that was agreed amicably between two parties, even though he has no control over transfers. They should have backed out at the last minute a la Newcastle. They should have foreseen the future.
Fcuking yawn...
-
if the telegraph is right Dunne and Ireland were not even in the squad today.
Click (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/8210622/Aston-Villa-manager-Gerard-Houllier-to-hold-talks-with-Randy-Lerner-over-Stephen-Irelands-future.html)
Did either deserve to be?
Piss off Ireland. £70K a week for that useless lump.
I was wrong on him and wish him every ill.
-
I did say a while back that if he wants to stay and turn things around he'd have my full backing. Just the type of player we need, even if he is a bit of a tit.
If he wants out (and that is far from clear at the moment) then I wouldn't want us to expend any energy persuading him otherwise. To come to that kind of judgement after a few short months at your new club would indicate a lack of character.
Where I'd still say there is doubt is that in the press conference on SSN yesterday GH made mention of Ireland and even apologised for his comments a few weeks back. Not the first time he's had to backtrack, he seems to have a chronic case of foot in mouth. He then went on to say that he thinks Ireland wants to leave because that's what his (SI's agent) has told him. GH then said he was unsure whether Ireland actually wants to leave. Ireland agent has also apparently distanced himself from those claims.
So whether this is a case of GH simply tying himself in knots again or another case of a modern footballer acting the spoilt barsteward remains to be seen.
-
I dislike Stephen Ireland intensely. But I can not really blame him for wanting to leave, considering the absolute clown we have in charge. With Houllier at the helm this club is in freefall and we all know it.
-
I dislike Stephen Ireland intensely. But I can not really blame him for wanting to leave, considering the absolute clown we have in charge. With Houllier at the helm this club is in freefall and we all know it.
No we don't 'all' know it. Please enlighten us.
-
I did say a while back that if he wants to stay and turn things around he'd have my full backing. Just the type of player we need, even if he is a bit of a tit.
If he wants out (and that is far from clear at the moment) then I wouldn't want us to expend any energy persuading him otherwise. To come to that kind of judgement after a few short months at your new club would indicate a lack of character.
Where I'd still say there is doubt is that in the press conference on SSN yesterday GH made mention of Ireland and even apologised for his comments a few weeks back. Not the first time he's had to backtrack, he seems to have a chronic case of foot in mouth. He then went on to say that he thinks Ireland wants to leave because that's what his (SI's agent) has told him. GH then said he was unsure whether Ireland actually wants to leave. Ireland agent has also apparently distanced himself from those claims.
So whether this is a case of GH simply tying himself in knots again or another case of a modern footballer acting the spoilt barsteward remains to be seen.
Whether you call it back tracking or apologising, I have no problem with it, as it shows he's not so arrogant to realise he never makes mistakes. One thing that does annoy me about GH is this belief that one size fits all. Of course he wants all the players to give everything but the point is not all will respond to the same approach. Everybody knows Ireland is bit strange and needs an arm around his shoulder, so why go public with a brutal approach? Maybe GH has realised this and is why he is as you call it, back tracking. Admitedly he's been thrown in the deep end since his arrival and may not have had the time to give Ireland the attention he so desperately needs, but when you're dealing with players that cost £8m and earn £68k a week, you really can't afford not to try everything to resolve the problem. You only have to look at Heskey to see how a different approach from the manager can have a positive effect.
The most annoying thing is most realise if Ireland could get his head sorted out, we'd have a great player on our hands. The bloke is a complex character and I hope the club stand strong and insist he will only be allowed to leave if somebody meets the asking price. Until that price is met, I hope we do everything to resolve whatever issues Ireland has. It may be pissing in the wind but it's certainly worth the try.
-
I did say a while back that if he wants to stay and turn things around he'd have my full backing. Just the type of player we need, even if he is a bit of a tit.
If he wants out (and that is far from clear at the moment) then I wouldn't want us to expend any energy persuading him otherwise. To come to that kind of judgement after a few short months at your new club would indicate a lack of character.
Where I'd still say there is doubt is that in the press conference on SSN yesterday GH made mention of Ireland and even apologised for his comments a few weeks back. Not the first time he's had to backtrack, he seems to have a chronic case of foot in mouth. He then went on to say that he thinks Ireland wants to leave because that's what his (SI's agent) has told him. GH then said he was unsure whether Ireland actually wants to leave. Ireland agent has also apparently distanced himself from those claims.
So whether this is a case of GH simply tying himself in knots again or another case of a modern footballer acting the spoilt barsteward remains to be seen.
Whether you call it back tracking or apologising, I have no problem with it, as it shows he's not so arrogant to realise he never makes mistakes. One thing that does annoy me about GH is this belief that one size fits all. Of course he wants all the players to give everything but the point is not all will respond to the same approach. Everybody knows Ireland is bit strange and needs an arm around his shoulder, so why go public with a brutal approach? Maybe GH has realised this and is why he is as you call it, back tracking. Admitedly he's been thrown in the deep end since his arrival and may not have had the time to give Ireland the attention he so desperately needs, but when you're dealing with players that cost £8m and earn £68k a week, you really can't afford not to try everything to resolve the problem. You only have to look at Heskey to see how a different approach from the manager can have a positive effect.
The most annoying thing is most realise if Ireland could get his head sorted out, we'd have a great player on our hands. The bloke is a complex character and I hope the club stand strong and insist he will only be allowed to leave if somebody meets the asking price. Until that price is met, I hope we do everything to resolve whatever issues Ireland has. It may be pissing in the wind but it's certainly worth the try.
Agreed.
I think that Houlllier would have been better served when he took the job by saying how important Ireland is to us.
I think Ireland is the sort of guy that constantly needs to be told how great a player he is. He is certainly not the type to respond well to negative criticism, especially in public.
If as now looks likely he leaves, I have a nasty feeling he will go on to be an excellent player for another team.
-
I tend to agree Mark but the thing is GH is not some greenhorn manager.
He's been in the business a while and some of the errors he's made already have been pretty basic.
It's pretty standard fare to praise or try to boost your players in public and give them a bollocking if required in private. Not doing that not only loses you the respect of the individual player concerned but also wouldn't go unnoticed amongst the rest of the playing staff. "He's turned on Ireland this week to grab himself a few headlines, will it be me next week?" and so on.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
Well why were we signing deals with other clubs whilst the player still had issue's with his club?
It seems ridiculous to me to conduct business in this manner.
Call me a cynic, but it sends out a signal that we wanted the deal done just as much as Man City..
Given the choice, I'm sure we would of been better off having an unhappy Milner still here, rather than having a player who never wanted to be here in the first place..
At least Milner would of still earned his money.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
Well why were we signing deals with other clubs whilst the player still had issue's with his club?
It seems ridiculous to me to conduct business in this manner.
I'm guessing they thought it was just a matter of time till he signed and with a manager who wanted him here it wasn't a problem. May have been naive by the board but they obviously thought MON wasn't about to walk out. Like most of us.
-
It's an interesting hypothetical but would Ireland be performing any better had MON still been here? Because to be fair, he wasn't exactly Mr Fantastic under Kevin McDonald.
-
well he usually does play them until they find form or prove absolutely useless if Petrov is anything to go by. I think he would have played more under MON just because he didn't like to be proved wrong.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
If this is the case, the board is blameless. There was a manager to make the footballing decision (signing Ireland for £8m) and a board to make the business decision (selling Ireland). It's just a shame that the manager made such a decision just days or weeks before he resigned.
-
It's an interesting hypothetical but would Ireland be performing any better had MON still been here? Because to be fair, he wasn't exactly Mr Fantastic under Kevin McDonald.
The big problem isn't that Ireland is underperforming. I think both the fans and the manager is prepared to give him time to settle (which he needs). The problem is that Ireland isn't interested. He has had a hard time for a couple of months and has already decided that he has had enough.
-
It's an interesting hypothetical but would Ireland be performing any better had MON still been here? Because to be fair, he wasn't exactly Mr Fantastic under Kevin McDonald.
The big problem isn't that Ireland is underperforming. I think both the fans and the manager is prepared to give him time to settle (which he needs). The problem is that Ireland isn't interested. He has had a hard time for a couple of months and has already decided that he has had enough.
But that's the point of the hypothetical isn't it? On the one hand, MON had his clear favourites and had Ireland been one of them, maybe we could have expected him to settle in rapidly. But on the other, how long before MON's personality rubbed Ireland up the wrong way? Or his use of the player, who would probably have got played out of his preferred position.
-
maybe he was planning to change the formation. say, Ireland, Keane up front and another centre midfielder. We all think Ireland was Milner's replacement but we're just guessing frankly and we'll never know now.
-
I did say a while back that if he wants to stay and turn things around he'd have my full backing. Just the type of player we need, even if he is a bit of a tit.
If he wants out (and that is far from clear at the moment) then I wouldn't want us to expend any energy persuading him otherwise. To come to that kind of judgement after a few short months at your new club would indicate a lack of character.
Where I'd still say there is doubt is that in the press conference on SSN yesterday GH made mention of Ireland and even apologised for his comments a few weeks back. Not the first time he's had to backtrack, he seems to have a chronic case of foot in mouth. He then went on to say that he thinks Ireland wants to leave because that's what his (SI's agent) has told him. GH then said he was unsure whether Ireland actually wants to leave. Ireland agent has also apparently distanced himself from those claims.
So whether this is a case of GH simply tying himself in knots again or another case of a modern footballer acting the spoilt barsteward remains to be seen.
Whether you call it back tracking or apologising, I have no problem with it, as it shows he's not so arrogant to realise he never makes mistakes. One thing that does annoy me about GH is this belief that one size fits all. Of course he wants all the players to give everything but the point is not all will respond to the same approach. Everybody knows Ireland is bit strange and needs an arm around his shoulder, so why go public with a brutal approach? Maybe GH has realised this and is why he is as you call it, back tracking. Admitedly he's been thrown in the deep end since his arrival and may not have had the time to give Ireland the attention he so desperately needs, but when you're dealing with players that cost £8m and earn £68k a week, you really can't afford not to try everything to resolve the problem. You only have to look at Heskey to see how a different approach from the manager can have a positive effect.
The most annoying thing is most realise if Ireland could get his head sorted out, we'd have a great player on our hands. The bloke is a complex character and I hope the club stand strong and insist he will only be allowed to leave if somebody meets the asking price. Until that price is met, I hope we do everything to resolve whatever issues Ireland has. It may be pissing in the wind but it's certainly worth the try.
Agreed.
I think that Houlllier would have been better served when he took the job by saying how important Ireland is to us.
I think Ireland is the sort of guy that constantly needs to be told how great a player he is. He is certainly not the type to respond well to negative criticism, especially in public.
If as now looks likely he leaves, I have a nasty feeling he will go on to be an excellent player for another team.
My thoughts entirely and my concern also.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
So if James Milner had sustained a serious injury against West Ham,the deal would still have gone ahead ?
-
I think that Houlllier would have been better served when he took the job by saying how important Ireland is to us.
I think Ireland is the sort of guy that constantly needs to be told how great a player he is. He is certainly not the type to respond well to negative criticism, especially in public.
If as now looks likely he leaves, I have a nasty feeling he will go on to be an excellent player for another team.
Well, there are some excellent armchair psychologists on this board who no doubt would have had Ireland playing like Messi were they managers. However, imagine that GH joined Villa and immediately said what an important player Ireland is to us, and Ireland still did not play well. Should he keep an underperfoming player in the team? Should he play a youngster like Hogg instead of him but still go on about what a great player Ireland is? Wouldn't that look somewhat strange?
GH is not brutal with Ireland. He is actually saying that he likes him as a person and player but that there is a reason why he isn't playing that much at the moment.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
If this is the case, the board is blameless. There was a manager to make the footballing decision (signing Ireland for £8m) and a board to make the business decision (selling Ireland). It's just a shame that the manager made such a decision just days or weeks before he resigned.
From what I gather, MON resigned because AVFC and MCFC had signed a binding agreement to sell Milner on terms he didn't agree with and that they had made his position untenable by overruling him.
See what I've done there?
-
I think that Houlllier would have been better served when he took the job by saying how important Ireland is to us.
I think Ireland is the sort of guy that constantly needs to be told how great a player he is. He is certainly not the type to respond well to negative criticism, especially in public.
If as now looks likely he leaves, I have a nasty feeling he will go on to be an excellent player for another team.
Well, there are some excellent armchair psychologists on this board who no doubt would have had Ireland playing like Messi were they managers. However, imagine that GH joined Villa and immediately said what an important player Ireland is to us, and Ireland still did not play well. Should he keep an underperfoming player in the team? Should he play a youngster like Hogg instead of him but still go on about what a great player Ireland is? Wouldn't that look somewhat strange?
GH is not brutal with Ireland. He is actually saying that he likes him as a person and player but that there is a reason why he isn't playing that much at the moment.
This is a forum, it's all about opinions.
I'm not saying that my point of view is definitely correct, its just what I think.
I'm also not saying that it would automatically transform Ireland's form around. I also don't think that he should be in the team at present as his form has been poor.
I am definitely not an "excellent armchair psychologist". Again it's my opinion based on thinking that Ireland comes across to me as quite a fragile being. Again I could be wrong.
What I am sure of though, is that your post was needlessly condescending.
-
I think that Houlllier would have been better served when he took the job by saying how important Ireland is to us.
I think Ireland is the sort of guy that constantly needs to be told how great a player he is. He is certainly not the type to respond well to negative criticism, especially in public.
If as now looks likely he leaves, I have a nasty feeling he will go on to be an excellent player for another team.
Well, there are some excellent armchair psychologists on this board who no doubt would have had Ireland playing like Messi were they managers. However, imagine that GH joined Villa and immediately said what an important player Ireland is to us, and Ireland still did not play well. Should he keep an underperfoming player in the team? Should he play a youngster like Hogg instead of him but still go on about what a great player Ireland is? Wouldn't that look somewhat strange?
GH is not brutal with Ireland. He is actually saying that he likes him as a person and player but that there is a reason why he isn't playing that much at the moment.
This is a forum, it's all about opinions.
I'm not saying that my point of view is definitely correct, its just what I think.
I'm also not saying that it would automatically transform Ireland's form around. I also don't think that he should be in the team at present as his form has been poor.
I am definitely not an "excellent armchair psychologist". Again it's my opinion based on thinking that Ireland comes across to me as quite a fragile being. Again I could be wrong.
What I am sure of though, is that your post was needlessly condescending.
Correct.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
If this is the case, the board is blameless. There was a manager to make the footballing decision (signing Ireland for £8m) and a board to make the business decision (selling Ireland). It's just a shame that the manager made such a decision just days or weeks before he resigned.
From what I gather, MON resigned because AVFC and MCFC had signed a binding agreement to sell Milner on terms he didn't agree with and that they had made his position untenable by overruling him.
See what I've done there?
Spoken out your arse? Either that or you know more than the rest of us as to why MON left.
-
What I am sure of though, is that your post was needlessly condescending.
I apologize. The comment about "excellent armchair psychologist" was a throw-away remark. Don't take it personal. I actually agree that Ireland seems to be fragile and is probably overtly sensitive to criticism, and probably reacts better to praise.
However, the point I was trying to make is that there, at the same time, must be come consistency between what the manager is saying and what he is doing. If not, he will look ridiculous. He cannot go on and on about what a fantastic player Ireland is and at the same time always leave him out of the matchday squad. Thus. I think it is harsh to criticise him when he is saying that he likes Ireland but at the same time admits that there are reasons why he aren't playing him.
-
What I am sure of though, is that your post was needlessly condescending.
I apologize. The comment about "excellent armchair psychologist" was a throw-away remark. Don't take it personal. I actually agree that Ireland seems to be fragile and is probably overtly sensitive to criticism, and probably reacts better to praise.
However, the point I was trying to make is that there, at the same time, must be come consistency between what the manager is saying and what he is doing. If not, he will look ridiculous. He cannot go on and on about what a fantastic player Ireland is and at the same time always leave him out of the matchday squad. Thus. I think it is harsh to criticise him when he is saying that he likes Ireland but at the same time admits that there are reasons why he aren't playing him.
No worries, my reaction was probably a bit over the top which I apologise for
The problem I have, is that Houllier could have told Ireland in private that he needed to work harder.
I agree with your point that he can't continously praise Ireland in public. I think he could have done that when he initially took the job, then pulled Ireland aside afterwards and let him know what improvements he has to make.
It might not have made much difference in the grand scheme of things, but I think it would have been a better way to go about it.
-
Steve Sidwell is shite. But when he's in the team he works his bollocks off. You can't fault him for a lack of effort, just a lack of ability.
Ireland came here thinking he was better than this, he didn't want to leave Citeh. He's absolutely brilliant but obviously thinks we're beneath him.
Ashley had the shirt, Ireland was used sparingly or out of position and obviously wasn't willing to do a job for the team in order to help us out in times of trouble.
We took him on when few others wanted him. It's a shame because we'll struggle to get someone equally as talented - but we'll have to send him on his way should we get a decent offer.
-
Steve Sidwell is shite. But when he's in the team he works his bollocks off.
No he doesn't. He hides.
-
You'd have thought the penny may have dropped with Ireland that he won't get a move to a bigger club than Villa at the moment, or at least certainly not as anything other than a squad player. It's downhill from here....
-
depends. if he's had a whispa in his ear that could explain it. wouldn't put it past redknapp offering us a swap deal for Keane
-
Steve Sidwell is shite. But when he's in the team he works his bollocks off.
No he doesn't. He hides.
The man has ankles made from custard. I'd rather play with ten men than have Sidwell on the pitch.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
If this is the case, the board is blameless. There was a manager to make the footballing decision (signing Ireland for £8m) and a board to make the business decision (selling Ireland). It's just a shame that the manager made such a decision just days or weeks before he resigned.
From what I gather, MON resigned because AVFC and MCFC had signed a binding agreement to sell Milner on terms he didn't agree with and that they had made his position untenable by overruling him.
See what I've done there?
Spoken out your arse? Either that or you know more than the rest of us as to why MON left.
I think VD would very much like that to be true.
Every post since the departure of the love of his life would indicate that's how he see's it, and it would exonerate MON.
But wanting it to be true and it actually being true are two different things.
-
Steve Sidwell is shite. But when he's in the team he works his bollocks off. You can't fault him for a lack of effort, just a lack of ability.
Does he balls.
I've never seen a player duck out of so many return passes as Sidwell seems to manage. For the few games he has started in recent years you'd barely notice he was even on the pitch.
A rare achievement for a ginner.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
If this is the case, the board is blameless. There was a manager to make the footballing decision (signing Ireland for £8m) and a board to make the business decision (selling Ireland). It's just a shame that the manager made such a decision just days or weeks before he resigned.
From what I gather, MON resigned because AVFC and MCFC had signed a binding agreement to sell Milner on terms he didn't agree with and that they had made his position untenable by overruling him.
See what I've done there?
Spoken out your arse? Either that or you know more than the rest of us as to why MON left.
I think VD would very much like that to be true.
Every post since the departure of the love of his life would indicate that's how he see's it, and it would exonerate MON.
But wanting it to be true and it actually being true are two different things.
Who knows what is true, its as good as theory as any other but stating it as fact is pretending that you know something that others don't. However, its no more far-fetched than Pelty 's laughable theory that we could not get out of the deal as everything had been signed.
-
erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know
-
erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know
And they would never mislead anyone would they?
-
well it hardly shows the board in a gleaming light does it? I tend to believe they had a deal with Citeh for Ireland and were dropped in it by MON's resignation. Naive perhaps to trust thier manager but they'll learn
-
The General has said at various stages that the Ireland deal had the approval of MON and was a far way down the road. Whether it could have been pulled with the departure of the manager (personally I think it could) is a moot point. MON was on board with it and it was the wider issue of the wage bill that he ultimately couldn't/wouldn't come to terms with.
It's been said recently that the board haven't communicated their position well enough. Yet when they do, if this doesn't fit in with the conspiracy theories of a certain few it's disregarded anyway.
So you have the General stating the boards take on the situation against MON saying absolutely nothing and a few infatuated MON fans thinking it must be the clubs fcuk up by default - as MON can do no wrong.
I know out of the above which scenario looks the most credible to me but each to his own.
-
erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know
And they would never mislead anyone would they?
I like this one. Have you ever considered the consequencies of the board misleading or telling porkies to the fans and being found out?
Four and a half years of positive PR and all credibility out the window in one nano-second.
My understanding is that the General is far too experienced, honourable, not to mention wise, to play such a risky game. It's one thing to question their decisions but quite another to mark them down as idiots and/or liars. By coming on this and other boards, the General knows the rules that go with the territory and the consistency required in all his comments.
-
Get him out.
Always knew he was a prick.
I agree, there hasn't been a single piece of good news since he became manager.
still got the knives handy I see
-
Steve Sidwell is shite. But when he's in the team he works his bollocks off.
No he doesn't. He hides.
The man has ankles made from custard. I'd rather play with ten men than have Sidwell on the pitch.
He'd have to be Harry Potter to hide with that hair - I'm with JJ Sidwell always gives maximum effort and I think that is his problem he tries too hard.
In 6 or 7 appearances Ireland has not made a tackle in anger - even the devil incarnate S. Hodge worked up a sweat in a Villa shirt. He is a disgrace to himself and the football club - make him clear the snow at the training ground.
-
I can't see how people can deny Sidwell gets about the pitch. He covers loads of ground and gets stuck in.
He's just not particularly good.
-
From what I gather, the deal was done between AVFC and MCFC *before* MON left - signed and sealed. The delay was caused by issues between City and Ireland... Papers were signed and Aston Villa could not have backed out of the deal had they wanted to do so no matter the circumstances.
If this is the case, the board is blameless. There was a manager to make the footballing decision (signing Ireland for £8m) and a board to make the business decision (selling Ireland). It's just a shame that the manager made such a decision just days or weeks before he resigned.
From what I gather, MON resigned because AVFC and MCFC had signed a binding agreement to sell Milner on terms he didn't agree with and that they had made his position untenable by overruling him.
See what I've done there?
Spoken out your arse? Either that or you know more than the rest of us as to why MON left.
I think VD would very much like that to be true.
Every post since the departure of the love of his life would indicate that's how he see's it, and it would exonerate MON.
But wanting it to be true and it actually being true are two different things.
Who knows what is true, its as good as theory as any other but stating it as fact is pretending that you know something that others don't. However, its no more far-fetched than Pelty 's laughable theory that we could not get out of the deal as everything had been signed.
Just a thought but *if* MoN resigned in disgust at AVFC selling Milner, perhaps the Board decided they couldn't go back on the deal as they'd lose out on the money & Ireland from the transfer *and* a manager?
-
As Legion said, he goes missing - even if its only a bit part last 15 minutes from the bench.
Unless you count mistiming the odd tackle as 'getting stuck in.'
In contrast, even in the few run-outs he's had since Sept, there have been a few occasions when Ireland has come on and looked lively. That's the most frustrating thing in all this, we know with Ireland there is a good player in there somewhere.
Sidwell is just an empty shirt, someone to make up the numbers it seems. At times he doesn't even manage that.
-
erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know
And they would never mislead anyone would they?
Can't say I appreciate you questioning my honesty and integrity. The bottom line is that the Milner episode was a debacle and I am not even sure it would have gone down the way it did had MON not shot off his mouth somewhere around 18 July (people can check that date) and told the press that Milner was agitating to leave. Now, all the MON apologists can spin this as they like; I am a liar, etc. Nevertheless, it would appear that those words put the player into what seemed to him to be an untenable position as regards the club and its fans and he then asked to leave.
-
Ireland doesn't want to be at Villa, never wanted to be there and has never made any attempt to change his view.
He's a wate of space and unlike our previous manager who would have fined him and never played him again until his contract is up Houllier fcks him off post haste and rightly so.
Its not only the training regime that is more professional the management of the players has gone the same way.
Now if those Mon lovers could catch up to the real world we might all get on more.
-
Ireland doesn't want to be at Villa, never wanted to be there and has never made any attempt to change his view.
He's a wate of space and unlike our previous manager who would have fined him and never played him again until his contract is up Houllier fcks him off post haste and rightly so.
Its not only the training regime that is more professional the management of the players has gone the same way.
Now if those Mon lovers could catch up to the real world we might all get on more.
If a professional training regime and player management mean we lose to Blues in QF of the cup, are always in the news with players revolting and oscillating between 15th and 17th rather than 6th excuse me but I'd prefer the unprofessional version.
-
erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know
And they would never mislead anyone would they?
I like this one. Have you ever considered the consequencies of the board misleading or telling porkies to the fans and being found out?
Four and a half years of positive PR and all credibility out the window in one nano-second.
I dont believe for one second the board would mislead the fans, but it does show how naive they were when conducting transfers.
Especially when giving S.O.B.M.O.N the freedom of all things Villa.
-
erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know
And they would never mislead anyone would they?
I like this one. Have you ever considered the consequencies of the board misleading or telling porkies to the fans and being found out?
Four and a half years of positive PR and all credibility out the window in one nano-second.
I dont believe for one second the board would mislead the fans, but it does show how naive they were when conducting transfers.
Especially when giving S.O.B.M.O.N the freedom of all things Villa.
As I said earlier, I think it's more than fair game to question their decisions but to question their honesty in dealing with the fans is to think them idiots.
-
Ireland doesn't want to be at Villa, never wanted to be there and has never made any attempt to change his view.
He's a wate of space and unlike our previous manager who would have fined him and never played him again until his contract is up Houllier fcks him off post haste and rightly so.
Its not only the training regime that is more professional the management of the players has gone the same way.
Now if those Mon lovers could catch up to the real world we might all get on more.
If a professional training regime and player management mean we lose to Blues in QF of the cup, are always in the news with players revolting and oscillating between 15th and 17th rather than 6th excuse me but I'd prefer the unprofessional version.
Like Mon you are thinking only short term, not taking the full facts on board and of yourself I'd guess, as you have ignored the injury list, the disruption caused by Mons manner of exit and the lack of time Houllier has had, to change the squad.
-
erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know
And they would never mislead anyone would they?
I like this one. Have you ever considered the consequencies of the board misleading or telling porkies to the fans and being found out?
Four and a half years of positive PR and all credibility out the window in one nano-second.
I dont believe for one second the board would mislead the fans, but it does show how naive they were when conducting transfers.
Especially when giving S.O.B.M.O.N the freedom of all things Villa.
I just do not understand this? How are they being "naive" by saying to the manager (whoever that may be), "Go get the players you feel will best take the club to the heights we would like to reach"? I am unsure of what model you would have in mind that would find the board conducting transfer business. At what clubs does this happen with regularity? In all seriousness, is Villa that far out of the mainstream? Sure, there could be a DOF put into place, I guess, who would serve as a go-between of a sort, but I am not sure that this is a better model than the one currently in place. It works rather well in American football, but the ingrained power of the manager found in world football suggests it would not work as well or that it would take a certain type of manager who was willing to follow these ground rules, a type of manager who likely would not inspire the fires of hopes and passions of the fans.
So I ask again, in what way is the board "naive"? How is its manner of conducting business appreciably different than other Premier League clubs?
-
i was as surprised by GH's appointment as anyone and i'm not sure long term
BUT
coming in like he did after MON's betrayal, with an injuriy situation like he's had, and no options to change it till January.......well, MON would have struggled, and while there is rumours of disgruntlement in the squad we all know people like NRC wouldn't have got near the first team under MON anyway., If anyone froze players out it was that guy.
we were all laughing at the toon for sacking Houghton a week back and yet a few on here want to sack GH after a few months! Not for me personally. One, i'm not convinced we'd get much better in to replace him in January. Two, i'd rather give him at least 1 transfer window to do something. Three, he's had a nightmare with injuries.
If its really not working out by the end of May or we're nailed to the floor of the premiership come March, then maybe i'll panic like some others. Until then...
-
Ireland doesn't want to be at Villa, never wanted to be there and has never made any attempt to change his view.
He's a wate of space and unlike our previous manager who would have fined him and never played him again until his contract is up Houllier fcks him off post haste and rightly so.
Its not only the training regime that is more professional the management of the players has gone the same way.
Now if those Mon lovers could catch up to the real world we might all get on more.
If a professional training regime and player management mean we lose to Blues in QF of the cup, are always in the news with players revolting and oscillating between 15th and 17th rather than 6th excuse me but I'd prefer the unprofessional version.
Like Mon you are thinking only short term, not taking the full facts on board and of yourself I'd guess, as you have ignored the injury list, the disruption caused by Mons manner of exit and the lack of time Houllier has had, to change the squad.
It appears that under MON we had a squad and regime designed to finish 6th. Above that position was a glass ceiling. The question is: could we improve on that with minor tinkering with the squad and the regime, or do we need to break it down completely and try to build a squad that is more competitive and introduce a regime more modern and professional? GH seems to believe the latter.
-
Nothing I've seen since August suggests that we have moved forward since the end of last season. In fact I think we've moved back significantly. The league table and evidence gathered by my own eyes bear this out.
-
Nothing I've seen since August suggests that we have moved forward since the end of last season. In fact I think we've moved back significantly. The league table and evidence gathered by my own eyes bear this out.
right, so if MON had stayed and we had ireland, but the injuries we've suffered were the same we'd be up the top?!! show me the team and remember players like nrc and Luke young wouldn't have got near the first team and don't forget his fobia against the youngsters
-
erm..pelty is slightly well placed with people who would know
And they would never mislead anyone would they?
I like this one. Have you ever considered the consequencies of the board misleading or telling porkies to the fans and being found out?
Four and a half years of positive PR and all credibility out the window in one nano-second.
I dont believe for one second the board would mislead the fans, but it does show how naive they were when conducting transfers.
Especially when giving S.O.B.M.O.N the freedom of all things Villa.
I just do not understand this? How are they being "naive" by saying to the manager (whoever that may be), "Go get the players you feel will best take the club to the heights we would like to reach"? I am unsure of what model you would have in mind that would find the board conducting transfer business. At what clubs does this happen with regularity? In all seriousness, is Villa that far out of the mainstream? Sure, there could be a DOF put into place, I guess, who would serve as a go-between of a sort, but I am not sure that this is a better model than the one currently in place. It works rather well in American football, but the ingrained power of the manager found in world football suggests it would not work as well or that it would take a certain type of manager who was willing to follow these ground rules, a type of manager who likely would not inspire the fires of hopes and passions of the fans.
So I ask again, in what way is the board "naive"? How is its manner of conducting business appreciably different than other Premier League clubs?
I think Diceman is referring to giving MON so much control over such issues. You only have to look at the wage bill to see there are plenty of under-achievers/players signed and paid a fortune to make up the numbers, when in reality they were never going to be played.
-
I think Diceman is referring to giving MON so much control over such issues. You only have to look at the wage bill to see there are plenty of under-achievers/players signed and paid a fortune to make up the numbers, when in reality they were never going to be played.
Fair enough, Mark, but I think it is correct to state that the board did not expect that MON would NOT play those players, that he would leave them to rot on the bench while he wore out the first eleven. The entire time, MON was saying "we need a squad so that the players do not get worn out." The board saw logic in this statement and evidence of its truthfulness on the pitch those first few seasons and made money available. When, however, the same cry was made time after time with no evidence that he would ever actually use a squad given that the squad he had purchased was never actually used, then I can understand why Randy may begin to question the manager's methods.
To go back to your point, though, the board had every expectation that the squad WOULD play? Why would they sanction the purchase of players who they KNEW would never see the pitch? Answer: they didn't; they thought the players might get a match or two. In other words, the very thrust of Diceman's question (as you have interpreted it) is built on a flawed foundation.
-
i was as surprised by GH's appointment as anyone and i'm not sure long term
BUT
coming in like he did after MON's betrayal, with an injuriy situation like he's had, and no options to change it till January.......well, MON would have struggled, and while there is rumours of disgruntlement in the squad we all know people like NRC wouldn't have got near the first team under MON anyway., If anyone froze players out it was that guy.
we were all laughing at the toon for sacking Houghton a week back and yet a few on here want to sack GH after a few months! Not for me personally. One, i'm not convinced we'd get much better in to replace him in January. Two, i'd rather give him at least 1 transfer window to do something. Three, he's had a nightmare with injuries.
If its really not working out by the end of May or we're nailed to the floor of the premiership come March, then maybe i'll panic like some others. Until then...
I have to say I agree wholeheartedly.
-
To go back to your point, though, the board had every expectation that the squad WOULD play? Why would they sanction the purchase of players who they KNEW would never see the pitch? Answer: they didn't; they thought the players might get a match or two. In other words, the very thrust of Diceman's question (as you have interpreted it) is built on a flawed foundation.
I'll ignore the first part of your reply as I agree with it all.
I'm not saying the board were niave but as you mentioned earlier, how many clubs would have sanctioned the deals we made without raising a question or two? Not many is my guess, if any, with the possible exception of Man City. Even Chelsea have been tightening the purse strings, making their manager more accountable. Obviously Randy realised the squad needed investment and fully supported the manager, even going over budget in summer 2009 if reports are to believed.
I guess what I really want to know is how long this circus would have continued, allowing the manager to retain players that he had no interest in playing, a drain on club finances and were unlikely to fetch much on the transfer market, whilst at the same time asking for funds to re-enforce the 'squad'? Did the board not dig themselves into a hole by allowing MON to have so much control whereby they were left in a position where the only solution was to continue to back him or sack him? Considering we once again finished 6th, were the board not stuck between a rock and a hard place; a place any club should never find themselves, if possible?
-
I think Diceman is referring to giving MON so much control over such issues. You only have to look at the wage bill to see there are plenty of under-achievers/players signed and paid a fortune to make up the numbers, when in reality they were never going to be played.
Fair enough, Mark, but I think it is correct to state that the board did not expect that MON would NOT play those players, that he would leave them to rot on the bench while he wore out the first eleven. The entire time, MON was saying "we need a squad so that the players do not get worn out." The board saw logic in this statement and evidence of its truthfulness on the pitch those first few seasons and made money available. When, however, the same cry was made time after time with no evidence that he would ever actually use a squad given that the squad he had purchased was never actually used, then I can understand why Randy may begin to question the manager's methods.
To go back to your point, though, the board had every expectation that the squad WOULD play? Why would they sanction the purchase of players who they KNEW would never see the pitch? Answer: they didn't; they thought the players might get a match or two. In other words, the very thrust of Diceman's question (as you have interpreted it) is built on a flawed foundation.
Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before. Did any of them have specific examples of players who should have been dropped and how that would have improved results?
Presumably, if we'd had the injuries we had this season and used the wider squad more often they'd have thought he was doing a better job?
-
yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"
I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.
-
yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"
I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.
I liked Doug :-)
-
Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before. Did any of them have specific examples of players who should have been dropped and how that would have improved results?
Presumably, if we'd had the injuries we had this season and used the wider squad more often they'd have thought he was doing a better job?
Imagine you go with the wife to the supermarket and do a big shop, you pay. You don't mind paying as there's next to nothing at home to eat.
Your wife does the cooking and you don't interfere in the kitchen
Every night for dinner it's beans on toast. It fills you up, serves it's purpose. You are no longer hungry. Job done.
One night after another plate of beans on toast you look in the fridge and there are steaks, fish and vegetables rotting way.
Come Saturday she tells you that you need to go with her again to do another big shop. You're expected to pay.
Now you can't cook to save your life but something tells you something is not quite right in the kitchen.
What do you do?
-
yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"
I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.
I liked Doug :-)
I wasn't against Doug, but I can't say I was his biggest fan. Though, I certainly didn't see him as the anti-Christ as some. But, Randy's not remotely like Doug in what he has done since he got here, so to even compare him in any way at all is a little insulting in my opinion.
-
yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"
I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.
I liked Doug :-)
I wasn't against Doug, but I can't say I was his biggest fan. Though, I certainly didn't see him as the anti-Christ as some. But, Randy's not remotely like Doug in what he has done since he got here, so to even compare him in any way at all is a little insulting in my opinion.
I didn't compare Randy to Doug, I compared Pelty's description of the problem to the type of justification that Doug would have used.
-
Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before. Did any of them have specific examples of players who should have been dropped and how that would have improved results?
Presumably, if we'd had the injuries we had this season and used the wider squad more often they'd have thought he was doing a better job?
Imagine you go with the wife to the supermarket and do a big shop, you pay. You don't mind paying as there's next to nothing at home to eat.
Your wife does the cooking and you don't interfere in the kitchen
Every night for dinner it's beans on toast. It fills you up, serves it's purpose. You are no longer hungry. Job done.
One night after another plate of beans on toast you look in the fridge and there are steaks, fish and vegetables rotting way.
Come Saturday she tells you that you need to go with her again to do another big shop. You're expected to pay.
Now you can't cook to save your life but something tells you something is not quite right in the kitchen.
What do you do?
Last season was arguably our best for 20 years. It was the beans that were being kept in reserve, we were using the steak.
-
Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before. Did any of them have specific examples of players who should have been dropped and how that would have improved results?
Presumably, if we'd had the injuries we had this season and used the wider squad more often they'd have thought he was doing a better job?
Imagine you go with the wife to the supermarket and do a big shop, you pay. You don't mind paying as there's next to nothing at home to eat.
Your wife does the cooking and you don't interfere in the kitchen
Every night for dinner it's beans on toast. It fills you up, serves it's purpose. You are no longer hungry. Job done.
One night after another plate of beans on toast you look in the fridge and there are steaks, fish and vegetables rotting way.
Come Saturday she tells you that you need to go with her again to do another big shop. You're expected to pay.
Now you can't cook to save your life but something tells you something is not quite right in the kitchen.
What do you do?
Last season was arguably our best for 20 years. It was the beans that were being kept in reserve, we were using the steak.
The phrase 'tough as old boots' comes to mind.
-
yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"
I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.
I liked Doug :-)
I wasn't against Doug, but I can't say I was his biggest fan. Though, I certainly didn't see him as the anti-Christ as some. But, Randy's not remotely like Doug in what he has done since he got here, so to even compare him in any way at all is a little insulting in my opinion.
I didn't compare Randy to Doug, I compared Pelty's description of the problem to the type of justification that Doug would have used.
Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before
Are you sure that's not what you implied?
-
Last season was arguably our best for 20 years.
Under no criteria was last season the best for twenty years.
-
yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"
I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.
I liked Doug :-)
I wasn't against Doug, but I can't say I was his biggest fan. Though, I certainly didn't see him as the anti-Christ as some. But, Randy's not remotely like Doug in what he has done since he got here, so to even compare him in any way at all is a little insulting in my opinion.
I didn't compare Randy to Doug, I compared Pelty's description of the problem to the type of justification that Doug would have used.
Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before
Are you sure that's not what you implied?
If I thought that the board was genuinely of the opinion that the manager should pick his players on the basis of their interpretation of "asset utilisation", I'd have a lot more to say about it than a comparison with Doug.
-
Last season was arguably our best for 20 years.
Under no criteria was last season the best for twenty years.
You're right. I should have said one of the best in 20 years.
-
So, "arguably one of our best in 20 years" then?
Theres another of those things Doug might have said.
Serious question, though, if last season was so good, where was the outpouring of grief on here when the manager walked away?
-
Sad as it is, last season was the best of the last ten years. And it was shit.
-
Sad as it is, last season was the best of the last ten years. And it was shit.
last season wasn't shit at all. Did you not enjoy the cup runs and getting to a cup final? Yes, it would have been better had we won one of the cups, but let's not become overly dramatic for effect.
-
yes, because this board is just like Doug isn't it? Please tell me your not serious VD with that crap throwaway line "..I've seen that before"
I admire your unyielding support for MON, but he crossed the line for me when he quit on us. He wasn't bigger than the club, yet you're seemingly doing your best to convince us all that he was, and couldn't be told - as an employee - what direction the club wanted to go in.
I liked Doug :-)
I wasn't against Doug, but I can't say I was his biggest fan. Though, I certainly didn't see him as the anti-Christ as some. But, Randy's not remotely like Doug in what he has done since he got here, so to even compare him in any way at all is a little insulting in my opinion.
I didn't compare Randy to Doug, I compared Pelty's description of the problem to the type of justification that Doug would have used.
Ah yes, a board that thinks it knows better than the manager, I've seen that before
Are you sure that's not what you implied?
If I thought that the board was genuinely of the opinion that the manager should pick his players on the basis of their interpretation of "asset utilisation", I'd have a lot more to say about it than a comparison with Doug.
Interesting topic. It wasn't just the board that was scatching it's head over "asset utilisation". I think many fans were, and the media had picked up on it before long. Let alone other teams, that figured out by the spring, Villa were exhausted. A pattern had emerged and the board had every right to ask why? Had they allowed it continue we as paying fans would also have had a right to question them. If I was the one shelling out the millions I'd want to know why several of my expensive, highly paid assets never played, and why I should spend more given the same may keep occuring.
-
Sad as it is, last season was the best of the last ten years. And it was shit.
last season wasn't shit at all. Did you not enjoy the cup runs and getting to a cup final? Yes, it would have been better had we won one of the cups, but let's not become overly dramatic for effect.
I enjoyed the Blackburn game- given but my over-riding memory of last season was sheer boredom. No more highlighted than in two tedious Wembley appearances but lets not become overly dramatic for effect.
-
Sad as it is, last season was the best of the last ten years. And it was shit.
last season wasn't shit at all. Did you not enjoy the cup runs and getting to a cup final? Yes, it would have been better had we won one of the cups, but let's not become overly dramatic for effect.
I enjoyed the Blackburn game- given but my over-riding memory of last season was sheer boredom. No more highlighted than in two tedious Wembley appearances but lets not become overly dramatic for effect.
There's no more dramatic a statement than the one you made about last season being shit. You didn't point to a specific game, or series of games. You grouped the entire season together in your assessment. While I'll concede that most of our home games were hardly worth the price of admission, we were by contrast amongst the most attractive and successful teams to watch away from Villa Park. But, why consider those stats when making rash generalisations eh?
-
I've just read the thread and i'm not suprised in Ireland's decision, it is just what you have to expect from the modern day footballer. He really could made a name for himself after a bad season last year, but he has some demons that he will never be able to shake off... let's get what we can from him, move him on and learn from this, he is still a little shit though!
-
Sad as it is, last season was the best of the last ten years. And it was shit.
last season wasn't shit at all. Did you not enjoy the cup runs and getting to a cup final? Yes, it would have been better had we won one of the cups, but let's not become overly dramatic for effect.
I enjoyed the Blackburn game- given but my over-riding memory of last season was sheer boredom. No more highlighted than in two tedious Wembley appearances but lets not become overly dramatic for effect.
There's no more dramatic a statement than the one you made about last season being shit. You didn't point to a specific game, or series of games. You grouped the entire season together in your assessment. While I'll concede that most of our home games were hardly worth the price of admission, we were by contrast amongst the most attractive and successful teams to watch away from Villa Park. But, why consider those stats when making rash generalisations eh?
My assessment is based on all the home games and several away and when I think back to last season my over-riding feelings are of boredom and frustration. We won quite a few of those games but even then the feelings were still there. Perhaps those feelings don't carry well over live feeds.
-
Quite liked the beans and steak analogy, although if I had beans on toast every night I'd learn to cook, I wonder if Randy can boil an egg now and how different contract and transfer talks are going to be under Houllier.
-
I'd love to see a team take the bull by the horns and refuse to pay a player his full wages if he says he wants to play for someone else, thing is they can all afford the most expensive lawyers I suppose.
Lke Chelsea did to Adrian Mutu.
I can't understand why players doesn't like it at Aston Villa.
Good Club
Good Manager
Good players (most of them)
Decent people
Good education
Good Coaching
Good Stadium
Good City
We will love players if they give 110% and produce good performance regularly.
It is no good crying about leaving Man City. What if Manchester City gone bust and the club close down and relegated to non league. Would he rather play for them in 8 division below for 250 pounds a week than play for Aston Villa.
-
Adios Amoeba
-
Adios Amoeba
Is that the Latin name for one of the species in his fish tank?
-
I was never keen on us signing him and feel that the board should have pulled out of the deal when MOn walked. I think they went through with it as they wanted a bit of positive publicity at a difficult time. You can't really blame them but I'd hope that on reflection they see it as a mistake.
As for the criticism of the rest of the squad i think people are missing the point. They were bought to do a specific job in a specific style of playing ao of course some are not going to fit into the way the new manager wants to go about things. It happens every time a club changes manager and it doesn't mean that these are suddenly shit players.
-
he will be no loss to us, as he has been nothing short of crap since he arrived...
personally, i would refuse to pay the nutty little bald c***...
I'd go further and make the little bastard pay back every penny he's defrauded us of, before we let him go.
-
By common consent, Ireland is a good player - but we have seen none of it. I have no idea what the reason is of this. But respect to Houllier for flagging this up early and not giving us a rerun of the Sidwell/Harewood situation.
-
I'd love to see a team take the bull by the horns and refuse to pay a player his full wages if he says he wants to play for someone else, thing is they can all afford the most expensive lawyers I suppose.
Lke Chelsea did to Adrian Mutu.
I can't understand why players doesn't like it at Aston Villa.
Good Club
Good Manager
Good players (most of them)
Decent people
Good education
Good Coaching
Good Stadium
Good City
We will love players if they give 110% and produce good performance regularly.
It is no good crying about leaving Man City. What if Manchester City gone bust and the club close down and relegated to non league. Would he rather play for them in 8 division below for 250 pounds a week than play for Aston Villa.
Thinks he should have the team built around him without working his way up the pecking order.
-
Adios Amoeba
Nice Trainers.
The wife is getting me a pair for Christmas.
-
I was never keen on us signing him and feel that the board should have pulled out of the deal when MOn walked. I think they went through with it as they wanted a bit of positive publicity at a difficult time. You can't really blame them but I'd hope that on reflection they see it as a mistake.
As for the criticism of the rest of the squad i think people are missing the point. They were bought to do a specific job in a specific style of playing ao of course some are not going to fit into the way the new manager wants to go about things. It happens every time a club changes manager and it doesn't mean that these are suddenly shit players.
Surely that applies to Ireland as well?
-
According to the Sunday Mercury he has cost us £2k a minute so far what a waster
-
I don't get that Rancid, Ireland has been shit cos the previous manager played with width, Milner didn't have any problems getting forward through the middle.
You play to your strengths and our best players are our wingers so it makes sense to use them. At the moment there is no-one gambling from midfield to get in the box, whether that's tactical or lack of ability I don't know.
Good point Bosco, but conversely, how many times have we been found out over the last 2 years when it mattered. When Ashley gets marked 2 on 1 that was pretty much it for our creative department.
-
As I've said a few times before about him, his best performances at Man City were as part of a quick front three with Robinho and Bellamy/Jo.
---Ireland----------Robinho---
------------Bellamy--------------
So to take that to Villa he'd have to play as part of a three with Gabby and Ashley
---Ireland---------------Young
------------Agbonlahor--------
But to play that formation you'd have to drop our 2 best players of the season so far in Downing and Albrighton.
Putting him back in to midfield I think he could work as part of a midfield five or maybe as a 3 just behind a striker, but he'd need to sort his head out first and would be battling with Young to get into that position, something I don't think he is prepared to do.
------------Petrov-------NRC------------
---Albrighton---Ireland---Downing---
----------------Agbonlahor---------------
-
As for the criticism of the rest of the squad i think people are missing the point. They were bought to do a specific job in a specific style of playing ao of course some are not going to fit into the way the new manager wants to go about things. It happens every time a club changes manager and it doesn't mean that these are suddenly shit players.
It's understandable that some players are uncomfortable with a new manager, new methods and a new regime. Still, clubs change managers. The players remain. Surely the fans, the club and the new manager should expect the players to do their best to adapt, and not moan about not getting enough time off, yell at the assistant manager and leak unfavourable stories to the press? They are still employed by the club to do a job. And they are rewarded handsomely for doing so.
-
I was never keen on us signing him and feel that the board should have pulled out of the deal when MOn walked. I think they went through with it as they wanted a bit of positive publicity at a difficult time. You can't really blame them but I'd hope that on reflection they see it as a mistake.....
From what Pelty was saying earlier in the thread it looks as though they couldn't have pulled out of the deal even if they wanted to - all was signed and sealed (but not yet delivered) when MON walked
-
yet a certain group of fans fail to accept that CJ, why is it do u think.
Simple logic says that once an agreement is drawn up its hard for either party to pull out, especially if one party sees no advantage is so doing and Man City surely would not. They didn't want Ireland either.
The situation could not have been helped by one of the main parties to the deal running off into oblivion either.
-
I was never keen on us signing him and feel that the board should have pulled out of the deal when MOn walked. I think they went through with it as they wanted a bit of positive publicity at a difficult time. You can't really blame them but I'd hope that on reflection they see it as a mistake.....
From what Pelty was saying earlier in the thread it looks as though they couldn't have pulled out of the deal even if they wanted to - all was signed and sealed (but not yet delivered) when MON walked
Until each player signs on the dotted line the deal isn't done. Losing a manger gave us the perfect opportunity to withdraw from it. Our first aborted attempt to buy Milner shows that deals can still be scuppered at the 11th hour. As I say I don't blame them for trying to salvage something from the mess at the time but hindsight has shown it to have been the wrong decision.
-
But if the club have signed a deal in principle with Man City, and Milner had signed his deal at Wastelands too it couldn't have been cancelled could it.
-
But if the club have signed a deal in principle with Man City, and Milner had signed his deal at Wastelands too it couldn't have been cancelled could it.
The transfer was 2 weeks after MON left, Milner even had time to play in our first league game. If the deal was all done and dusted he wouldn't have appeared.
-
as offers have said, the whole milner deal would have collapsed. Citeh wouldn't have offered us cash instead and another player would have had the same drawbacks as Ireland. They were between a rock and a hard place because of the manager leaving
-
as offers have said, the whole milner deal would have collapsed. Citeh wouldn't have offered us cash instead and another player would have had the same drawbacks as Ireland. They were between a rock and a hard place because of the manager leaving
You can't possible know what Man City would or wouldn't offer although their pursuit of Lescott shows what they are capable of when they want a player. There are plenty of reasons why the club wanted to do the deal but I just don't buy the idea that they had no alternative but to take Ireland.
Why would the deal collapsing have been so bad? As I said the manager walking out gave them the perfect excuse but they chose not to take it.
-
as offers have said, the whole milner deal would have collapsed. Citeh wouldn't have offered us cash instead and another player would have had the same drawbacks as Ireland. They were between a rock and a hard place because of the manager leaving
You can't possible know what Man City would or wouldn't offer although their pursuit of Lescott shows what they are capable of when they want a player. There are plenty of reasons why the club wanted to do the deal but I just don't buy the idea that they had no alternative but to take Ireland.
Why would the deal collapsing have been so bad? As I said the manager walking out gave them the perfect excuse but they chose not to take it.
well lets say it had collapsed. You'd have milner who as far as he's concerned, has signed for Citeh and was waiting for Ireland to tie up his end. He's already spent his first 80k weekly wage in his mind and now he's been told to head back to Villa Park. Now that's gonna be a headfuck for any player and he's not going to be particurly sympathetic to the club. The best case scenario is he would have stayed under sufferance till January and gone to Citeh for less or seen out his contract in spite.
Anyway, rightly or wrongly i don't think the board were ever fully in control of the situation. As pelty said, the manager started this fiasco with his comments about milner, agreed the deal to sign Ireland and then walked out. God knows what he was playing at
-
It's a shame that this deal hasn't worked out
on his day Ireland is a very good midfielder-great vision passing etc
but we all knew he was 8 kinds of mental
so he will now go somewhere else to gibber and cluck ;D
farewell you mental baldie
-
well lets say it had collapsed. You'd have milner who as far as he's concerned, has signed for Citeh and was waiting for Ireland to tie up his end. He's already spent his first 80k weekly wage in his mind and now he's been told to head back to Villa Park. Now that's gonna be a headfuck for any player and he's not going to be particurly sympathetic to the club. The best case scenario is he would have stayed under sufferance till January and gone to Citeh for less or seen out his contract in spite.
A bit like say, when exactly the same thing happened when he wanted to join Villa in 2006? When he was in the carpark on his way to sign his contract when he was told to turn around and drive back to Newcastle?
And then went on to become one of Newcastle's better players that season and triple his transfer value?
I don't know how we would have coped if that had happened again.
-
Whatever middling club he ends up at, you can bet they'll be a Sun exclusive 'My Villa Hell' accompanied by a picture of him sprawled over a leopard skin sofa with his increasingly orange wife.
-
oh come on dave, you know how these things work. Its like when Barry stayed. A poor game from him and this place was full of "bugger off to liverpool" posts. If Milner really had signed a deal to join Citeh then even given his professionalism i think he would have struggled
-
oh come on dave, you know how these things work. Its like when Barry stayed. A poor game from him and this place was full of "bugger off to liverpool" posts. If Milner really had signed a deal to join Citeh then even given his professionalism i think he would have struggled
Wasn't Barry pretty damn good that season, in spite of the occasional dimwitted post on a message board? Again, possibly not one of your better examples.
All I'm saying is the previous time the scenario arose in Milner's career, your vision of doom and despair didn't come to pass. He just got on with things.
-
oh come on dave, you know how these things work. Its like when Barry stayed. A poor game from him and this place was full of "bugger off to liverpool" posts. If Milner really had signed a deal to join Citeh then even given his professionalism i think he would have struggled
Wasn't Barry pretty damn good that season, in spite of the occasional dimwitted post on a message board? Again, possibly not one of your better examples.
All I'm saying is the previous time the scenario arose in Milner's career, your vision of doom and despair didn't come to pass. He just got on with things.
he still left as soon as he could. Anyway the manager wanted to keep him. Its pretty obvious that MON wanted rid of milner and helped instigate the whole situation by his public comments. Given that situation, i believe Milner would be a bit pissed to say the least if the deal was pulled at the 11th hour
-
oh come on dave, you know how these things work. Its like when Barry stayed. A poor game from him and this place was full of "bugger off to liverpool" posts. If Milner really had signed a deal to join Citeh then even given his professionalism i think he would have struggled
Wasn't Barry pretty damn good that season, in spite of the occasional dimwitted post on a message board? Again, possibly not one of your better examples.
All I'm saying is the previous time the scenario arose in Milner's career, your vision of doom and despair didn't come to pass. He just got on with things.
he still left as soon as he could. Anyway the manager wanted to keep him. Its pretty obvious that MON wanted rid of milner and helped instigate the whole situation by his public comments. Given that situation, i believe Milner would be a bit pissed to say the least if the deal was pulled at the 11th hour
Mon wanted rid of Milner?
-
thats the opinion i get, probably to fund his spending. Go back to Pelty's post on page 11 where he talks about certain comments MON gave to the press that made Milner's position untenable. If they're the ones i'm thinking of, Milner hotly denied them at the time and was reportably furious with MON
-
thats the opinion i get, probably to fund his spending. Go back to Pelty's post on page 11 where he talks about certain comments MON gave to the press that made Milner's position untenable. If they're the ones i'm thinking of, Milner hotly denied them at the time and was reportably furious with MON
Ok. Just don't let Evil Dr ADZ666 find out or we'll never hear the last of it.
-
I think that if the deal had been pulled at the last minute, Milner would have been disapointed yes, but he comes across as professional enough to have put it behind him. Let's take the West Ham game, he could have took it easy, had a quiet game and got it over and done with, but he played well, worked hard and weighed in with a goal.
-
Throughout this thread the issue of lack of effort & poor attitude has been mentioned as a main reason that people dislike Ireland & want rid. But it is funny how some players past & present seem to live a charmed life - Carew has not exacly given 100% in every game and yet he in some people eyes he can do no wrong, I remember him warming up shortly after the lapdancing incident - rather than get any stick for letting the team down the Holte sang "Get your tits out for Carew" & then of course there is GOD (appreciate I may really piss a few people off with the next bit!) who went missing on a regular basis due to his love of the booze but is still remembered fondly by many. It could be argued that as an out of control alcoholic his actions where selfish with little or no regard for others including his manager & team mates. If people take the view that he was not responsible for his actions due to his addiction could not the same be said right now about Ireland and his fragile psychological instability?
-
The two flaw's in your argument Kent is that Ireland has only been here 5 minutes and want's away already. The McGrath comparison was just a poor one.
-
So is it more acceptable to display a bad/selfish attitude if you have been at Villa longer than 5 mins?
The McGrath comparism is just a poor one - why?
-
Trouble with Ireland is his attitude, and aptitude.He is a good footballer, but does'nt seem to want to be a great footballer.
Macca was a great footballer because once on the pitch, you could never question his attitude/aptitude.
-
So is it more acceptable to display a bad/selfish attitude if you have been at Villa longer than 5 mins?
The McGrath comparism is just a poor one - why?
Because despite McGrath's off-field problems, once he was on the pitch he was absolutley oustanding. The fact that he'll go down as one of Villa's greatest ever players suggests that you won't have too many people agreeing with you.
-
So is it more acceptable to display a bad/selfish attitude if you have been at Villa longer than 5 mins?
The McGrath comparism is just a poor one - why?
Because if your performances on the pitch are consistently brilliant over a long period of time for the club you have more credit in the bank?
That would be the case with most employers I'd have thought.
Had McGrath carried on in a similar vein to his QPR horror show performance in 1989 and then made noises about leaving just a few short months after signing for us I don't think he'd have received the kind of support and understanding he did in 1994.
In fact even after all he'd contributed on the pitch, there were quite a few Villa fans who felt he crossed a line with his non show v Exeter and wanted him on a final warning or worse.
-
oh come on dave, you know how these things work. Its like when Barry stayed. A poor game from him and this place was full of "bugger off to liverpool" posts. If Milner really had signed a deal to join Citeh then even given his professionalism i think he would have struggled
Wasn't Barry pretty damn good that season, in spite of the occasional dimwitted post on a message board? Again, possibly not one of your better examples.
All I'm saying is the previous time the scenario arose in Milner's career, your vision of doom and despair didn't come to pass. He just got on with things.
he still left as soon as he could. Anyway the manager wanted to keep him. Its pretty obvious that MON wanted rid of milner and helped instigate the whole situation by his public comments. Given that situation, i believe Milner would be a bit pissed to say the least if the deal was pulled at the 11th hour
"He still left as soon as he could". He did indeed. And if Milner had stayed last summer he would also have left as soon as he could. But that isn't at all relevant to this discussion.
"Its pretty obvious that MON wanted rid of milner". Is it?
Was it obvious when he said this on April 21st? "James is still under contract with us and it's a case of dampening fires that weren't there in the first place. We want the best players to stay here at Aston Villa so we can keep the momentum going"
How about this on July 12th? “What I will say is we have a better chance of performing in the manner in which we did last season if we could keep the best players and James Milner comes into that equation.”
Or how about on August 2nd when said "Naturally I've said before that, almost everyone to a man, would want James to stay at the football club."
Yeah, he was practically bundling him out the door.
-
"Its pretty obvious that MON wanted rid of milner". Is it?
Was it obvious when he said this on April 21st? "James is still under contract with us and it's a case of dampening fires that weren't there in the first place. We want the best players to stay here at Aston Villa so we can keep the momentum going"
How about this on July 12th? “What I will say is we have a better chance of performing in the manner in which we did last season if we could keep the best players and James Milner comes into that equation.”
Or how about on August 2nd when said "Naturally I've said before that, almost everyone to a man, would want James to stay at the football club."
Yeah, he was practically bundling him out the door.
Still, when MON said, publicly, that Milner "intimated" that he wanted to leave, he didn't exactly make it easier for Milner to stay.
-
hmmm. i think we're on about the ones from the 22 July.
Speaking at a press conference ahead of Villa's friendly with Bohemians in Dublin on Saturday, O'Neill confirmed Milner had rejected the chance to stay at Villa Park.
He said: "I had a conversation with James before the World Cup and he intimated that he'd like to go.
"City made an offer but it did not meet our valuation. I'm sure matters will be resolved soon. James is back next week having had an extended holiday."
The ones where Milner denied any knowledge of the conversation and reportably tried to phone MON to find out what was happening
-
No, I'm sure you're right greg. Milner wanted to stay here and it was just O'Neill trying to get him out.
Which is why Milner is now at Manchester City in spite of O'Neill leaving.
I'm sure that you're right and that he did deny having that conversation - I'm struggling to find anything on Google about Milner's comments on the above - could you remind me of what he said?
-
Milner didn't say anything before the transfer was completed, if I recall things correctly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8854564.stm
-
It was discussed on here at the time and it was reported in the papers that Milner was furious about it. Pelty has also hinted it didn't go down well with milners camp
but hey i'm sure you're right. You'd always take the word of a guy who leaves his club in the shit a week before the season starts before Milner
-
It was discussed on here at the time and it was reported in the papers that Milner was furious about it. Pelty has also hinted it didn't go down well with milners camp
So nobody has said anything about this, either during the summer or since? It must be true then.
but hey i'm sure you're right. You'd always take the word of a guy who leaves his club in the shit a week before the season starts before Milner
I would if all the evidence seems to back up the hardly controversial opinion that "Milner wanted to join Man City".
Is there anything at all that suggests that O'Neill lying and that Milner didn't want to join Man City?
-
I think there is little doubt that Milner wanted to leave in the summer. However, he didn't want to say this in public because he didn't want a backlash a la Barry if the transfer didn't go through. This means that he was prepared to stay and do his best if we managed to keep him. But after MON's comments the latter was no longer a possibility.
-
Surely Milner had every opportunity at the time to come out and say, "I want to stay at Villa". Yet, he didn't then, and he hasn't since said, "I wanted to stay at Villa, but they didn't want me".
-
read eigentor's link dave. it mentions there that milner denied he ever asked to leave. Given what we now know about MON would you bet against it?
-
read eigentor's link dave. it mentions there that milner denied he ever asked to leave.
No it doesn't.
Given what we now know about MON would you bet against it?
Quite happily. If the only issue was between O'Neill and Milner then logically, once O'Neill leaves then there is nothing to prevent Milner from staying? Unless of course, he actually did want to go to Man City.
I know that you've argued some pretty inarguable stuff in the past - but just to clarify, are you really saying that Milner didn't want to move to Man City until O'Neill lied to say that he did?
-
I think there is little doubt that Milner wanted to leave in the summer. However, he didn't want to say this in public because he didn't want a backlash a la Barry if the transfer didn't go through. This means that he was prepared to stay and do his best if we managed to keep him. But after MON's comments the latter was no longer a possibility.
Now that is something that I think we can all agree with.
I'm sure greg will find something to argue with in there though.
-
i'm saying that Milner was probably asked in the meeting about Citeh and probably said if you want to sell me, then i'd be interested. Just like Young or gabby would say now. There's a big difference to that conversation and your manager announcing to the world that you want to leave.
-
I'm not going to speak for Greg, but would it be entirely out of the question that Milner was interested in joining Citeh, had even held preliminary talks re wages and so on via his agent but might have had doubts about leaving?
Only for MON's comments to make his mind up and push him past the point of no return.
Pure conjecture on my part, but there was very little from the Milner camp either way up until MON's comments in July.
Edit: The above two posts cover that.
-
I'm not going to speak for Greg, but would it be entirely out of the question that Milner was interested in joining Citeh, had even held preliminary talks re wages and so on via his agent but might have had doubts about leaving?
Only for MON's comments to make his mind up and push him past the point of no return.
Pure conjecture on my part, but there was very little from the Milner camp either way up until MON's comments in July.
Edit: The above two posts cover that.
The point of no return that meant he signed two weeks after the manager left and after playing in our first league game? All MON did was let the cat out of the bag. There are no quotes to be found of Milner denying the claims just scources close to the player (i.e. agent) suggesting that he was pissed off because he knew that if Man City didn't come up with the cash he might have to stay.
-
hmmm. i think we're on about the ones from the 22 July.
Speaking at a press conference ahead of Villa's friendly with Bohemians in Dublin on Saturday, O'Neill confirmed Milner had rejected the chance to stay at Villa Park.
He said: "I had a conversation with James before the World Cup and he intimated that he'd like to go.
"City made an offer but it did not meet our valuation. I'm sure matters will be resolved soon. James is back next week having had an extended holiday."
The ones where Milner denied any knowledge of the conversation and reportably tried to phone MON to find out what was happening
Ah yes, July 22nd – First day of pre-season training
Martin O’Neill gives radio interview where he says that Milner intimated he wanted to leave and that we’d have to sell to buy some players.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm
Later that same day Pelty had his little meltdown…
July 22, 2010, 07:22:44 PM »
This was pathetic. MON needs to stop whinging about how hard life is and set about improving the team (and, concurrently, not wasting money on the wages of players that never sniff the pitch). If there were a sell-to-buy policy (which there is not), then he would only have himself to blame for the exorbitant wages spent on horrible players. The top wage earner at the club is Emile Heskey. Whose fault is that, I wonder? He has had plenty of money at his disposal and used it on a fair amount of garbage (not in total, of course, but his record in this is only so-so). He is fickle in his player selection and then, when he settles on a side, he runs it into the ground. Further, he has proved himself incapable of identifying talent outside of the country and thus is force to pay these higher wages; again, his fault. This whole moan would be laughable if it were not so infuriating.
And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??) The General confirms that we are getting to grips with the wages and have to sell some players.
« on: July 22, 2010, 07:26:55 PM »
General Krulak here:
1. Sorry for being off the site...your "military star and illustrious fan" is back...and I didn't take the comment as sarcastic but, rather, as an indication that I am first and foremost a fan.
2. I know that I have mentioned on more than one occasion that we need to understand that all Premiership Clubs...yes, all football clubs...are a business. Revenue and expenditures need to make sense. One of the issues we face, and we have talked about it before and so has MON and others is the issue of the on-going wage bill. This issue needs to be kept in perspective and needs to be understood. It is not just the cost of the transfer...it is the on-going wages. If you don't get that right, you cannot adequately pay your good players much less go onto the market and get new ones. What we see right now is the Club getting a handle on the wage side of the house. This is no different than what we have done once before. This means we have to sell some players...no different than most Premiership Clubs...you see them doing it all the time. Randy has NOT lost his passion for the Club or has he lost his vision of the goal he has always set for the Villa. He has spent more time in the UK in the last 2 months than he has ever done before...he has been focused on the Club and has been working closely with MON. As always, I am NOT going to get into a discussion of transfers BUT I will say that everyone needs to cool down a bit and see what happens.
I think Martin O’Neill’s “crime” was letting the cat out of bag.
-
I'm not going to speak for Greg, but would it be entirely out of the question that Milner was interested in joining Citeh, had even held preliminary talks re wages and so on via his agent but might have had doubts about leaving?
Only for MON's comments to make his mind up and push him past the point of no return.
Pure conjecture on my part, but there was very little from the Milner camp either way up until MON's comments in July.
Edit: The above two posts cover that.
The point of no return that meant he signed two weeks after the manager left and after playing in our first league game?
Yes, but it was well-known that the hold-up at the end of the transfer saga was due to issues between Ireland and City and had nothing to do with Milner and Villa.
-
If I remember correctly, he was holding out for a 'loyalty' payment or bonus of some sort?
-
If I remember correctly, he was holding out for a 'loyalty' payment or bonus of some sort?
According to the Irish press, they awarded him £1.5m but the contract contained a confidentiality clause. Man City has since withheld the payment because they claim he slagged them off in an interview and our Stevie is suing them for the £1.5m.
-
If I remember correctly, he was holding out for a 'loyalty' payment or bonus of some sort?
According to the Irish press, they awarded him £1.5m but the contract contained a confidentiality clause. Man City has since withheld the payment because they claim he slagged them off in an interview and our Stevie is suing them for the £1.5m.
That's why he's not playing very well - he's got money worries.
-
hmmm. i think we're on about the ones from the 22 July.
Speaking at a press conference ahead of Villa's friendly with Bohemians in Dublin on Saturday, O'Neill confirmed Milner had rejected the chance to stay at Villa Park.
He said: "I had a conversation with James before the World Cup and he intimated that he'd like to go.
"City made an offer but it did not meet our valuation. I'm sure matters will be resolved soon. James is back next week having had an extended holiday."
The ones where Milner denied any knowledge of the conversation and reportably tried to phone MON to find out what was happening
Ah yes, July 22nd – First day of pre-season training
Martin O’Neill gives radio interview where he says that Milner intimated he wanted to leave and that we’d have to sell to buy some players.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm
Later that same day Pelty had his little meltdown…
July 22, 2010, 07:22:44 PM »
This was pathetic. MON needs to stop whinging about how hard life is and set about improving the team (and, concurrently, not wasting money on the wages of players that never sniff the pitch). If there were a sell-to-buy policy (which there is not), then he would only have himself to blame for the exorbitant wages spent on horrible players. The top wage earner at the club is Emile Heskey. Whose fault is that, I wonder? He has had plenty of money at his disposal and used it on a fair amount of garbage (not in total, of course, but his record in this is only so-so). He is fickle in his player selection and then, when he settles on a side, he runs it into the ground. Further, he has proved himself incapable of identifying talent outside of the country and thus is force to pay these higher wages; again, his fault. This whole moan would be laughable if it were not so infuriating.
And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??) The General confirms that we are getting to grips with the wages and have to sell some players.
« on: July 22, 2010, 07:26:55 PM »
General Krulak here:
1. Sorry for being off the site...your "military star and illustrious fan" is back...and I didn't take the comment as sarcastic but, rather, as an indication that I am first and foremost a fan.
2. I know that I have mentioned on more than one occasion that we need to understand that all Premiership Clubs...yes, all football clubs...are a business. Revenue and expenditures need to make sense. One of the issues we face, and we have talked about it before and so has MON and others is the issue of the on-going wage bill. This issue needs to be kept in perspective and needs to be understood. It is not just the cost of the transfer...it is the on-going wages. If you don't get that right, you cannot adequately pay your good players much less go onto the market and get new ones. What we see right now is the Club getting a handle on the wage side of the house. This is no different than what we have done once before. This means we have to sell some players...no different than most Premiership Clubs...you see them doing it all the time. Randy has NOT lost his passion for the Club or has he lost his vision of the goal he has always set for the Villa. He has spent more time in the UK in the last 2 months than he has ever done before...he has been focused on the Club and has been working closely with MON. As always, I am NOT going to get into a discussion of transfers BUT I will say that everyone needs to cool down a bit and see what happens.
I think Martin O’Neill’s “crime” was letting the cat out of bag.
"From the same IP address?" - Christ almighty, you really need to get over this paranoid obsession you have with this. As for accusing anyone of having a meltdown over it, there's only one person you could level that accusation at, and it is you.
-
I think Martin O’Neill’s “crime” was letting the cat out of bag.
I can think of at least one thing he did that was much worse.
-
Playing Cuellar as right-back?
-
Ireland has been a massive disappointment since coming here - to do with attitude, rather than talent, but a disappointment nonetheless.
I can't help thinking that the same people who are now moaning that we signed him without a manager would have been moaning if we'd signed nobody (and in some cases are the very same people who are suggesting that we didn't appoint a manager until after the window closed in order to save money).
Lose - lose.
-
This "manager after the transfer window closed" idea. It also meant we couldn't get rid of anyone, which tends to blow the theory away.
-
bloody hell. I'm struggling to follow who's saying what. Milner wanted out. He got his wish. He could have stated he wanted to stay before or after MON bolted. He didn't. MON's gone, we've got Houllier, our team is sitting in the lower half of the league, and Milner's a reserve at Man City. At this moment, nobody's significantly better off.
-
This "manager after the transfer window closed" idea. It also meant we couldn't get rid of anyone, which tends to blow the theory away.
Ironically, being discussed on a thread about Stephen Ireland - a player we took as part payment for another player rather than cash only, which is what you'd expect from a club who were all about reining in the money.
-
If I remember correctly, he was holding out for a 'loyalty' payment or bonus of some sort?
According to the Irish press, they awarded him £1.5m but the contract contained a confidentiality clause. Man City has since withheld the payment because they claim he slagged them off in an interview and our Stevie is suing them for the £1.5m.
That's why he's not playing very well - he's got money worries.
His banks are insolvent.
-
hmmm. i think we're on about the ones from the 22 July.
Speaking at a press conference ahead of Villa's friendly with Bohemians in Dublin on Saturday, O'Neill confirmed Milner had rejected the chance to stay at Villa Park.
He said: "I had a conversation with James before the World Cup and he intimated that he'd like to go.
"City made an offer but it did not meet our valuation. I'm sure matters will be resolved soon. James is back next week having had an extended holiday."
The ones where Milner denied any knowledge of the conversation and reportably tried to phone MON to find out what was happening
Ah yes, July 22nd – First day of pre-season training
Martin O’Neill gives radio interview where he says that Milner intimated he wanted to leave and that we’d have to sell to buy some players.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm
Later that same day Pelty had his little meltdown…
July 22, 2010, 07:22:44 PM »
This was pathetic. MON needs to stop whinging about how hard life is and set about improving the team (and, concurrently, not wasting money on the wages of players that never sniff the pitch). If there were a sell-to-buy policy (which there is not), then he would only have himself to blame for the exorbitant wages spent on horrible players. The top wage earner at the club is Emile Heskey. Whose fault is that, I wonder? He has had plenty of money at his disposal and used it on a fair amount of garbage (not in total, of course, but his record in this is only so-so). He is fickle in his player selection and then, when he settles on a side, he runs it into the ground. Further, he has proved himself incapable of identifying talent outside of the country and thus is force to pay these higher wages; again, his fault. This whole moan would be laughable if it were not so infuriating.
And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??) The General confirms that we are getting to grips with the wages and have to sell some players.
« on: July 22, 2010, 07:26:55 PM »
General Krulak here:
1. Sorry for being off the site...your "military star and illustrious fan" is back...and I didn't take the comment as sarcastic but, rather, as an indication that I am first and foremost a fan.
2. I know that I have mentioned on more than one occasion that we need to understand that all Premiership Clubs...yes, all football clubs...are a business. Revenue and expenditures need to make sense. One of the issues we face, and we have talked about it before and so has MON and others is the issue of the on-going wage bill. This issue needs to be kept in perspective and needs to be understood. It is not just the cost of the transfer...it is the on-going wages. If you don't get that right, you cannot adequately pay your good players much less go onto the market and get new ones. What we see right now is the Club getting a handle on the wage side of the house. This is no different than what we have done once before. This means we have to sell some players...no different than most Premiership Clubs...you see them doing it all the time. Randy has NOT lost his passion for the Club or has he lost his vision of the goal he has always set for the Villa. He has spent more time in the UK in the last 2 months than he has ever done before...he has been focused on the Club and has been working closely with MON. As always, I am NOT going to get into a discussion of transfers BUT I will say that everyone needs to cool down a bit and see what happens.
I think Martin O’Neill’s “crime” was letting the cat out of bag.
"From the same IP address?" - Christ almighty, you really need to get over this paranoid obsession you have with this. As for accusing anyone of having a meltdown over it, there's only one person you could level that accusation at, and it is you.
I'm not obsessed with it but as I've said before, I do though think it was an important day. It was Pelty (and Greg) who brought up the issues from 22nd July, if we're going to discuss it we may as well deal with the full facts.
-
Ireland has been a massive disappointment since coming here - to do with attitude, rather than talent, but a disappointment nonetheless.
I can't help thinking that the same people who are now moaning that we signed him without a manager would have been moaning if we'd signed nobody (and in some cases are the very same people who are suggesting that we didn't appoint a manager until after the window closed in order to save money).
Lose - lose.
I didn't want Ireland when we were first linked with him so I don't see how you can back up that claim. I just don't accept the assertion earlier in this thread that we had no choice in the matter. I feel that the board went through with it because they thought it would give them a bit os positive publicity at a time when it was in short supply (it still is). I can see why the did it even though it has turned out to have been a very poor decsion as it is clear he does not suit Houlliers's methods.
-
The Ireland deal was struck before Houllier was appointed. There was no way it could have been done the other way around. I agree with Chris, that at the time the Ireland piece of the deal did make a lot of sense from a PR standpoint, and for most of us was exactly the type of player we'd been crying out for. Hindsight has taught us that this has been as big a mistake as the Curcic deal was all those years back. I imagine that had Houllier been around at the time, he may have made a very strong case against taking Ireland if he truly felt that that type of player wasn't something he was looking for. Even then, I think we would have taken him based on what the player could potential offer us.
-
i remember when Ireland sign there were those posting here that we was a fanstastic player and we'd done the best out of the deal. Where are you? The problem with an online forum is everyone is wise after the fact and those who were wrong just hide for a while. Few if any have the balls to come on and say they were wrong and better people than them are running things.
I guess my point is we can pick holes in what those who are running things have done without ever having to face up to the errors of our views.
-
And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??)
I think it only fair to point out that no, the posts weren't from the same IP address.
-
Personally I don't think Milner asked to leave, but was asked if he wanted to leave after an offer had come in from City that the board thought would be too good to refuse. I don't think MON wanted Milner to leave, but having been told effectively that he would have to sell to buy, knew that he wasn't going to get enough money for what he wanted to do from the players he had left on the fringes for so long. If inded anyone wanted to buy them. So in the end he begrudgingly wanted him to leave so that he could have the money to do what he wanted to do regarding summer transfers.
I think it was a weird situation then where no one actually wanted Milner to leave, even himself, but once the proposition came in, everyone warmed to the idea for their own reasons, Milner because he saw it as a better prospect to win silverware, and of course big wages, the board because of the sums involved, and MON because his plans rested on the money from his sale.
Who is to blame? Not sure anyone is per se, though had MON not got us in to the situation he had regarding finances, I think both he and Milner would possibly still be here today.
That's my theory anyway, just a theory but it seems to fit with all people's versions of events.
Regarding Ireland, Lovejoy, I still think we go the better end of the deal, £18 million and whatever we get for Ireland when we sell him on, is still a bloody good price for Milner, irrespective of how badly Ireland has played for us.
-
i remember when Ireland sign there were those posting here that we was a fanstastic player and we'd done the best out of the deal. Where are you? The problem with an online forum is everyone is wise after the fact and those who were wrong just hide for a while. Few if any have the balls to come on and say they were wrong and better people than them are running things.
I guess my point is we can pick holes in what those who are running things have done without ever having to face up to the errors of our views.
I'm here. I really thought we'd got the best out of the deal and was annoyed when Chris Smith consistently argued the contrary. There's still time for it to work out here for Ireland, and Milner is hardly pulling up trees at Wastelands.
But unfortunately, it looks increasingly likely that Smudger knew best on this one.
-
I cannot see Ireland having any future at our club.
-
This "manager after the transfer window closed" idea. It also meant we couldn't get rid of anyone, which tends to blow the theory away.
Didn't Shorey leave during the period we had no manager?
-
This "manager after the transfer window closed" idea. It also meant we couldn't get rid of anyone, which tends to blow the theory away.
Didn't Shorey leave during the period we had no manager?
WBA confirmed his signing on the 9th August the same day that MON left
-
No, I'm sure you're right greg. Milner wanted to stay here and it was just O'Neill trying to get him out.
Which is why Milner is now at Manchester City in spite of O'Neill leaving.
I'm sure that you're right and that he did deny having that conversation - I'm struggling to find anything on Google about Milner's comments on the above - could you remind me of what he said?
Milner wanted out of Villa as soon as Mancity wanted him. Fact... he double his wage. Fact
-
Personally I don't think Milner asked to leave, but was asked if he wanted to leave after an offer had come in from City that the board thought would be too good to refuse. I don't think MON wanted Milner to leave, but having been told effectively that he would have to sell to buy, knew that he wasn't going to get enough money for what he wanted to do from the players he had left on the fringes for so long. If inded anyone wanted to buy them. So in the end he begrudgingly wanted him to leave so that he could have the money to do what he wanted to do regarding summer transfers.
I think it was a weird situation then where no one actually wanted Milner to leave, even himself, but once the proposition came in, everyone warmed to the idea for their own reasons, Milner because he saw it as a better prospect to win silverware, and of course big wages, the board because of the sums involved, and MON because his plans rested on the money from his sale.
Who is to blame? Not sure anyone is per se, though had MON not got us in to the situation he had regarding finances, I think both he and Milner would possibly still be here today.
That's my theory anyway, just a theory but it seems to fit with all people's versions of events.
Regarding Ireland, Lovejoy, I still think we go the better end of the deal, £18 million and whatever we get for Ireland when we sell him on, is still a bloody good price for Milner, irrespective of how badly Ireland has played for us.
Mate, Milner wanted out of here...... quick and he was shitting himself when he thought the deal was going to fail once...
-
i'm saying that Milner was probably asked in the meeting about Citeh and probably said if you want to sell me, then i'd be interested. Just like Young or gabby would say now. There's a big difference to that conversation and your manager announcing to the world that you want to leave.
Crikey, if you'd said earlier that you were invited to the meeting then it would have cleared it all up much earlier. Forget what we've been told or what actually happened, Greg's imaginary dramatization makes things much clearer.
I'm not going to speak for Greg, but would it be entirely out of the question that Milner was interested in joining Citeh, had even held preliminary talks re wages and so on via his agent but might have had doubts about leaving?
Only for MON's comments to make his mind up and push him past the point of no return.
Pure conjecture on my part, but there was very little from the Milner camp either way up until MON's comments in July.
I'm not sure there was anything from the Milner camp either way even after those comments. The only thing I'm aware of is that the Milner camp ending up moving from Birmingham to Manchester.
And the issue that I have with the "after Martin O'Neill's comments he didn't have a choice' standpoint is that once O'Neill leaves (two weeks prior to Milner's transfer) then if he does want to stay at Villa he can just stay and put all the blame on the person whose fault it was. Who is no longer there.
No, I'm sure you're right greg. Milner wanted to stay here and it was just O'Neill trying to get him out.
Which is why Milner is now at Manchester City in spite of O'Neill leaving.
I'm sure that you're right and that he did deny having that conversation - I'm struggling to find anything on Google about Milner's comments on the above - could you remind me of what he said?
Milner wanted out of Villa as soon as Mancity wanted him. Fact... he double his wage. Fact
Quite. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with anything that O'Neill did or didn't say, but an awful lot more to do with the extra money that he'd be earning. Not that there's anything at all wrong with that.
-
I'm happy to admit that I thought we were getting a very good player in return. Not the better end of the deal though.
-
i remember when Ireland sign there were those posting here that we was a fanstastic player and we'd done the best out of the deal. Where are you? The problem with an online forum is everyone is wise after the fact and those who were wrong just hide for a while. Few if any have the balls to come on and say they were wrong and better people than them are running things.
I guess my point is we can pick holes in what those who are running things have done without ever having to face up to the errors of our views.
Hindsight's great isn't it? I'll freely admit I thought we had got a very good player. A lot of people did. And he hasn't become a bad player, his head and heart just isn't in it. It's not about being wrong or right. It's about accepting that the deal, arguably both ways hasn't worked out as well as was hoped.
-
And the issue that I have with the "after Martin O'Neill's comments he didn't have a choice' standpoint is that once O'Neill leaves (two weeks prior to Milner's transfer) then if he does want to stay at Villa he can just stay and put all the blame on the person whose fault it was. Who is no longer there.
I think you are missing out on the nuances here. Most people believe that Milner wanted to leave. But some of them also believe that we could have convinced/forced him to stay by rejecting City's offers. In this case, Milner would have remained a Villa player and had had the fans' backing because it was never clear that he wanted to leave. After MON comments that was no longer a possibility.
-
i'm saying that Milner was probably asked in the meeting about Citeh and probably said if you want to sell me, then i'd be interested. Just like Young or gabby would say now. There's a big difference to that conversation and your manager announcing to the world that you want to leave.
Crikey, if you'd said earlier that you were invited to the meeting then it would have cleared it all up much earlier. Forget what we've been told or what actually happened, Greg's imaginary dramatization makes things much clearer.
What we've been told? Only person who said he was desperate to leave was MON. If you think you can trust anything that guy said then fair enough, but i prefer to think that the word of a disloyal tosser who let the club down while negotiating to take the dippers job isn't worth the newpaper its printed in. As i said, yes Milner probably fancied going to Citeh just like Young would fancy going there is he had the option. Does that mean Ash wants to leave?
-
And the issue that I have with the "after Martin O'Neill's comments he didn't have a choice' standpoint is that once O'Neill leaves (two weeks prior to Milner's transfer) then if he does want to stay at Villa he can just stay and put all the blame on the person whose fault it was. Who is no longer there.
I think you are missing out on the nuances here. Most people believe that Milner wanted to leave. But some of them also believe that we could have convinced/forced him to stay by rejecting City's offers. In this case, Milner would have remained a Villa player and had had the fans' backing because it was never clear that he wanted to leave. After MON comments that was no longer a possibility.
Which is all fine.
But the question wasn't whether the whole situation was handled as well as it could have been or whether the managers comments were helpful.
Whether that was the right way to do it or not is certainly up for debate, but I was only really arguing Greg's daft claim that it was "pretty obvious that MON wanted rid of milner". Which is ridiculous.
-
i'm saying that Milner was probably asked in the meeting about Citeh and probably said if you want to sell me, then i'd be interested. Just like Young or gabby would say now. There's a big difference to that conversation and your manager announcing to the world that you want to leave.
Crikey, if you'd said earlier that you were invited to the meeting then it would have cleared it all up much earlier. Forget what we've been told or what actually happened, Greg's imaginary dramatization makes things much clearer.
What we've been told? Only person who said he was desperate to leave was MON. If you think you can trust anything that guy said then fair enough, but i prefer to think that the word of a disloyal tosser who let the club down while negotiating to take the dippers job isn't worth the newpaper its printed in. As i said, yes Milner probably fancied going to Citeh just like Young would fancy going there is he had the option. Does that mean Ash wants to leave?
If he wants to and has the option then yes, of course it does.
I think we're going round in slightly mental circles here Greg. I don't think there are many people who still like O'Neill, but it's a big jump from that to "he's lying that Milner wants to leave" a couple of weeks before Milner then leaves.
-
i remember when Ireland sign there were those posting here that we was a fanstastic player and we'd done the best out of the deal. Where are you? The problem with an online forum is everyone is wise after the fact and those who were wrong just hide for a while. Few if any have the balls to come on and say they were wrong and better people than them are running things.
I guess my point is we can pick holes in what those who are running things have done without ever having to face up to the errors of our views.
What, despite the myriad of posts in the last few weeks saying it looked like a good idea at the time and now doesn't, you mean?
-
i'm saying that Milner was probably asked in the meeting about Citeh and probably said if you want to sell me, then i'd be interested. Just like Young or gabby would say now. There's a big difference to that conversation and your manager announcing to the world that you want to leave.
Crikey, if you'd said earlier that you were invited to the meeting then it would have cleared it all up much earlier. Forget what we've been told or what actually happened, Greg's imaginary dramatization makes things much clearer.
What we've been told? Only person who said he was desperate to leave was MON. If you think you can trust anything that guy said then fair enough, but i prefer to think that the word of a disloyal tosser who let the club down while negotiating to take the dippers job isn't worth the newpaper its printed in. As i said, yes Milner probably fancied going to Citeh just like Young would fancy going there is he had the option. Does that mean Ash wants to leave?
If he wants to and has the option then yes, of course it does.
I think we're going round in slightly mental circles here Greg. I don't think there are many people who still like O'Neill, but it's a big jump from that to "he's lying that Milner wants to leave" a couple of weeks before Milner then leaves.
no but he made it public knowledge without seemingly Milner's or the board's permission. As soon as he'd made that statement Milner was as good as gone. Now if he's desperate to keep the guy like you claim why would he do that?
-
And the issue that I have with the "after Martin O'Neill's comments he didn't have a choice' standpoint is that once O'Neill leaves (two weeks prior to Milner's transfer) then if he does want to stay at Villa he can just stay and put all the blame on the person whose fault it was. Who is no longer there.
I think you are missing out on the nuances here. Most people believe that Milner wanted to leave. But some of them also believe that we could have convinced/forced him to stay by rejecting City's offers. In this case, Milner would have remained a Villa player and had had the fans' backing because it was never clear that he wanted to leave. After MON comments that was no longer a possibility.
Aye, that would be about the size of it.
-
I was only really arguing Greg's daft claim that it was "pretty obvious that MON wanted rid of milner". Which is ridiculous.
It's not "pretty obvious" that MON wanted to get rid of Milner, but it is not ridiculous to wonder why MON made public comments that made it more complicated for Milner to stay at Villa.
-
aye. its like claiming GH is desperate to keep Ireland after revealing what his agent said. I'm guessing he's looking forward to adding the Ireland money to his transfer funds
-
I don't think Ireland has had a fair crack of the whip, certainly not playing off the striker like Young has.
I believe he'll be good at his next club but if he dosen't want to be here, then get rid. I'd still expect 5m given he's young so will have a resale value.
-
FWIW, I'm not necessarily in agreement with Greg. I think MON's comments were unhelpful and seriously reduced our chances of keeping Milner (he might have left anyway), but that doesn't mean that he had an agenda. As MON were in a state of mind where he could leave the club a few weeks later without thinking too much about the concequences, it is not imconceivable that he made those comments too without thinking too much about the concequences.
-
FWIW, I'm not necessarily in agreement with Greg. I think MON's comments were unhelpful and seriously reduced our chances of keeping Milner (he might have left anyway), but that doesn't mean that he had an agenda. As MON were in a state of mind where he could leave the club a few weeks later without thinking too much about the concequences, it is not imconceivable that he made those comments too without thinking too much about the concequences.
i think thats a fair point and as likely to be as true as my "theories" or anyone elses... bottom line is we'll never know as we only have a few snippets from the board's side and MON isn't talking which considering he was never shy of using the press for his own ends is odd.
-
My, I'm impressed by how 'in the know' everyone is on this thread.
-
Stephen Ireland is the biggest prick waste of talent since Nigel fucking Callaghan.
-
If you think of the club/player pendulum being at its extreme of favouring the clubs when players were on a £20 maximum wage and tied to a club for life the pendulum has now swung - post Bosman, to the other extreme when a player like Ireland can cop the nark to his employer after half a season and demand to leave.
Oddly, the first straws in the wind of a correction to the present excess player power began with Rooney who blatantly manipulated the media to get a massively increased contract. I very much doubt that Rooney had the brain to pull such a stroke so the finger of suspicion must point at his agent. Then Tevez is used in the same way to pull the same kind of stroke. Does anybody in their right mind believe it is not about money? My guess would be about £50K a week would cure the homesickness and £25K for each daughter would eliminate the parental pangs.
If Tevez continues to act the goat, Man City have to sue him and his agent for breach of contract. Some club has to take legal action to stop the power of players and their agents.
I began thinking along these lines when Collymore was giving us such grief and things have got a lot worse since then.
Clubs have to act in unison to stamp out the piss taking of players like Ireland. They have to be stood up to but so deeply ingrained in English football is the club mentality of beggar my neighbour that there will always be a club for the mercenary, unprincipled player to run to. The same of course applies to players who commit serious crimes. Because Joey Barton scored the winner for Newcastle in Pardew's first game in charge, all we heard the following day from the press and the electronic media were comments like "I know he has had his problems off the pitch but he is a brilliant football player". It is the word "problems" which pisses me off as though he has run up some parking fines or not paid his TV licence.
It will be a good day for football when a club sets its lawyers on a want away player.
-
It will, but I can't see it happening... Unfortunately.
-
If you think of the club/player pendulum being at its extreme of favouring the clubs when players were on a £20 maximum wage and tied to a club for life the pendulum has now swung - post Bosman, to the other extreme when a player like Ireland can cop the nark to his employer after half a season and demand to leave.
Oddly, the first straws in the wind of a correction to the present excess player power began with Rooney who blatantly manipulated the media to get a massively increased contract. I very much doubt that Rooney had the brain to pull such a stroke so the finger of suspicion must point at his agent. Then Tevez is used in the same way to pull the same kind of stroke. Does anybody in their right mind believe it is not about money? My guess would be about £50K a week would cure the homesickness and £25K for each daughter would eliminate the parental pangs.
If Tevez continues to act the goat, Man City have to sue him and his agent for breach of contract. Some club has to take legal action to stop the power of players and their agents.
I began thinking along these lines when Collymore was giving us such grief and things have got a lot worse since then.
Clubs have to act in unison to stamp out the piss taking of players like Ireland. They have to be stood up to but so deeply ingrained in English football is the club mentality of beggar my neighbour that there will always be a club for the mercenary, unprincipled player to run to. The same of course applies to players who commit serious crimes. Because Joey Barton scored the winner for Newcastle in Pardew's first game in charge, all we heard the following day from the press and the electronic media were comments like "I know he has had his problems off the pitch but he is a brilliant football player". It is the word "problems" which pisses me off as though he has run up some parking fines or not paid his TV licence.
It will be a good day for football when a club sets its lawyers on a want away player.
Great post, the problem is that Emplyment Law now in all its forms are so heavily biased towards the employee. The reason emplyers/clubs dont seek recourse through the courts is because they would lose. You can thank the EU for this, Bosman the Human Rights debacle. I dont read the Daily Mail or vote UKIP. The only thing that will change matters is an economic.
-
Ireland has been a massive disappointment since coming here - to do with attitude, rather than talent, but a disappointment nonetheless.
I can't help thinking that the same people who are now moaning that we signed him without a manager would have been moaning if we'd signed nobody (and in some cases are the very same people who are suggesting that we didn't appoint a manager until after the window closed in order to save money).
Lose - lose.
I didn't want Ireland when we were first linked with him so I don't see how you can back up that claim. I just don't accept the assertion earlier in this thread that we had no choice in the matter. I feel that the board went through with it because they thought it would give them a bit os positive publicity at a time when it was in short supply (it still is). I can see why the did it even though it has turned out to have been a very poor decsion as it is clear he does not suit Houlliers's methods.
You didn't want that specific player, and you said it at the time - and it is looking like your main point of contention was right. But my point wasn't so much about Ireland, it was that the board were in a lose-lose situation.
If we hadn't bought anyone, people would be saying "you sat on your hands and kept your money tucked away until the window was clsoed" We did buy someone, and people say "you bought a player without having a manager in place"
-
God forbid that employees should have rights.
-
And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??)
I think it only fair to point out that no, the posts weren't from the same IP address.
And the suggestion that they might have been, and that that would have any significance, is pretty idiotic, unless you're trying to suggest that, actually, Pelty and General K are same person.
But nobody would suggest that.
Would they?
-
God forbid that employees should have rights.
I am not saying that employees should not have rights, or footballers for that matter. However some of the rights that they now enjoy are extremely unfair.
-
God forbid that employees should have rights.
I am not saying that employees should not have rights, or footballers for that matter. However some of the rights that they now enjoy are extremely unfair.
Good.
-
And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??)
I think it only fair to point out that no, the posts weren't from the same IP address.
And the suggestion that they might have been, and that that would have any significance, is pretty idiotic, unless you're trying to suggest that, actually, Pelty and General K are same person.
But nobody would suggest that.
Would they?
I don't know how anybody could think such a thing. The General has much better taste in music than Pelty.
-
And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??)
I think it only fair to point out that no, the posts weren't from the same IP address.
And the suggestion that they might have been, and that that would have any significance, is pretty idiotic, unless you're trying to suggest that, actually, Pelty and General K are same person.
But nobody would suggest that.
Would they?
I don't know how anybody could think such a thing. The General has much better taste in music than Pelty.
Now that is a low blow, I have to say. "Fightin' words" as they said in the Old West! Ah, but I forgot, Mark, that you are a country music fan, so now I can see why you would say such a thing...
-
There were a couple of people in the GM section who posted information they'd heard about Milner wanting to leave several weeks before MOn said anything. As I said yesterday, all that MON did was let the cat out of the bag. We can argue about whether being open and honest was the right things to do but the player was going to go as soon as the club received an offer they deemed acceptable so I don't think it made it either more or less likely.
-
Thank you Hawkeye for the support for my point. I agree with you that any attempt in the present legal and social climate would fail.
Any club approaching a lawyer of quality to take on a malingering player would almost certainly advise his client that they would lose in court. To prove deliberate recalcitrance would be almost impossible. We all remember the string of niggling injuries sustained by Dwight Yorke once Ferguson had tapped him up.
At this point I must digress into a local issue with which I have personal experience to illustrate the principle I am trying to establish. I apologize if my point is taken is taken as political. It is not intended to be.
Where I live we have suffered several years of fighting a planning battle against several hundred travellers squatting on land they do not own and effectively building a squatters' village without any form of planning permission. Our council has already spent over two million pounds in legal costs trying to correct the situation. Matters came to a head when the chief executive of our district council announced unilaterally that nothing more should be done because the costs of fighting the legal battle were too high and the chances of victory too small. This caused widespread revolt with the council tax payers not least because it presented an open door to anybody who could identify a cash strapped local authority and squat on land without fear of legal action. We told our chief executive to continue the legal fight regardless of the cost to the council tax payers of South Cambridgeshire.
There come a time when wrongs have to be righted when the fight is the important thing not the victory. I am sure if Manchester City took Tevez and Joorabchian(sp?) to court a jury would be buried with paper and video evidence that the defendant really did have a bad back or he really did try to score the penalty he put into row Z. You don't need a very long memory to recall the Bruce Grobbellar case.
However if the want away mercenary player with an agent whispering in his ear about bigger pickings had to be told that he was about to need the services of a legal team who would charge him as much for a day in court as he gets in a week playing football I imagine we would see an immediate end to clubs being held to ransom by players.
At the moment all that a player like Tevez has to do is pose for some tabloid photos looking sad and hugging one of his children. If they were made to scrap in court for the right to walk away from their employer things would be very different.
The problem as I wrote earlier is that the clubs play beggar my neighbour. City fell about laughing when Rooney said he wanted away, United are doing the same over Tevez while what is really needed is concerted action by the clubs to curb the greed of players and their agents. Don't hold your breath.
-
The only case I can think of where a club has taken legal action against a player is Chelsea and Adrian Mutu. Despite Chelsea getting the eventual legal support from FIFA, Mutu continued to play in Italy and almost six years since the legal process was started, Chelsea still haven't recieved a penny in compensation. Nor do I think they ever will, despite having the law on their side.
I agree with you Brian but unless bodies like FIFA act swiftly and ban a player from playing for any other club, players will continue to take the piss.
-
FWIW, I'm not necessarily in agreement with Greg. I think MON's comments were unhelpful and seriously reduced our chances of keeping Milner (he might have left anyway), but that doesn't mean that he had an agenda. As MON were in a state of mind where he could leave the club a few weeks later without thinking too much about the concequences, it is not imconceivable that he made those comments too without thinking too much about the concequences.
Indeed. I have absolutely no doubt that once Milner said that he wanted to leave, O'Neill didn't do much to help matters.
But only someone with a less than stable grip on reality would suggest that Milner wanted to stay with Villa until dastardly Martin O'Neill tried to force him out of the club.
Wouldn't they Greg?
-
Stephen Ireland is the biggest prick waste of talent since Nigel fucking Callaghan.
Harsh on Nigel, at least he put in a few good games
I've seen nothing from Ireland since he joined, nothing
-
God forbid that employees should have rights.
Morally and ethically at least, if not legally, I don't think you can describe modern day footballers as employees. They inhabit a completely different universe to normal workers. Many are whores and mercenaries, happy to go along with all the shit their agents tell them to add even more to their already stratospheric salaries and bonuses.
-
I just don't accept the assertion earlier in this thread that we had no choice in the matter. I feel that the board went through with it because they thought it would give them a bit os positive publicity at a time when it was in short supply (it still is). I can see why the did it even though it has turned out to have been a very poor decsion as it is clear he does not suit Houlliers's methods.
Why is it so hard to accept that the club had a deal, formulated between various parties that suited them all, Mon included, supposedly.
Why would we renege on it?
What deep insight would the Board gain on Mon's departure that would allow them to upset an agreed and assumingly signed deal.
From past experience Mon was very thorough in his negotiations and contracts, we've been told he was totally complicent in the deal, so why would the club rock the boat, upset Man City, possibly Milner, the footballing world, just because Mon walked.
Did they have some magical foresight of the current hindsight, I can't see how.
Ireland was a decent bet, a good quality player, and we had a gap in midfield plus a fee. How were the Board to know that Ireland didn't want away, had problems negotiating with City and has subsequently only showed his petulant side, not his talented side to Villa fans. I'm sure the initial managerial insecurity didn't help, especially if Mon was as good at convincing players to play for him as some claim, plus the delay in finding a replacement as he walked and wasn't sacked, plus all the injuries to key players and Houllier's moves to change the club to make it more in his image, may all be a factor too.
Thing is deal was done, job sorted long before most of that all started, how and why could the Board have stopped the deal, unless of cause we have an oracle in the depths of Villa Park.
-
FWIW, I'm not necessarily in agreement with Greg. I think MON's comments were unhelpful and seriously reduced our chances of keeping Milner (he might have left anyway), but that doesn't mean that he had an agenda. As MON were in a state of mind where he could leave the club a few weeks later without thinking too much about the concequences, it is not imconceivable that he made those comments too without thinking too much about the concequences.
Indeed. I have absolutely no doubt that once Milner said that he wanted to leave, O'Neill didn't do much to help matters.
But only someone with a less than stable grip on reality would suggest that Milner wanted to stay with Villa until dastardly Martin O'Neill tried to force him out of the club.
Wouldn't they Greg?
But i never stated Milner wanted to stay at all. I said MON wanted him out probably because he needed the money his transfer would provide and with no-one wanting to buy his mistakes, Milner was the best bet. Look i'm sure in the last 3 or 4 seasons we've had offers for players that haven't been made public but have been discussed by the club and the player involved. Maybe that player has expressed his interest in leaving. The big difference is the manager/club at the time has not then broadcasted it to the general public that the player wants to leave. Once you do that he is going to leave. Now you still haven't answered me why if MON was so keen to keep him did he do that?
-
Stephen Ireland is the biggest prick waste of talent since Nigel fucking Callaghan.
Harsh on Nigel, at least he put in a few good games
I've seen nothing from Ireland since he joined, nothing
True.
If my memory serves me right, Callaghan scord on his debut, I think it was a 2-0 win over Sheff Wed.
-
I just don't accept the assertion earlier in this thread that we had no choice in the matter. I feel that the board went through with it because they thought it would give them a bit os positive publicity at a time when it was in short supply (it still is). I can see why the did it even though it has turned out to have been a very poor decsion as it is clear he does not suit Houlliers's methods.
Why is it so hard to accept that the club had a deal, formulated between various parties that suited them all, Mon included, supposedly.
Why would we renege on it?
What deep insight would the Board gain on Mon's departure that would allow them to upset an agreed and assumingly signed deal.
From past experience Mon was very thorough in his negotiations and contracts, we've been told he was totally complicent in the deal, so why would the club rock the boat, upset Man City, possibly Milner, the footballing world, just because Mon walked.
Did they have some magical foresight of the current hindsight, I can't see how.
Ireland was a decent bet, a good quality player, and we had a gap in midfield plus a fee. How were the Board to know that Ireland didn't want away, had problems negotiating with City and has subsequently only showed his petulant side, not his talented side to Villa fans. I'm sure the initial managerial insecurity didn't help, especially if Mon was as good at convincing players to play for him as some claim, plus the delay in finding a replacement as he walked and wasn't sacked, plus all the injuries to key players and Houllier's moves to change the club to make it more in his image, may all be a factor too.
Thing is deal was done, job sorted long before most of that all started, how and why could the Board have stopped the deal, unless of cause we have an oracle in the depths of Villa Park.
The board could have said to Man City " we're going to have a new manager, we're not sure if Stephen Ireland will fit in with his plans so at present we do not wish to pursue his signature".
Milner could still haved had his move if they'd stumped up the cash and we wouldn't be stuck with a flop who we'll more than likely make a loss on.
-
Does anybody have a dateline of events, as this is like discussing the gender of the angels?
-
Does anybody have a dateline of events, as this is like discussing the gender of the angels?
MON left around 9th August, Milner plays for us on 14th and moves to Man City on 18th with nut job coming the other way.
As I've said several times, I can understand WHY they did it is the ridiculous assertion that we had no choice in the matter after O'Neill left that I am disputing.
-
Ireland was just a makeweight as part of the Milner deal. simple as that.
Did we get £26m + Ireland or £18M + Ireland (£8m) ?
-
It hasn't worked out for Ireland, but I still contend it was a deal worth doing. The new manager was always going to have a teamful of new players who he didn't know, so I worked on the theory that one more player (and one who was supposed to have that creativity we missed from central midfield) would be better than not having that player.
-
Ireland was just a makeweight as part of the Milner deal. simple as that.
Did we get £26m + Ireland or £18M + Ireland (£8m) ?
I believe it went through as £26m for Milner, and £8m for Ireland.
Meaning we were left with £18m net and Ireland.
-
I know we miss him an awful lot, and I'd rather have kept the player, and I appreciate the money is no use if you don't use it, but 26 million pounds for James Milner.
Crikey.
-
It was a shit a deal.
It was shit because Milner was our best player last season
It was shit because it weakened us and strengthened the team that finished 3 points ahead of us
It was shit because Milner was less than half way through his contract
It was shit because it included Stephen "Football Is SHIT Why Did I get Stuck Doin It ..." Ireland
It was shit because of what it said about our ambitions
It was great because the board banked £16,000,000(ish)
-
Ireland was just a makeweight as part of the Milner deal. simple as that.
Did we get £26m + Ireland or £18M + Ireland (£8m) ?
I believe it went through as £26m for Milner, and £8m for Ireland.
Meaning we were left with £18m net and Ireland.
So in other words we sold Milner on the cheap ??
As it was Man Citeh we should have been talking £40m for Milner
-
It was a shit a deal.
It was shit because Milner was our best player last season
It was shit because it weakened us and strengthened the team that finished 3 points ahead of us
It was shit because Milner was less than half way through his contract
It was shit because it included Stephen "Football Is SHIT Why Did I get Stuck Doin It ..." Ireland
It was shit because of what it said about our ambitions
It was great because the board banked £16,000,000(ish)
By board, you mean the football club banked that money to be re-invested in new players to improve us. You make it sound like they've pocketed the cash, never to be seen again, based on your penultimate statement, and one which I disagree with. Like Berbatov at Spurs, Milner wanted out. Yet, Spurs are infinitely better than they were with Berbatov. It's not who you sell, or for who much. It's what you do with the money that determines whether you get better. Houllier now has receive the backing of the board and improve the playing squad with the Milner money and whatever else he receives/generates.
-
It was a shit a deal.
It was shit because Milner was our best player last season
It was shit because it weakened us and strengthened the team that finished 3 points ahead of us
It was shit because Milner was less than half way through his contract
It was shit because it included Stephen "Football Is SHIT Why Did I get Stuck Doin It ..." Ireland
It was shit because of what it said about our ambitions
It was great because the board banked £16,000,000(ish)
By board, you mean the football club banked that money to be re-invested in new players to improve us. You make it sound like they've pocketed the cash, never to be seen again, based on your penultimate statement, and one which I disagree with. Like Berbatov at Spurs, Milner wanted out. Yet, Spurs are infinitely better than they were with Berbatov. It's not who you sell, or for who much. It's what you do with the money that determines whether you get better. Houllier now has receive the backing of the board and improve the playing squad with the Milner money and whatever else he receives/generates.
Spurs spent £120m on new players during the season they sold Berbatov, it isn't the same thing at all.
-
It wasn't really a shit deal. We got a very, very, big fee for a player who isn't as good as some think, and in January - to a lesser extent - and the summer we'll get to see some of that money reinvested in players the current manager wants.
Ireland has been very disappointing, and not for the first time I'm happy to admit I was all for his signing and convinced he'd be a good player for us. He hasn't been. I'm not sure exactly what has gone on; he hasn't exactly been given a run of games to bed in, but then again, he's featured enough to show some semblance of form, and hasn't done a lot. My reading is that his head's not right, at all. And if he wants to quit a club like Villa after four months.... well, that really is a sad state of affairs. I've read one or two pieces on Ireland written by Irish journalists and... they're not exactly complimentary.
It could be worse, though. We'll near or dammit get our money back on Ireland when he does eventually go. Which is more than can be said for City with Milner... I doubt their fans are thinking they got a good deal out of all this, either.
-
Did Ireland even move home to Brum ? Seems like he never wanted to join us
-
It was a shit a deal.
It was shit because Milner was our best player last season
It was shit because it weakened us and strengthened the team that finished 3 points ahead of us
It was shit because Milner was less than half way through his contract
It was shit because it included Stephen "Football Is SHIT Why Did I get Stuck Doin It ..." Ireland
It was shit because of what it said about our ambitions
It was great because the board banked £16,000,000(ish)
By board, you mean the football club banked that money to be re-invested in new players to improve us. You make it sound like they've pocketed the cash, never to be seen again, based on your penultimate statement, and one which I disagree with. Like Berbatov at Spurs, Milner wanted out. Yet, Spurs are infinitely better than they were with Berbatov. It's not who you sell, or for who much. It's what you do with the money that determines whether you get better. Houllier now has receive the backing of the board and improve the playing squad with the Milner money and whatever else he receives/generates.
Spurs spent £120m on new players during the season they sold Berbatov, it isn't the same thing at all.
And Houllier's spent nothing since Milner was sold because the window has been closed.
-
I know we miss him an awful lot, and I'd rather have kept the player, and I appreciate the money is no use if you don't use it, but 26 million pounds for James Milner.
Crikey.
Absolutely even £18million would be a bit steep.
Man City fans don't rate him and their manager doesn't rate him in his best position where the fans could see the best of him. I think both sides got a raw deal. Milner the winger strikes me as the Man City equivalent of Chelsea signing Shaun Wright-Phillips. A player not quite the best in terms of ability but up there in application that the team massively overpaid for.
As for Ireland he'll be at Walsall inside two or three years. Or Celtic.
-
Milner the central midfielder and Milner the winger are worlds apart in terms of ability. If Man City weren't just collecting pieces and were actually buying players to play in their best positions, they would have got a lot more out of Milner. He's gone from a starting position with us and widespread acclaim and recognition to a shadow of the player we witnessed last year and a sub at Man City.
-
Its good tactics by citeh though. Take our two best players and remove us from the the top 4 battle. Did it to Everton as well. Now just Bolton and Sunderland are the comp for the top 6. Wait till they get top 4, then they'll cherry pick Spurs. A route for us is to get the good ex citeh players, which failed this time
-
I know we miss him an awful lot, and I'd rather have kept the player, and I appreciate the money is no use if you don't use it, but 26 million pounds for James Milner.
Crikey.
Absolutely even £18million would be a bit steep.
Man City fans don't rate him and their manager doesn't rate him in his best position where the fans could see the best of him. I think both sides got a raw deal. Milner the winger strikes me as the Man City equivalent of Chelsea signing Shaun Wright-Phillips. A player not quite the best in terms of ability but up there in application that the team massively overpaid for.
As for Ireland he'll be at Walsall inside two or three years. Or Celtic.
Disagree, Milner is a top player and will be for years to come. He's not the only one that Mancini is having trouble accommodating in his overly negative formations. Of course the price in inflated because of the Arab money but other clubs would pay it if they had it.
How many of them have you canvassed to come to the conclusion that "Man City fans don't rate him"? If it's just what you've picked up from the internet then is it any different to what a lot of our own bozos were saying about Downing last season?
-
Picking a winning side at the Villa this season must be like making a model of the Eiffel Tower from a wheelbarrow full of donkey shit
-
Picking a winning side at the Villa this season must be like making a model of the Eiffel Tower from a wheelbarrow full of donkey shit
You'd get top marks for the authentic smell that surrounded your effort.
-
Barry Bannan underneath it, doing tricks on his rollerskates for money
-
It's a hoot. As soon as Mancini rotates his squad (remember the concept?) and either Barry or Milner get bumped to the bench, the Schadenfreude Set get all moist in the gusset area. Milner the failure at City is a ways off I think.
Milner is not a world-class player, but an incredibly effective one in this league. We miss him badly, and I'd have him back like a shot.
-
Barry Bannan underneath it, doing tricks on his rollerskates for money
With Sidwell not even painted bronze but statuesque and so real that nobody takes any notice.
-
It's a hoot. As soon as Mancini rotates his squad (remember the concept?) and either Barry or Milner get bumped to the bench, the Schadenfreude Set get all moist in the gusset area. Milner the failure at City is a ways off I think.
Milner is not a world-class player, but an incredibly effective one in this league. We miss him badly, and I'd have him back like a shot.
Rotating the squad is one thing. Being sat on the bench and not performaing the level that the fans expect because your manager is playing you consistently out of position is quite something else. Go on the Man City boards and see what they think of him. He's hardly getting praised like he was with us last year.
-
Beat me to it, Toronto. With Milner, it's not about rotation, he's not being played in his best position at all. It's like City/Mancini watched him have the best season of his career, then signed him and switched him back to where he was two years ago. In 2009-10 he was one of the best players in the country... that's not the impression I get now.
He's no failure, but for £26m I'd be expecting a hell of a lot more from him if were a City fan.
-
How many of them have you canvassed to come to the conclusion that "Man City fans don't rate him"? If it's just what you've picked up from the internet then is it any different to what a lot of our own bozos were saying about Downing last season?
We do indeed have some bozos on here. Remind me again what you were saying about Albrighton last season, Chris. (winky)
-
How many of them have you canvassed to come to the conclusion that "Man City fans don't rate him"? If it's just what you've picked up from the internet then is it any different to what a lot of our own bozos were saying about Downing last season?
We do indeed have some bozos on here. Remind me again what you were saying about Albrighton last season, Chris. (winky)
Something like he had talent but looked nervous.
Being allowed to develop at his own pace rather than having too much expected of him before he was ready has benefitted him, wouldn't you say?
-
How many of them have you canvassed to come to the conclusion that "Man City fans don't rate him"? If it's just what you've picked up from the internet then is it any different to what a lot of our own bozos were saying about Downing last season?
We do indeed have some bozos on here. Remind me again what you were saying about Albrighton last season, Chris. (winky)
Something like he had talent but looked nervous.
Being allowed to develop at his own pace rather than having too much expected of him before he was ready has benefitted him, wouldn't you say?
Yes, surely Albrighton's progress would have stopped if he had logged onto H&V last season and read that Chris Smith expected him to become a great player. :-)
-
How many of them have you canvassed to come to the conclusion that "Man City fans don't rate him"? If it's just what you've picked up from the internet then is it any different to what a lot of our own bozos were saying about Downing last season?
We do indeed have some bozos on here. Remind me again what you were saying about Albrighton last season, Chris. (winky)
Something like he had talent but looked nervous.
Being allowed to develop at his own pace rather than having too much expected of him before he was ready has benefitted him, wouldn't you say?
As it's almost Christmas, goodwill to all men and all that..
-
It's a hoot. As soon as Mancini rotates his squad (remember the concept?) and either Barry or Milner get bumped to the bench, the Schadenfreude Set get all moist in the gusset area. Milner the failure at City is a ways off I think.
Milner is not a world-class player, but an incredibly effective one in this league. We miss him badly, and I'd have him back like a shot.
It's nothing to do with schadenfreude. Schadenfreude was when I was laughing at him not getting picked. I am merely stating that he is an ineffective player outwide and that he is not a £26million player. With him costing so much, it can be argued Man City hardly got a great deal either. It's nothing to do with the fact that we don't miss him or the fact that he's a bad player. It's the fact that people keep banging on about what a bad deal we got without considering Man City have yet to have got their money's worth for Milner AND if Mancini keeps on the way he has been going they won't do so.
-
Eventually Mancini will play JM as a CM
We will then see him at his best again, a £50M player who will only get better and be England Captain soon
We sold him cheaply, we should have made him see out his contract for the sake of £18M
-
There isn't a club in the world who could glibly write off £18 million.
-
Manchester City?
-
There isn't a club in the world who could glibly write off £18 million.
Agree, but strategically, maybe we should have kept him for 2 years to see out his contract and let him go on a freebie
He's probably worth the money, we're going to end up spending the money on a replacement anyway
-
It was a shit a deal.
It was shit because Milner was our best player last season
It was shit because it weakened us and strengthened the team that finished 3 points ahead of us
It was shit because Milner was less than half way through his contract
It was shit because it included Stephen "Football Is SHIT Why Did I get Stuck Doin It ..." Ireland
It was shit because of what it said about our ambitions
It was great because the board banked £16,000,000(ish)
and shit because JM wanted to go..... once a players head is turned, no point keeping him ..
-
Did Ireland even move home to Brum ? Seems like he never wanted to join us
same as Pires really
-
Did Ireland even move home to Brum ? Seems like he never wanted to join us
same as Pires really
and Friedel, Luke Young, Warnock and Heskey
-
There isn't a club in the world who could glibly write off £18 million.
Agree, but strategically, maybe we should have kept him for 2 years to see out his contract and let him go on a freebie
He's probably worth the money, we're going to end up spending the money on a replacement anyway
mebbe but there's a hell of a lot of other players we're gonna lose for nothing or very little. Maybe the money was needed
-
Did Ireland even move home to Brum ? Seems like he never wanted to join us
same as Pires really
and Friedel, Luke Young, Warnock and Heskey
Luke Young is living in Solihull, seen him walking his dog a few times
-
Eventually Mancini will play JM as a CM
We will then see him at his best again, a £50M player who will only get better and be England Captain soon
We sold him cheaply, we should have made him see out his contract for the sake of £18M
He's really isn't as good as you are making out you know. He is a big loss for us though I will admit.
-
Did Ireland even move home to Brum ? Seems like he never wanted to join us
same as Pires really
and Friedel, Luke Young, Warnock and Heskey
Luke Young is living in Solihull, seen him walking his dog a few times
He may have a house up here but his home is in the South
-
It's a hoot. As soon as Mancini rotates his squad (remember the concept?) and either Barry or Milner get bumped to the bench, the Schadenfreude Set get all moist in the gusset area. Milner the failure at City is a ways off I think.
Milner is not a world-class player, but an incredibly effective one in this league. We miss him badly, and I'd have him back like a shot.
Rotating the squad is one thing. Being sat on the bench and not performaing the level that the fans expect because your manager is playing you consistently out of position is quite something else. Go on the Man City boards and see what they think of him. He's hardly getting praised like he was with us last year.
My point is not that he's being played out of his best position or that City's instant success bridage (their equivalent of ours) don't rate him, it's that there are some here who are too quick to claim his move is a failure. Witness, him playing tonight and guess what? Playing in midfield.
-
Well Milners playing CM tonight along with lard arse, so lets see
-
It's a hoot. As soon as Mancini rotates his squad (remember the concept?) and either Barry or Milner get bumped to the bench, the Schadenfreude Set get all moist in the gusset area. Milner the failure at City is a ways off I think.
Milner is not a world-class player, but an incredibly effective one in this league. We miss him badly, and I'd have him back like a shot.
Rotating the squad is one thing. Being sat on the bench and not performaing the level that the fans expect because your manager is playing you consistently out of position is quite something else. Go on the Man City boards and see what they think of him. He's hardly getting praised like he was with us last year.
My point is not that he's being played out of his best position or that City's instant success bridage (their equivalent of ours) don't rate him, it's that there are some here who are too quick to claim his move is a failure. Witness, him playing tonight and guess what? Playing in midfield.
I'm not saying his move has been a failure at all. He was bought for a lot of money and hasn't been played in his best position. If he has a blinder tonight then all it goes to prove is that he should have been playing there for the start. I'm pretty sure that had he played as a right winger for us last season, he wouldn't have won Young Player of the Year, and he likely wouldn't be at Man City right now.
-
I'm not saying his move has been a failure at all. He was bought for a lot of money and hasn't been played in his best position. If he has a blinder tonight then all it goes to prove is that he should have been playing there for the start. I'm pretty sure that had he played as a right winger for us last season, he wouldn't have won Young Player of the Year, and he likely wouldn't be at Man City right now.
What's that got to do with th e price of cheese? My original post was that it was too soon to write off Milner's move to City when he sits one game out.
-
And just to prove just how right I am they've taken him off. I thought he'd had a really good game too! :-)
-
Just as the cost price of Stilton has shot through the roof as well.
-
I'm not saying his move has been a failure at all. He was bought for a lot of money and hasn't been played in his best position. If he has a blinder tonight then all it goes to prove is that he should have been playing there for the start. I'm pretty sure that had he played as a right winger for us last season, he wouldn't have won Young Player of the Year, and he likely wouldn't be at Man City right now.
What's that got to do with th e price of cheese? My original post was that it was too soon to write off Milner's move to City when he sits one game out.
really? I expect his stock to drop even further now that his team are 2-0 down at HT and he's been taken off. My response to your original post was to suggest that if he was to play on the wing as he has done mostly it would be a waste of his talents. Clearly, the fact that he hasn't played in central midfield much is also now beginning to show.
-
I've gone long on Camembert
-
10 minutes to go. The smart money's moving into Gouda.
-
It was a shit a deal.
It was shit because Milner was our best player last season
It was shit because it weakened us and strengthened the team that finished 3 points ahead of us
It was shit because Milner was less than half way through his contract
It was shit because it included Stephen "Football Is SHIT Why Did I get Stuck Doin It ..." Ireland
It was shit because of what it said about our ambitions
It was great because the board banked £16,000,000(ish)
By board, you mean the football club banked that money to be re-invested in new players to improve us. You make it sound like they've pocketed the cash, never to be seen again, based on your penultimate statement, and one which I disagree with. Like Berbatov at Spurs, Milner wanted out. Yet, Spurs are infinitely better than they were with Berbatov. It's not who you sell, or for who much. It's what you do with the money that determines whether you get better. Houllier now has receive the backing of the board and improve the playing squad with the Milner money and whatever else he receives/generates.
Spurs spent £120m on new players during the season they sold Berbatov, it isn't the same thing at all.
And recouped around £75m, so their net outlay was approx. £45m
Which is around about the same as we spent that season. (Net)
-
It was a shit a deal.
It was shit because Milner was our best player last season
It was shit because it weakened us and strengthened the team that finished 3 points ahead of us
It was shit because Milner was less than half way through his contract
It was shit because it included Stephen "Football Is SHIT Why Did I get Stuck Doin It ..." Ireland
It was shit because of what it said about our ambitions
It was great because the board banked £16,000,000(ish)
By board, you mean the football club banked that money to be re-invested in new players to improve us. You make it sound like they've pocketed the cash, never to be seen again, based on your penultimate statement, and one which I disagree with. Like Berbatov at Spurs, Milner wanted out. Yet, Spurs are infinitely better than they were with Berbatov. It's not who you sell, or for who much. It's what you do with the money that determines whether you get better. Houllier now has receive the backing of the board and improve the playing squad with the Milner money and whatever else he receives/generates.
Spurs spent £120m on new players during the season they sold Berbatov, it isn't the same thing at all.
And recouped around £75m, so their net outlay was approx. £45m
Which is around about the same as we spent that season. (Net)
But ours was principally spent on tat.
-
GERARD HOULLIER took another swipe at Stephen Ireland, insisting he would not be 'stupid enough' to pick him in Ashley Young's position.
Aston Villa boss Houllier is facing up to being without star man Young for Christmas with a knee injury.
But the Frenchman is not about to pick 24-year-old Ireland — who has cost the club a huge £2,000 A MINUTE since signing in August — in the attacking-midfield role.
Houllier said: "He won't be playing in Ashley's position. I've done that before and it didn't work.
"So I'm not stupid, I'm not doing it again."
Ireland an £8million makeweight in the £24m deal that saw James Milner join Manchester City, has been told he can leave.
But Villa are desperate to recoup most of that cash.
Better news for Villa is that crocked midfielders Nigel Reo-Coker, Stiliyan Petrov and Fabian Delph have all resumed training.
Soar Away Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3311037/Houllier-in-new-blast-at-Stephen-Ireland.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
-
I'm waiting for Greg's post saying that Ireland doesn't really wnat to leave and it's all Houllier's fault for making it public.
-
You could argue that Houllier's snipes are affecting Ireland's confidence, that he's also in danger of affecting his market value, and that maybe a different approach might bring out the player we were hoping to see.
But, on a personal level, I'm delighted he's not fannying around him. There's only one person to blame for Stephen Ireland utterly wank, and that's Stephen Ireland.
-
I think GH should stop this press stuff - What purpose does it serve ?
-
I think GH should stop this press stuff - What purpose does it serve ?
The purpose it serves is it sets a marker as to what is required to play for this club. It's not a fucking holiday camp, and you don't turn up here and claim £60k a week for doing fuck all.
-
I see the Sun are still banging on about Ash being out for a month when GH confirmed a few days ago he should be fit to play Tottenham...
-
He's certainly got a way with words.
-
They report that Reo-Coker is back in training. What a relief, considering he played against West Brom nearly two weeks ago.
Dozy bunch of pricks.
-
I think GH should stop this press stuff - What purpose does it serve ?
becaue if he doesn't do it, they write stories about `Under-Fire Houllier In Hiding'. The trick is to do a weekly press conference but make it almost supernaturally boring
-
I have a little problem with Houllier here seeing as Young hasn't been very good in the free role himself this season.
-
Interesting to see him refer to 'Young's position' - certainly indicates that that is where he sees Ashley playing. Perhaps this little quote is less about upsetting Ireland and more about pleasing Ashley?
-
I have a little problem with Houllier here seeing as Young hasn't been very good in the free role himself this season.
I completely disagree.
He has played pretty well there but like the rest of the team he's suffered from all the enforced changes. All of our best performances have been when he's played that role.
He does far more in 5 minutes than that skiver Ireland does in 5 games.
-
I have a little problem with Houllier here seeing as Young hasn't been very good in the free role himself this season.
I completely disagree.
He has played pretty well there but like the rest of the team he's suffered from all the enforced changes. All of our best performances have been when he's played that role.
He does far more in 5 minutes than that skiver Ireland does in 5 games.
Well from the games I've seen live I've been really disappointed with what Young has offered there bar second half of the Manure and Baggies games. Dosen't score or create enough in that position, I prefer him back out wide where he does do those things regularly.
I did miss the West Ham and Everton games though.
-
You also missed him play it in the Sunderland game when he was thrillingly brilliant in the second half. I'm still wondering how we didn't score 5 that day.
-
I have a little problem with Houllier here seeing as Young hasn't been very good in the free role himself this season.
I completely disagree.
He has played pretty well there but like the rest of the team he's suffered from all the enforced changes. All of our best performances have been when he's played that role.
He does far more in 5 minutes than that skiver Ireland does in 5 games.
Well from the games I've seen live I've been really disappointed with what Young has offered there bar second half of the Manure and Baggies games. Dosen't score or create enough in that position, I prefer him back out wide where he does do those things regularly.
I did miss the West Ham and Everton games though.
Albrighton and Downing can do the wide job, nobody else can play the free role. Ireland isn't worth considering, he clearly hasn't got the heart for the battle.
It's interesting that you pick the Manu and Albion games as in between those two we weren't able to pick the three players I mentioned together and when we have them available we are just so much better balanced.
-
Unless Ireland leaves and then slags the club off I can't see why he should leave the club with Villa fans hating the guy.
He hasn't been an £8 million player, but then he never was, was he.
He came as a 'make-weight' in the Jimmy deal.
Definition of 'makeweight' --- "an unimportant person or thing that is only included to complete something."
Not an ego massaging thing to be !
-
Maybe, but that's not an excuse to swan around the pitch like the kid at school who was always last pick.
-
Bearing in mind players like Vassell and Watson get booed by certain sections of our support despite always giving their best for the club, I expect Ireland would get slaughtered by the fans on any potential return. And he would deserve it.
-
I have a little problem with Houllier here seeing as Young hasn't been very good in the free role himself this season.
I completely disagree.
He has played pretty well there but like the rest of the team he's suffered from all the enforced changes. All of our best performances have been when he's played that role.
He does far more in 5 minutes than that skiver Ireland does in 5 games.
Well from the games I've seen live I've been really disappointed with what Young has offered there bar second half of the Manure and Baggies games. Dosen't score or create enough in that position, I prefer him back out wide where he does do those things regularly.
I did miss the West Ham and Everton games though.
Albrighton and Downing can do the wide job, nobody else can play the free role. Ireland isn't worth considering, he clearly hasn't got the heart for the battle.
It's interesting that you pick the Manu and Albion games as in between those two we weren't able to pick the three players I mentioned together and when we have them available we are just so much better balanced.
In the short term, I would revert back to Young left, Marc right and Downing just off the striker as he likes to come inside from the wing anyway and he has a decent shot on him. He's played centrally for Boro and we would have two holding midfielders behind him to do the tackling for him.
-
I have a little problem with Houllier here seeing as Young hasn't been very good in the free role himself this season.
I completely disagree.
He has played pretty well there but like the rest of the team he's suffered from all the enforced changes. All of our best performances have been when he's played that role.
He does far more in 5 minutes than that skiver Ireland does in 5 games.
Well from the games I've seen live I've been really disappointed with what Young has offered there bar second half of the Manure and Baggies games. Dosen't score or create enough in that position, I prefer him back out wide where he does do those things regularly.
I did miss the West Ham and Everton games though.
Albrighton and Downing can do the wide job, nobody else can play the free role. Ireland isn't worth considering, he clearly hasn't got the heart for the battle.
It's interesting that you pick the Manu and Albion games as in between those two we weren't able to pick the three players I mentioned together and when we have them available we are just so much better balanced.
In the short term, I would revert back to Young left, Marc right and Downing just off the striker as he likes to come inside from the wing anyway and he has a decent shot on him. He's played centrally for Boro and we would have two holding midfielders behind him to do the tackling for him.
As much as I agree with Chris, this too isn't a bad shout at all. If things aren't working in the game they could rotate between themselves.
-
Maybe, but that's not an excuse to swan around the pitch like the kid at school who was always last pick.
Some players need to feel wanted.
Some don't give a shit about feeling wanted.
Ireland needs to feel wanted and has never felt wanted at Villa, and now Houllieris using him to cash in and get a player in who's his signing.
I admit he hasn't exactly set the world alight since joining, but then, so many new recruits have been the same over the years.
Also, take his salary out of the equation, it's irrelevant.
I hope he gets a club that wants him and shines, and that ( as I said before) he doesn't slag Villa off as it's been a 'no win' affair for either party so far.
-
Ahh, poor little Stevie.
Perhaps if he'd earned just a penny of the disgusting wages he screws out of The Villa, then somebody might want him. A sulking, lazy, good for nothing.
The salary is very relevant if it's a fortune paid to such a undeserving cause. He might find a club that wants him, but it wouldn't be long before they regretted it.
-
We can accept Ireland missing sitters
We can accept him being disgruntled at being left out
We can even accept his ridiculous wages.
What we can't accept is seeing somebody refuse to put in the required graft, it's an insult to any supporter who spends their hard earned dosh to follow the club.
The minimum requirement should alway be 100% effort, Harewood was shit but he always gave it his all.
This chrome domed loon is an insult to the club and supporters.
-
It has the makings of a nightmare scenario. He leaves in a cloud of acrimony, for peanuts, then is brilliant for the rest of his career and scores in front of the Holte as regular as clockwork
-
He can fuck right off as far as i'm concerned. Whenever he's played he's hidden and looked half arsed. He should look to Bannan and Hogg as an example of where a little effort and application gets you.