Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: eastie on April 13, 2011, 08:36:26 PM
-
Anyone know when the date has been set for his tribunal case, I'm pretty sure he mentioned last month that it would take place in April.
Will the details be freely available or will it be all kept hush hush?
-
Can someone explain the reason for this tribunal? He was on a rolling contract, and resigned. Seems pretty clearcut that he shouldn't get a single penny.
-
We've been through all this before, haven't we?
Anyway, if recent cases subject to this tribunal are anything to go by, constructive dismissal will be the claim, and he will "win".
After leaving the club, O'Neill, who was later replaced by Frenchman Gerard Houllier, had attempted to resolve his issues with Villa but without success.
The LMA statement continued: "Premier League managers' contracts contain a clause requiring the parties to mediate their differences in the event of a dispute and, if the dispute cannot be resolved at mediation, that the case moves forward to the Premier League Managers' Arbitration Tribunal.
"The tribunal is ideally placed to resolve disputes of this nature, combining the skills and experience of prominent individuals from football and the law."
The tribunal has been used in several high-profile cases in recent years.
In 2009, it upheld a constructive dismissal claim by Alan Curbishley against his former club West Ham.
Earlier that year, former Newcastle manager Kevin Keegan was awarded £2m damages plus interest after winning his case against the club for constructive dismissal.
BBC Sport (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/9412724.stm)
-
In both those examples quoted, both managers were on record as saying they didn't want x or y player sold -and then they were from under them.
I don't recall MON ever saying Milner wouldn't be sold, in fact it was him who first talked about the player wanting away and how not much can be done when that happens.
-
I imagine that his case will be more general in nature, along the lines of the goalposts being radically moved and the status quo being dismantled around the time when Faulkner was appointed.
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that this tribunal will just agree an amount of compensation rather than return some sort of verdict. In answer to the original question posed by the thread, I cannot see any date mentioned on the LMA site.
-
He obviously feels he can get a result here, or else he wouldn't be wasting his time.
Just a sad state of affairs whereby any ambiguity or a technicality can see a bloke financially rewarded for bailing on his job.
It would also mean he could argue that 'I was right' next time he's in the running for another post. A surprising amount of dullards outside of B6 actually still think we sacked him.
-
I hope he is awarded Habib Beye as compensation.
-
i'm actually looking forward to this, just to see what bullshit his lawyers can come up with. As i've said before i've got a feeling the general will get a mention and i'm guessing his pals have been trawling here and villatalk for anything that could be construed as undermining him. This is a man who sued a website for printing a letter from a fan calling him an idiot so anything's possible.
-
I imagine that his case will be more general in nature, along the lines of the status quo being dismantled
Who quit, Rossi or Parfitt?
-
Isn't the problem with players being sold more to do with the squad players? He wasn't totally for Luke Young going to Liverpool and he did leave on the same day Shorey went to WBA.
IMO, he was under the impression that he could bring in new faces if a couple of these went. He wanted McGeady, Keane and Parker... But when the board told him no he flounced off.
-
Parker wasn't on the wanted list and he was quite happy for Luke to leave. It was Young who said no to the deal.
-
I hope he is awarded Habib Beye as compensation.
Post of the week.
<clappy thing>
-
As far as I am concerned he walked out and broke the contract by quitting, it will probably be dealt with by out of court settlement. probably a gagging order chucked in so we will never know the truth.
-
Can Salifou be used as evidence?
After 4 years it's about time he did something
-
I hope he gets fuck all and has to pay the club, Oh and 5 minutes before its set to start Randy & the Gen get up and walk out
-
In both those examples quoted, both managers were on record as saying they didn't want x or y player sold -and then they were from under them.
I don't recall MON ever saying Milner wouldn't be sold, in fact it was him who first talked about the player wanting away and how not much can be done when that happens.
Maybe it was that he didn't want Ireland?
Either wau I agree it'll be a settlement of £?m and we won't actually hear anything of interest coming out of it.
-
Maybe it was that he didn't want Ireland?
Either wau I agree it'll be a settlement of £?m and we won't actually hear anything of interest coming out of it.
I wouldn't be happy if he gets a penny, I'd be absolutely livid if he get gets a figure requiring an m at the end of it. Surely it can't be constructive dismissal, considering the evidence relating to the percentage of wages to turnover? And apologies, this is probably going over old ground again.
-
Can someone explain the reason for this tribunal? He was on a rolling contract, and resigned. Seems pretty clearcut that he shouldn't get a single penny.
Surely that's for the tribunal to decide.
-
As I understand it constructive dismissal is about the working environment being made impossible for someone when they have no option but to leave. Like wanting taking a manager you want out and making him clean the toilets. All I can think of along those lines is the often mentioned 'moving of goalposts' from the start of the summer.
-
Surely that's for the tribunal to decide.
Well, yes (although how many times have tribunals / courts come to verdicts that others have found unfathomable?). But if his case is based solely on the fact that he was told to get rid of players before bringing others in, and bearing in mind the wage to turnover ratio, then I don't see how he's got a leg to stand on. In my opinion (better?).
-
As I understand it constructive dismissal is about the working environment being made impossible for someone when they have no option but to leave. Like wanting taking a manager you want out and making him clean the toilets. All I can think of along those lines is the often mentioned 'moving of goalposts' from the start of the summer.
thats why i think he's going after the General. He could probably make a case that some of his briefings on here undermined him
-
I can't remember the general saying anything controversial about MON until after he had left?
-
I can't remember the general saying anything controversial about MON until after he had left?
You're probably not as allegedly thin-skinned and litigious as our former manager though. Allegedly (for any lawyers lurking).
-
We were discussing this on Saturday
If he walked, other than constructive dismissal, why would he possibly feel the need to take the club to tribunal ?
What are the chances that actually the club suspended him ?
-
he said a few things that were picked up on on here during MON's reign. I can't be bothered to trawl through years of posts on the prices of the pies to find 'em, but a delicate little flower like MON could possibly have took offence
-
This is purely conjecture, but considering his actions at other clubs I don't think it's wild fantasy. I have a feeling that he saw the appointment of Faulkner, and the restrictions on transfer dealings put in place over the summer, as reason enough to consider it constructive dismissal.
-
well i don't believe its the transfer money angle. Its not as though MON wasn't allowed to spend a fortune in both transfer fee's and wages. I reckon RL could argue that continued spending could have threatened the future of the club given the losses and that a reasonable manager would understand that.
-
Surely that's for the tribunal to decide.
Well, yes (although how many times have tribunals / courts come to verdicts that others have found unfathomable?). But if his case is based solely on the fact that he was told to get rid of players before bringing others in, and bearing in mind the wage to turnover ratio, then I don't see how he's got a leg to stand on. In my opinion (better?).
The reasons that others find them unfathomable are usually down to them not having the full facts or not understanding the law.
In this instance it is a specific LMA hearing not a general Employment Tribunal, convened to arbitrate because the two sides have not been able to agree on the terms of the severance. It seems to me only right and proper that such a mechanism exists to offer protection to employees in profession where bosses are often very quick to dismiss.
I think the problem is that emotional involvement is causing us to view at something more sinister.
-
emotional involvement is about right.
it felt like being dumped by the missus and not being told why.
give me MON over Houllier anyday of the week. At least he seemed like he believed in the Villa.
-
The reasons that others find them unfathomable are usually down to them not having the full facts or not understanding the law.
In this instance it is a specific LMA hearing not a general Employment Tribunal, convened to arbitrate because the two sides have not been able to agree on the terms of the severance. It seems to me only right and proper that such a mechanism exists to offer protection to employees in profession where bosses are often very quick to dismiss.
I think the problem is that emotional involvement is causing us to view at something more sinister.
Actually, now that I think about it, isn't that another issue? If it's a LMA hearing, surely their impartiality is as questionable as mine, or am I missing something (which is highly probable)? It would be like the PFA holding a tribunal on a player being sacked / fined heavily by a club. Their M.O. is to look after the interests of managers, not to judge who is in the right / wrong.
-
The reasons that others find them unfathomable are usually down to them not having the full facts or not understanding the law.
In this instance it is a specific LMA hearing not a general Employment Tribunal, convened to arbitrate because the two sides have not been able to agree on the terms of the severance. It seems to me only right and proper that such a mechanism exists to offer protection to employees in profession where bosses are often very quick to dismiss.
I think the problem is that emotional involvement is causing us to view at something more sinister.
Actually, now that I think about it, isn't that another issue? If it's a LMA hearing, surely their impartiality is as questionable as mine, or am I missing something (which is highly probable)? It would be like the PFA holding a tribunal on a player being sacked / fined heavily by a club. Their M.O. is to look after the interests of managers, not to judge who is in the right / wrong.
But as far as I'm aware they offer a form of mediation to try and come to an agreement as opposed to having any actual decision making powers in the process? So whether they side with the manager or not, all they do is act as a go between?
-
My understanding was that its the terms of his settlement they're arguing about, not that he left. I'm guessing MON expected a years wages, while the board are saying "hang on, you wanted to leave". This tribunal is so MON can argue he had no choice to dump us a week before the season started, so he can pocket some more cash to tide him over till some other mugs employ him.
-
If it's solely mediation, then fair enough, but if they do have the power to decide on the amount of compo, then I'd be very concerned about their impartiality.
-
thing is MON expected to be manager of West ham by now until he was exposed for taking to them behind Avran grant's back. In a lot of these severance deals the clubs pay them until they get a new job. Maybe they cut off his money when he pulled out.
-
In this instance it is a specific LMA hearing not a general Employment Tribunal, convened to arbitrate because the two sides have not been able to agree on the terms of the severance. It seems to me only right and proper that such a mechanism exists to offer protection to employers in profession where bosses are often very quick to walk out.
This post was tweaked slightly!
Indeed, I wonder how much they'll agree he owes us?
-
Anyone know when the date has been set for his tribunal case, I'm pretty sure he mentioned last month that it would take place in April.
Will the details be freely available or will it be all kept hush hush?
This week, according to Martin Samuel, writing about the Spammers fiasco in The Daily Heil.
O'Neill remains a contender, but has unfinished business with Aston Villa due to be heard at a tribunal this week, while Allardyce may still be smarting at being overlooked in January, particularly as the job has just been made so much harder by relegation.
-
Perhaps the League Manager's Association
will sentence him to death. It would be only fair.
-
I heard it was scheduled for the end of this week and beginning of next.
-
I heard it was scheduled for the end of this week and beginning of next.
It's defintiely the end of this week, although how long it'll last I don't know.
-
He is being represented by Paul Gilroy QChttp://www.leaguemanagers.com/news/news-6754.html (http://www.leaguemanagers.com/news/news-6754.html) who is pretty good in my experience.
-
be nice to know what he's actually unhappy about. Randy wouldn't give him a full payout because he quit? Interferance by the board? I hope we actually find out at the end of all this.
-
I heard it was scheduled for the end of this week and beginning of next.
It's defintiely the end of this week, although how long it'll last I don't know.
Perhaps he'll walk out 10 minutes before it starts.
-
heheheh.....
-
I bet MON reveals that he was close to taking the WHU job - as a way of proving he was actively looking for work and limiting losses.
-
What was all that bollocks that he was saying about the rolling contract thing, that it protects both the club and himself, that if it goes wrong neither are tied to anything too long.
Yet he walks out and then takes the club to a tribunal. Selfish, lying coward.
-
What a complete bastard.
-
I hope they've got the power to imprison him. A five to ten stretch sounds about right.
-
I still don't get it! How can a former employee, who seemingly has had his every request catered for, and someone who causes mayhem by walking out on his employer 5 days before thẹ start of thẹ season, taking all of his assistants with him actually take his former employer to a tribunal. Surely it should be thẹ other way round? As a result of his actions I think thẹ club could counter argue that thẹ resulting chaos caused by his departure has not only severely hit our income this season, it will have damaged thẹ image of thẹ club, and possibly effected revenue streams for next season too. In this case, surely AVFC should be counter suing MON for damages that his departure has caused. Like I say, I just don't get it. Hope thẹ outcome of thẹ tribunal will be made public so that we can all see what actually occurred.
-
Whatever happens, sources close to O'Neill will claim victory. We will have to read between the lines
-
Very much doubt we'll hear anything - would be surprised if both parties aren't signed up to a confidentiality agreement.
-
We will have to read between the lines
We have some world class experts at that on here. Fucking useless at reading the lines themselves but great at seeing implied messages.
-
We will have to read between the lines
We have some world class experts at that on here. Fucking useless at reading the lines themselves but great at seeing implied messages.
:)
-
All we know is that MON had a 12 month rolling contract. If he was sacked at any point in that time we would have to give him a year's salary. If he walked out he should get nothing but MON isn't stupid so if there is to be a tribunal then it stands to reason that he must have some sort of case and enough of a case to get a tribunal which he must think he stands a chance of winning.
-
Is praying at the altar of the Blessed St Martin the same thing as Mons Veneris? I was never any good at Latin.
-
All we know is that MON had a 12 month rolling contract. If he was sacked at any point in that time we would have to give him a year's salary. If he walked out he should get nothing but MON isn't stupid so if there is to be a tribunal then it stands to reason that he must have some sort of case and enough of a case to get a tribunal which he must think he stands a chance of winning.
think we all know where this is going. "they made me do it ........comments from the general in public....., undermining me.......not allowed to buy shit players until existing shit players were sold blah blah blah......"
-
No we don't know this at all. In your little obsessed mind voices maybe be telling you this along with absolute knowledge that he wanted to buy Keane and McGeady.
-
I can see this going to about 80 pages without us ever actually hearing anything new or the actual outcome of the tribunal.
-
Me too. It will probably conclude with an undisclosed settlement.
-
No we don't know this at all. In your little obsessed mind voices maybe be telling you this along with absolute knowledge that he wanted to buy Keane and McGeady.
erm....if you can think of any other reason you'd take a club to a tribunal after you walked out on them other than constructive dismissal then i'm all ears. Thats not meant to sound sarky by the way.
-
No we don't know this at all. In your little obsessed mind voices maybe be telling you this along with absolute knowledge that he wanted to buy Keane and McGeady.
erm....if you can think of any other reason you'd take a club to a tribunal after you walked out on them other than constructive dismissal then i'm all ears. Thats not meant to sound sarky by the way.
It's not a formal employment tribunal, which is where a case for constructive dismissal would be heard.
This is a specific LMA hearing to sort out terms of departure when the two sides have been unable to reach agreement.
-
Still amounts to the same if he's claiming his pay for 12 months.
The club = you left so we owe you nothing.
him = I deserve a percentage/all of my contract because.....
-
Still amounts to the same if he's claiming his pay for 12 months.
The club = you left so we owe you nothing.
him = I deserve a percentage/all of my contract because.....
Huge assumptions there, Greg, based on no evidence. That's not like you.
As Bren, says, he's no fool, so there must be enough of a case to take it this far and to keep the lawyers interested.
-
Still amounts to the same if he's claiming his pay for 12 months.
The club = you left so we owe you nothing.
him = I deserve a percentage/all of my contract because.....
Huge assumptions there, Greg, based on no evidence. That's not like you.
As Bren, says, he's no fool, so there must be enough of a case to take it this far and to keep the lawyers interested.
They are assumptions but i think its about money, otherwise why bother? If the club and manager publicly say they've agreed to part ways then either party would have a problem claiming otherwise. It must be about his pay-off i would have thought.
-
Still amounts to the same if he's claiming his pay for 12 months.
The club = you left so we owe you nothing.
him = I deserve a percentage/all of my contract because.....
Huge assumptions there, Greg, based on no evidence. That's not like you.
As Bren, says, he's no fool, so there must be enough of a case to take it this far and to keep the lawyers interested.
They are assumptions but i think its about money, otherwise why bother? If the club and manager publicly say they've agreed to part ways then either party would have a problem claiming otherwise. It must be about his pay-off i would have thought.
Of course it will be about money in some way but it will be based on the technicalities of contract law. That's why we're in no position to speculate beacuse, other than the headline of it being for a rolling 12 months, none of know what his contract stipulated.
-
well yes but the contract was cancellled mutually apparently.
If you went into your boss and said i want to leave and your boss says fine, i'm quite happy to let you leave, then its very unlikely you'd then say "so how much are you gonna give me for my remaining 12 months? He'd tell you to f***k off frankly. So given that, MON must be claiming some reason why he's owed money or was unhappy with the circumstances of his departure
Of course RL may have said, yes you can leave but you can't join a premiership club for 12 months in which case i could understand his actions.
-
well yes but the contract was cancellled mutually apparently.
If you went into your boss and said i want to leave and your boss says fine, i'm quite happy to let you leave, then its very unlikely you'd then say "so how much are you gonna give me for my remaining 12 months? He'd tell you to f***k off frankly. So given that, MON must be claiming some reason why he's owed money or was unhappy with the circumstances of his departure
Of course RL may have said, yes you can leave but you can't join a premiership club for 12 months in which case i could understand his actions.
So you agree that none of us actually know anything, that there is clearly something that he feels he has a justifiable claim for (or he and his lawyers wouldn't be bothering) and the rest of it is just another excuse for you to wheel out the greatest hits package?
-
If I were the Villa I would insist on O'Neill proving his case in a trial by ordeal.
Being stitched into a sack with an ape, a cock, a viper and Robert Hopkins, then thrown in the cut.
If he lives, we pay off his contract in full
-
Being stitched into a sack with an ape, a cock, a viper and Robert Hopkins, then thrown in the cut.
Nice use of tautology there.
-
thats all i was saying from the start Dave. you don't seek to cancel your contract, have it cancelled and then chase the club for money unless you're unhappy with the circumstances of your departure
Or a Git.
-
Or both
-
If he was on a 12 month rolling contract, persumably it runs from the start of the season - so is he doing this for five days wages? ???
-
No we don't know this at all. In your little obsessed mind voices maybe be telling you this along with absolute knowledge that he wanted to buy Keane and McGeady.
Unfortunately the Keane and McGeady purchases were true and the fact they were refused is true also
-
If he was on a 12 month rolling contract, persumably it runs from the start of the season - so is he doing this for five days wages? ???
My understanding of his rolling 12 month contract is that at any point in time he has 12 months left on his contract, rather than running from the start of each season. I may be wrong though - can anyone confirm how his contract worked?
-
If he was on a 12 month rolling contract, persumably it runs from the start of the season - so is he doing this for five days wages? ???
My understanding of his rolling 12 month contract is that at any point in time he has 12 months left on his contract, rather than running from the start of each season. I may be wrong though - can anyone confirm how his contract worked?
That's my understanding, so if we sacked him we would pay him up a year's salary, presumably this case is based on MON expecting the money even though he jacked it in.
-
presumably this case is based on MON expecting the money even though he jacked it in.
Almost definately. But the bigger question is 'why'? I guess he either feels he was pushed/forced out (constructive dismissal) or it was more a mutual parting of ways than we've been lead to believe. All this "He's a git/bastard/money grabber" is fine for rhetoric on a board like this, but he must have some sort of case for it to get this far.
-
That's my understanding, so if we sacked him we would pay him up a year's salary, presumably this case is based on MON expecting the money even though he jacked it in.
Didn't Robertson and Walford get a pay off? I seem to recall that on the Tuesday or Wednesday after resigning they were negotiating with the board their exits. After reading that link on the PFM site I would imagine they wouldn't have had the same type of contract as MON.
-
I doubt we are going to get any sensational revelations from this. I doubt we will get any revelations at all. Compromise figure agreed and both parties put out a polite statement about each other which lacks any ring of sincerity.
-
I bet we won't here a dicky bird. It will all happen behind closed doors.
As things stand we don't even know what the tribunal is about. Do we even know who brought the case?
-
What if there was a clause in his contract giving him total control over transfers? What if the club altered those terms by insisting on a sell to buy policy? What if he took that as them reneging on a contract and therefore him being entitled to a full payout?
Obviously that's complete speculation but I'm sure it will be a dispute about the terms of his contract.
-
Does he need the money - there was that rumour about dodgy investment in some apartments - good to see he's as financially asute with his own money as hre was with Villas
-
Does he need the money - there was that rumour about dodgy investment in some apartments - good to see he's as financially asute with his own money as hre was with Villas
Would that have anything to do with the Irish developers, Oceanico?
-
The BBC have an article on it now.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13447139.stm)
-
So according to that article they can rule "constructive dismissal"?
-
So according to that article they can rule "constructive dismissal"?
That's what he'll be going for.
Be interesting to see what happens - hope we tan his greedy backside.
-
So according to that article they can rule "constructive dismissal"?
That's what he'll be going for.
Be interesting to see what happens - hope we tan his greedy backside.
The LMA will look after their own.
-
So according to that article they can rule "constructive dismissal"?
That's what he'll be going for.
Be interesting to see what happens - hope we tan his greedy backside.
The LMA will look after their own.
This isn't an LMA process - it's conducted by the Premier League.
-
I bet we won't here a dicky bird. It will all happen behind closed doors.
MON is a media darling.
anything we do hear, will have been orchestrated through sycophantic journalists.
-
No we don't know this at all. In your little obsessed mind voices maybe be telling you this along with absolute knowledge that he wanted to buy Keane and McGeady.
Unfortunately the Keane and McGeady purchases were true and the fact they were refused is true also
I think that is true about McGeady at least.
Assuming the deal/s was within the budget and criteria he was given for recruiting players, on what grounds would someone else at the club be entitled to refuse to sanction the transfer?
-
On the grounds that they are shite?
-
On the grounds that in the old days balancing the books used to mean if you spent a certain amount on transfer fees some of that at least needed to be recouped from sales. With wages the way they are nowadays if you sell a player for 25 million and buy three eight million pound players it appears like you've balanced the books but you've probably got rid of one bloke earning 50 grand a week and brought in three earning forty grand a week.
-
On the grounds that in the old days balancing the books used to mean if you spent a certain amount on transfer fees some of that at least needed to be recouped from sales. With wages the way they are nowadays if you sell a player for 25 million and buy three eight million pound players it appears like you've balanced the books but you've probably got rid of one bloke earning 50 grand a week and brought in three earning forty grand a week.
"Assuming the deal/s was within the budget and criteria he was given for recruiting players"
-
What if there was a clause in his contract giving him total control over transfers? What if the club altered those terms by insisting on a sell to buy policy? What if he took that as them reneging on a contract and therefore him being entitled to a full payout?
Obviously that's complete speculation but I'm sure it will be a dispute about the terms of his contract.
Depends what you mean by total control.
If you mean that he picks the players to buy, doesn't have targets dumped on him and doesn't have players sold without his knowledge then fair enough.
If you mean that he picks the player and the board (RL) automatically has to cough up regardless of circumstances, I'm not sure how that would work. I can't see many organisations giving someone that much autonomy. It would be a recipe for ruination.
Ultimately the guy who signs the cheques has a pretty big say in how his money is spent. If he says no -even by proxy- that should be the end of it.
-
Can we take him to court for completely fucking up our season ?
-
Can we take him to court for completely fucking up our season ?
Must we go through this everytime? How dare he leave a team that has finished 6th three times in a row and reach a cup final and semi-final. Clearly it's all his fault that. The team were really shit and the only reason we finished 6th is because of him, nothing to do with the players...or, GH is not a very good manager, hence the shit season.
-
Can we take him to court for completely fucking up our season ?
Must we go through this everytime? How dare he leave a team that has finished 6th three times in a row and reach a cup final and semi-final. Clearly it's all his fault that. The team were really shit and the only reason we finished 6th is because of him, nothing to do with the players...or, GH is not a very good manager, hence the shit season.
Yes, the 'it's all MON's fault' line wore thin months ago.
-
Can we take him to court for completely fucking up our season ?
Must we go through this everytime? How dare he leave a team that has finished 6th three times in a row and reach a cup final and semi-final. Clearly it's all his fault that. The team were really shit and the only reason we finished 6th is because of him, nothing to do with the players...or, GH is not a very good manager, hence the shit season.
What about pissing away the whole pre season and fucking off 5 days before the season started.
-
There have been 37 league football matches since then
-
Can we take him to court for completely fucking up our season ?
Must we go through this everytime? How dare he leave a team that has finished 6th three times in a row and reach a cup final and semi-final. Clearly it's all his fault that. The team were really shit and the only reason we finished 6th is because of him, nothing to do with the players...or, GH is not a very good manager, hence the shit season.
Yes, the 'it's all MON's fault' line wore thin months ago.
I never said it was all his fault.
What he did was shit but we also got a clown in to replace him and struggled all season.
-
Can we take him to court for completely fucking up our season ?
Must we go through this everytime? How dare he leave a team that has finished 6th three times in a row and reach a cup final and semi-final. Clearly it's all his fault that. The team were really shit and the only reason we finished 6th is because of him, nothing to do with the players...or, GH is not a very good manager, hence the shit season.
Yes, the 'it's all MON's fault' line wore thin months ago.
I never said it was all his fault.
What he did was shit but we also got a clown in to replace him and struggled all season.
I'm sorry, but 'completely fucking up our season' sounds like you were blaming him to me.
-
Can we take him to court for completely fucking up our season ?
Must we go through this everytime? How dare he leave a team that has finished 6th three times in a row and reach a cup final and semi-final. Clearly it's all his fault that. The team were really shit and the only reason we finished 6th is because of him, nothing to do with the players...or, GH is not a very good manager, hence the shit season.
Yes, the 'it's all MON's fault' line wore thin months ago.
I never said it was all his fault.
What he did was shit but we also got a clown in to replace him and struggled all season.
I'm sorry, but 'completely fucking up our season' sounds like you were blaming him to me.
So am I alone in thinking his walkout just before the season started and a wasted transfer window ( buying Ireland and no one else has proved to be a major waste) left us completely in the shit ?
-
...
So am I alone in thinking his walkout just before the season started and a wasted transfer window ( buying Ireland and no one else has proved to be a major waste) left us completely in the shit ?
I've always felt the fact we were on 10 points and in 5th place after the first 6 games before Houllier started making changes undermines the argument that we were shit at the start of the season.
-
It left us in the shit, but the squad and what was left behind was a damn sight better than a team that took 36 games to be mathematically safe from relegation.
-
The events of Aug 9th dogged us for the rest of the campaign.
If the appointment of GH was a mistake (and most would probably concede that now) you have to ask why was such an appointment was necessary in the first place.
It all stems from MON's decision that day, I don't see how anyone could say different.
But GH certainly had enough resources -both in terms of existing players and spending power- to oversee a better campaign than we've witnessed over these past few months.
-
The events of Aug 9th dogged us for the rest of the campaign.
If the appointment of GH was a mistake (and most would probably concede that now) you have to ask why was such an appointment was necessary in the first place.
It all stems from MON's decision that day, I don't see how anyone could say different.
But GH certainly had enough resources -both in terms of existing players and spending power- to oversee a better campaign than we've witnessed over these past few months.
Thank you, so I'm not going mad after all.
I also agree that the GH appointment was an almost catastrophic mistake . Thank fuck the footballing genius that is Gary Mc saved us in the end !
-
Had MoN stayed on do I think we'd be where we are now in the table? No
Had MoN quit 5 days after last season finished do I think we'd be where we are now in the table? No
Do I think our current position is entirely MoN's fault? Not entirely, but his inactivity during last summer in trying to get rid of deadwood and his actions of leaving when he did have had a big say in it.
-
Had MoN stayed on do I think we'd be where we are now in the table? No
Had MoN quit 5 days after last season finished do I think we'd be where we are now in the table? No
Do I think our current position is entirely MoN's fault? Not entirely, but his inactivity during last summer in trying to get rid of deadwood and his actions of leaving when he did have had a big say in it.
What Bazza said.
-
Had MoN stayed on do I think we'd be where we are now in the table? No
Had MoN quit 5 days after last season finished do I think we'd be where we are now in the table? No
Do I think our current position is entirely MoN's fault? Not entirely, but his inactivity during last summer in trying to get rid of deadwood and his actions of leaving when he did have had a big say in it.
Agreed.
-
Like it's already been said, despite the lack of transfer activity in pre-season (and even then we were only one player down on last season, albeit a very good one) GH was left with a squad of players that he should have done a whole lot better with.
-
Like it's already been said, despite the lack of transfer activity in pre-season (and even then we were only one player down on last season, albeit a very good one) GH was left with a squad of players that he should have done a whole lot better with.
That is true, but you also have to factor that the teams we were competing with last season strengthened their squads, whereas ours became weaker in the Summer. And that is no fault of Houllier's.
-
Like it's already been said, despite the lack of transfer activity in pre-season (and even then we were only one player down on last season, albeit a very good one) GH was left with a squad of players that he should have done a whole lot better with.
Yes but if MoN never left or if he had the decency to leave at a less spiteful time we wouldn't have been looking at appointing Houllier or Curbishley.
-
OK, if he enters an early plea I will settle for hanging.
-
Like it's already been said, despite the lack of transfer activity in pre-season (and even then we were only one player down on last season, albeit a very good one) GH was left with a squad of players that he should have done a whole lot better with.
That is true, but you also have to factor that the teams we were competing with last season strengthened their squads, whereas ours became weaker in the Summer. And that is no fault of Houllier's.
Yes the squad became weaker (1 player less i might add) but was it really weak enough to pick up 19 points less than last season?
-
Like it's already been said, despite the lack of transfer activity in pre-season (and even then we were only one player down on last season, albeit a very good one) GH was left with a squad of players that he should have done a whole lot better with.
That is true, but you also have to factor that the teams we were competing with last season strengthened their squads, whereas ours became weaker in the Summer. And that is no fault of Houllier's.
Yes the squad became weaker (1 player less i might add) but was it really weak enough to pick up 19 points less than last season?
No it wasn't.
The upheaval of all that happened when MoN left and the horrendous injuries we have had for chunks of the season have contributed to that too though. Not 19 points worth, but I'd say at least 12 points worth.
-
Had MON have stayed we'd not have Darren Bent. I think I really prefer the latter, no matter how poor this season has been.
-
Like it's already been said, despite the lack of transfer activity in pre-season (and even then we were only one player down on last season, albeit a very good one) GH was left with a squad of players that he should have done a whole lot better with.
That is true, but you also have to factor that the teams we were competing with last season strengthened their squads, whereas ours became weaker in the Summer. And that is no fault of Houllier's.
Yes the squad became weaker (1 player less i might add) but was it really weak enough to pick up 19 points less than last season?
No it wasn't.
The upheaval of all that happened when MoN left and the horrendous injuries we have had for chunks of the season have contributed to that too though. Not 19 points worth, but I'd say at least 12 points worth.
I'd love to know what equation you're using for that.
-
MON never had to deal with a major injury crisis either, well nothing like the one we had. I do wonder how he would have coped. It was the older heads who was out of form during this period and we needed them in form to help the youngster coming through. They lost their form at the end of last season and it carried on into this one.
All ifs and buts I know but I do believe whoever was in charge this season it would have not been much different. GH has not had it easy from the start. I blame the senior pros more than I blame GH.
-
Like it's already been said, despite the lack of transfer activity in pre-season (and even then we were only one player down on last season, albeit a very good one) GH was left with a squad of players that he should have done a whole lot better with.
That is true, but you also have to factor that the teams we were competing with last season strengthened their squads, whereas ours became weaker in the Summer. And that is no fault of Houllier's.
Yes the squad became weaker (1 player less i might add) but was it really weak enough to pick up 19 points less than last season?
09/10 final points 10/11 1 to play
chelsea 86 71 15 less
man u 85 77 8 less
arse 75 67 7 less
spurs 70 59 11 less
man city 67 68 1 more
Us 64 45 19 less
the only team challenging at the top who made more points this season spent close to 200 million doing it!
very bad season from us but everyone at the top is averaging 8 points less to be fair
-
For MON to persue this, he must believe that he has an un reconciled grievance with the club.
There can only be 2 motivations
1. Cash
2. Ego
Take your pick
-
For MON to persue this, he must believe that he has an un reconciled grievance with the club.
There can only be 2 motivations
1. Cash
2. Ego
Take your pick
3. To be paid what he's contractually obliged to receive (if, of course, he is contractually obliged)
4. To clear his name following the 'bottling' assumption (similar caveat to above)
5. An unknown, currently unknowable reason
-
O'Neill dispute delays decision on Houllier's Aston Villa future
• Houllier's position could remain unclear into June
• Tribunal looking at termination of O'Neill's employment
Aston Villa will delay making a decision on Gérard Houllier's future until the club's dispute with its former manager, Martin O'Neill, has been resolved.
A Premier League managers' arbitration tribunal was due to get under way on Thursday to look into the circumstances surrounding the termination of O'Neill's employment with the club, which ended in August last year when he resigned from his post as manager, five days before the start of the season.
There is no deadline for when the ruling of the arbitration tribunal will be announced and it could go on for at least a week, raising the prospect that Houllier's position will remain unclear at the start of June.
The Frenchman is recuperating at home, after he spent eight days in hospital last month with chest pain that was diagnosed as a dissection of the descending aorta. Although his future is a pressing matter, it is understood that Villa have decided that any significant decisions at the club should be put on hold until there is a ruling in the O'Neill dispute.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/20/oneill-dispute-houllier-aston-villa
-
There have been 37 league football matches since then
And there were 152, on an excessive and poorly spent budget, preceding that.
-
O'Neill dispute delays decision on Houllier's Aston Villa future
• Houllier's position could remain unclear into June
• Tribunal looking at termination of O'Neill's employment
Aston Villa will delay making a decision on Gérard Houllier's future until the club's dispute with its former manager, Martin O'Neill, has been resolved.
A Premier League managers' arbitration tribunal was due to get under way on Thursday to look into the circumstances surrounding the termination of O'Neill's employment with the club, which ended in August last year when he resigned from his post as manager, five days before the start of the season.
There is no deadline for when the ruling of the arbitration tribunal will be announced and it could go on for at least a week, raising the prospect that Houllier's position will remain unclear at the start of June.
The Frenchman is recuperating at home, after he spent eight days in hospital last month with chest pain that was diagnosed as a dissection of the descending aorta. Although his future is a pressing matter, it is understood that Villa have decided that any significant decisions at the club should be put on hold until there is a ruling in the O'Neill dispute.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/20/oneill-dispute-houllier-aston-villa
Why? I can't think of any reason why that should be so. Why would this prevent other significant decisions being made?
-
There have been 37 league football matches since then
And there were 152, on an excessive and poorly spent budget, preceding that.
He must have been some sort of genius to get a squad from "an excessive and poorly spent budget" to sixth place three times.
-
anyone can be a chequebook manager
-
anyone can be a chequebook manager
Not if it is "poorly spent" they can't.
-
Poorly spent in relation to what we achieved
-
I predict at least three pages of club spend versus success coming up.
Marvellous.
-
Poorly spent in relation to what we achieved
Right, I see, so although all of the teams that finished above us had more spent on their squads w underachieved. No arguing with that kind of "logic" but, as he suggests, this has been done to death so let's leave it there.
-
not all of them and the ones that did could afford to - we couldn't. But as you say you don't get it. I don't think you ever will
-
not all of them and the ones that did could afford to - we couldn't. But as you say you don't get it. I don't think you ever will
Where did I say "I don't get it"? Surely you're not inventing things just to help an argument along?
-
My own theory is that MON did indeed waste all the money Randy gave him and spent it on rubbish, but managed 6th for three years by hacking into the Premier League's server and doctoring the table.
I mean - how else could he have done it?
-
Sorry Chris. I was referring to your reply to Mellin's post where you cannot understand how anyone would claim finishing 6th 3 times was poor use of the millions chucked at the squad.
-
Sorry Chris. I was referring to your reply to Mellin's post where you cannot understand how anyone would claim finishing 6th 3 times was poor use of the millions chucked at the squad.
As I said, the sides that finished above us had more expensive squads so the money argument is a total red herring. It's not transfer fees that were the issue it was wages and we failed to increase revenue to keep pace with our improvement on the pitch. Perhaps if a few more fans who could afford it backed the club it might have been different.
-
yeah, maybe some more money added to the wage bill would have helped. Maybe an extra 20-30m would have got us a point nearer 5th? It certainly was the sort of level of progress in his 3 years of finishing 6th. Makes you wonder how DOL managed 6th with a fraction of the budget and the same teams with the big money....... The DOL was a genius campaign starts here.......
-
O'Neill dispute delays decision on Houllier's Aston Villa future
• Houllier's position could remain unclear into June
• Tribunal looking at termination of O'Neill's employment
Aston Villa will delay making a decision on Gérard Houllier's future until the club's dispute with its former manager, Martin O'Neill, has been resolved.
A Premier League managers' arbitration tribunal was due to get under way on Thursday to look into the circumstances surrounding the termination of O'Neill's employment with the club, which ended in August last year when he resigned from his post as manager, five days before the start of the season.
There is no deadline for when the ruling of the arbitration tribunal will be announced and it could go on for at least a week, raising the prospect that Houllier's position will remain unclear at the start of June.
The Frenchman is recuperating at home, after he spent eight days in hospital last month with chest pain that was diagnosed as a dissection of the descending aorta. Although his future is a pressing matter, it is understood that Villa have decided that any significant decisions at the club should be put on hold until there is a ruling in the O'Neill dispute.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/20/oneill-dispute-houllier-aston-villa
Why? I can't think of any reason why that should be so. Why would this prevent other significant decisions being made?
Clearly they think there's a chance that they'll say it was all a misunderstanding, kiss and make up (in a get-back-together-with-your-ex stylee) and re-appoint O'Neill. Martin will gracefully accept the offer on condition that we sell Bent and replace him with Robbie Keane.
-
Tribunal latest: It was the supporters fault.
-
Reported as "deadlocked" i heard. The club maintain the level of spending was unsustainable, while MON claims he was given assurances he had a free reign on what to buy. In the end they've decided to skip lunch and bought sarnies instead.........
-
Sorry Chris. I was referring to your reply to Mellin's post where you cannot understand how anyone would claim finishing 6th 3 times was poor use of the millions chucked at the squad.
As I said, the sides that finished above us had more expensive squads so the money argument is a total red herring. It's not transfer fees that were the issue it was wages and we failed to increase revenue to keep pace with our improvement on the pitch. Perhaps if a few more fans who could afford it backed the club it might have been different.
It's a quite a simple fact, which some stubbornly refuse to accept, that you need to spend in order to get anywhere in the CL. Did people seriously expect us to get stablished in the CL chasing pack without serious investment? When you tally up the cost of our squad with others around us we weren't out of sync, although the wages/turnover had gotten out of control, so that means that MON didn't overspend compared to our results, even if he did compared to our turnover, yet he didn't overachieve either. He did a decent job.
-
What a load of Bullshit, why would an ex employee affect key decisions involving Aston Villa
-
I don't think some realise just how close we got to qualifying for Champions League. Were it not for career-ending injuries to Laursen and Bouma I think it's as close to 'nailed-on' as you can get. And, without those injuries, a lot lower net spend as well.
-
The bloke's a ****** for doing it.
I thought about trawling back through records of sales and acquisitions, promises broken and promises kept, successes and failures, to qualify that response.
Could have, but ultimately couldn't be bothered because it wouldn't have made an iota of difference.
The bloke's a ****** for doing it.
-
The bloke's a c*** for doing it.
I thought about trawling back through records of sales and acquisitions, promises broken and promises kept, successes and failures, to qualify that response.
Could have, but ultimately couldn't be bothered because it wouldn't have made an iota of difference.
The bloke's a c*** for doing it.
That's a bit harsh. Sure, you'd expect Villa to show a bit of class and honor a contract but it's Randy's money and I don't think he deserves to be called a ****** for trying to hold on to it.
-
The club maintain the level of spending was unsustainable, while MON claims he was given assurances he had a free reign on what to buy.
Thinking about this, there are two actual issues here:-
1. Unsustainable spending needs to be addressed and the manager ha to work to that budget.
2. A 'free reign' means he can buy who he likes within that budget.
So him being told he's only got £10m to spend is fine, but being told you've got £10m to spend and you can't spend it on who you want is another thing.
If the latter case is what happened then I think there is a case to answer.
-
Interesting that the tribunal is 'looking at the termination of his contract'. What exactly is their to look into? He left didn't he. Unless there is something we don't know about...
I don't think any manager would have a contract permitting him to spend all the money he liked so I doubt it is to do with that.
-
He did a decent job.
He bought some good players.
He bought some shit players.
He was profligate with some of the contacts he handed out
The board should maybe have been less trusting in that sense, but they weren't stupid enough to say"you decide the budget", I can't believe anyone thinks that.
He was asked to work on the wage bill - just like any other manager has to - but he decided he was too big for that and fucked off at the worst possible moment for us.
Did an ok job, then shat on us.
-
He did a decent job.
He bought some good players.
He bought some shit players.
He was profligate with some of the contacts he handed out
The board should maybe have been less trusting in that sense, but they weren't stupid enough to say"you decide the budget", I can't believe anyone thinks that.
He was asked to work on the wage bill - just like any other manager has to - but he decided he was too big for that and fucked off at the worst possible moment for us.
Did an ok job, then shat on us.
Pretty much my view on it.
-
He did a decent job.
He bought some good players.
He bought some shit players.
He was profligate with some of the contacts he handed out
The board should maybe have been less trusting in that sense, but they weren't stupid enough to say"you decide the budget", I can't believe anyone thinks that.
He was asked to work on the wage bill - just like any other manager has to - but he decided he was too big for that and fucked off at the worst possible moment for us.
Did an ok job, then shat on us.
The only thing I would add is that he never addressed the problem of why we were excellent for 7 moths then ran out of steam
-
anyone can be a chequebook manager
Kevin Keegan says you can't.
-
Like it's already been said, despite the lack of transfer activity in pre-season (and even then we were only one player down on last season, albeit a very good one) GH was left with a squad of players that he should have done a whole lot better with.
That is true, but you also have to factor that the teams we were competing with last season strengthened their squads, whereas ours became weaker in the Summer. And that is no fault of Houllier's.
Yes the squad became weaker (1 player less i might add) but was it really weak enough to pick up 19 points less than last season?
No it wasn't.
The upheaval of all that happened when MoN left and the horrendous injuries we have had for chunks of the season have contributed to that too though. Not 19 points worth, but I'd say at least 12 points worth.
I'd love to know what equation you're using for that.
I'm not using any equation at all - just pure guess work and opinion.
-
He did a decent job.
He bought some good players.
He bought some shit players.
He was profligate with some of the contacts he handed out
The board should maybe have been less trusting in that sense, but they weren't stupid enough to say"you decide the budget", I can't believe anyone thinks that.
He was asked to work on the wage bill - just like any other manager has to - but he decided he was too big for that and fucked off at the worst possible moment for us.
Did an ok job, then shat on us.
The only thing I would add is that he never addressed the problem of why we were excellent for 7 moths then ran out of steam
Excellent? Excellent in getting results but overall the football was as disjointed as it gets. The only interesting thing was guessing which 45 minutes we were going to turn up. He did a good job when he first arrived but in hindsight I'd have looked to have seen him replaced after his first two seasons, given the job to somebody that could not just motivate and also knew a thing or two about tactics. Villa Park was never going to be a happy place with MON's football style.
Oops! Sorry, just read your post again and have to agree, we were excellent for 7 moths.
-
What a load of Bullshit, why would an ex employee affect key decisions involving Aston Villa
I'd guess it's because the people who will need to decide those key decisions are distracted by appearing at the tribunal. If that's true then I'm happy to wait a bit if it means that they are 100% focused on what is probably the biggest decision we'll face in a while.
-
I don't think some realise just how close we got to qualifying for Champions League. Were it not for career-ending injuries to Laursen and Bouma I think it's as close to 'nailed-on' as you can get. And, without those injuries, a lot lower net spend as well.
We got damned close. There were a couple of other factors that didn't help either, the biggest one being the signing of Heskey in the January. We then changed the way we played with the signing of Heskey, and also lost momentum after Moscow/Everton in the FA Cup (Another match where MoN put out a weaker side that people forget about).
I still believe that had MoN been a bit more savvy with his squad (making a couple of changes to the team to give players a rest over the course of the season) that we'd have finished top 4.
-
I don't think some realise just how close we got to qualifying for Champions League. Were it not for career-ending injuries to Laursen and Bouma I think it's as close to 'nailed-on' as you can get. And, without those injuries, a lot lower net spend as well.
We got damned close. There were a couple of other factors that didn't help either, the biggest one being the signing of Heskey in the January. We then changed the way we played with the signing of Heskey, and also lost momentum after Moscow/Everton in the FA Cup (Another match where MoN put out a weaker side that people forget about).
I still believe that had MoN been a bit more savvy with his squad (making a couple of changes to the team to give players a rest over the course of the season) that we'd have finished top 4.
Agree which is what makes it all the more frustrating.
-
What a load of Bullshit, why would an ex employee affect key decisions involving Aston Villa
I'd guess it's because the people who will need to decide those key decisions are distracted by appearing at the tribunal.
I'd like to think that after the poor season we've had, the people making the decisions would have already made up their mind.
-
What a load of Bullshit, why would an ex employee affect key decisions involving Aston Villa
I'd guess it's because the people who will need to decide those key decisions are distracted by appearing at the tribunal.
I'd like to think that after the poor season we've had, the people making the decisions would have already made up their mind.
I take your point, I feel confident that they've got a list of targets if GH is to be replaced (which is by no means 100%) however if you take someone like Moyes (who has been touted by a few on here) then do you think he'd even contemplate getting into serious negotiations with us before the end of the season? Stranger things have happened in football I suppose.
-
Interesting that the tribunal is 'looking at the termination of his contract'. What exactly is their to look into? He left didn't he. Unless there is something we don't know about...
I don't think any manager would have a contract permitting him to spend all the money he liked so I doubt it is to do with that.
I've not read all of this thread but is this the general consensus on here? That he 'left'?
Um, how else can I say this without saying this...that's not quite right.
Yeah, that's probably the best way. ;)
-
Interesting that the tribunal is 'looking at the termination of his contract'. What exactly is their to look into? He left didn't he. Unless there is something we don't know about...
I don't think any manager would have a contract permitting him to spend all the money he liked so I doubt it is to do with that.
I've not read all of this thread but is this the general consensus on here? That he 'left'?
Um, how else can I say this without saying this...that's not quite right.
Yeah, that's probably the best way. ;)
What do you think might have happened?
-
I've learned my lessons from the corner-pissers on here and will remain cryptic in my posts.
That way, you can read into them whatever the hell you like.
My post is what it is.
-
I've learned my lessons from the corner-pissers on here and will remain cryptic in my posts.
That way, you can read into them whatever the hell you like.
Then why bother posting?
-
I've learned my lessons from the corner-pissers on here and will remain cryptic in my posts.
That way, you can read into them whatever the hell you like.
Then why bother posting?
My guess is for attention, I'm soooo important that I know more than you do or just more of the ITK rubbish that gets spouted. Who care though? life's too short and anyway and I have learnt from experience that 99% of what I'm told is true is just BS so let the cryptic genus feel all powerful while us mere plebs enjoy ourselves being in the dark.
All we know is that MON resigned but now wants compensation money off Villa??? Until we know what the "reported" truth is then we can't make a comment based of fact but it can be fun speculating.
I have no idea why this tribunal is holding up making a decision on Hollier unless the club are concerned that they might end up before another tribunal if they make a mistake with standing down Hollier and want to make sure it's done right. Whatever happens I hope that this doesn't drag on.
-
He did a decent job.
He bought some good players.
He bought some shit players.
He was profligate with some of the contacts he handed out
The board should maybe have been less trusting in that sense, but they weren't stupid enough to say"you decide the budget", I can't believe anyone thinks that.
He was asked to work on the wage bill - just like any other manager has to - but he decided he was too big for that and fucked off at the worst possible moment for us.
Did an ok job, then shat on us.
The only thing I would add is that he never addressed the problem of why we were excellent for 7 moths then ran out of steam
Excellent? Excellent in getting results but overall the football was as disjointed as it gets. The only interesting thing was guessing which 45 minutes we were going to turn up. He did a good job when he first arrived but in hindsight I'd have looked to have seen him replaced after his first two seasons, given the job to somebody that could not just motivate and also knew a thing or two about tactics. Villa Park was never going to be a happy place with MON's football style.
Oops! Sorry, just read your post again and have to agree, we were excellent for 7 moths.
Sixth place was never going to get him sacked,.Mark.
I found watching us play under him to be a largely tedious experience, but the results ee there. It would have taken a season of tedious football AND poor results to justify sacking him.
One thing I will say is that it is probably for the best we didn't make the CL, it would have been embarrassing watching his unsophisticated football tried at that level
-
All we know is that MON resigned but now wants compensation money off Villa??? Until we know what the "reported" truth is then we can't make a comment based of fact but it can be fun speculating.
So you start off by saying "All we know is..." then go on to state that you can only speculate.
So, which is it? You know or you speculate?
Does the series of question marks after your first statement not indicate that there's some question over whether Martin really did resign? That he's gone to a tribunal would indicate that not all is what it would seem, no?
But, you keep speculating. It's not something I do. I either know or I don't. And if I don't, I say as much.
And if I do know something, I don't share it for the attention. I share it because we're Villa fans. Some, I grant you (like myself), newer than others. But Villa fans, nonetheless.
-
I still believe that had MoN been a bit more savvy with his squad (making a couple of changes to the team to give players a rest over the course of the season) that we'd have finished top 4.
I do think his management of the squad, both in terms of who was in it and how he distributed the finances, was a weakness.
What I mean by that was he built an excellent first team and got them winning games, which isn't as easy as it sounds in the PL. However, behind that he wanted experienced players on wages similar to the first 11 that he'd then use in emergencies and that was unsustainable. Instead what we needed was to have the kids taking some of those places (such as no Beye and use Lichaj) to either save money, or allow it to be used on the first team instead, and have a few more overseas 'punts', which again would have been cheaper.
I suppose it's really a abalancing act as the more you spend on the first team the less you have for the rest of the squad and vice versa. Especially in terms of wages we got that balance wrong. So he bought good players and had a very useful 1st team, but what was behind that had less thought put into it and needed a rethink.
-
This is how I see it:-
RL had requested/ordered MON to reduce the wage & at the same time told PF that no money out until deadwood sold, fair enough.
MON realises he has to balance the books but at the same time strengthen the squad, therefore organises the McGeady & Keane deals.
PF acting on RL's instructions blocks the deal. MON views this as interference in playing matters spits his dummy out & walks.
Had RL been in the UK at the time I think a compromise could have been reached. McGeady & Keane signed with the proviso that Sidwell, NRC et al would be sold asap.
From MON's perspective surely its easy to buy players than sell them & I'm sure he would have wanted replacements lined up before he got rid of anyone.
I mean in what industry do you sack a portion of your workforce & THEN put an advert inthe paper to replace them? Surely you interview a few prospective candidates & inquire to their availability before you leave yourself shorthanded?
What if MON had sold Sidwell & NRC in haste( presumably at a loss) then the McGeady/Keane deals fell through? Surely you increase the size of your squad & then prune it?
I see no right or wrong here both MON & PF working to their own percieved remits but at cross-purposes.
Yes MON left us in the lurch, but if there was no transfer budget what could he do? I'm sure we couldn't have sold players in the five days remaining until the start of the season.
I'm sure MON's stance will be interference in playing matters = constructive dismissal,The boards stance is there was no transfer kitty & he walked.Yet months later £18M was available. I can't see any result be a MON win(IMO).Presumably the club will not negotiate a new managers contract until the result of this tribunal is heard not wishing to be caught out by any clauses again.
Similarly any new manager(David Moyes is the name I keep hearing in the strongest terms) will want his remit clearly defined before committing pen to paper & will also want to review the outcome of the tribunal.
In my ideal world MON did not walk we bought McGeady & Keane, we sold Sidwell, NRC, Habib Beye,John Carew, Emile Heskey.
We finished sixth again!
However, if we start next season with David Moyes & Darren Bent at the club, result!
-
General K led me to believe Mon quit, he was not sacked. I have no idea why he has gone to tribunal other than to say I gather from the press that all other means of mediation failed. I assume the mediation was to finalise a settlement figure.
My assessment of Mon is that he is a controlling pedant who will do his best to ensure his reputation is unblemished and he will have taken this action under the best possible advice and be more than confident he will come out at the end smelling good.
My assessment of the Villa management is that they are, in no way, a match for him especially in such circumstances. There recent past tribunals were not covered in glory.
As to why there will be no major announcement on the Managers position can only be due to the Board having some expectation of illfavoured publicity from the tribunal conclusion which they do not want to detract from the Managerial announcement.
Yet again the mighty Mon is fcking with Villa.s future.
-
Yes MON left us in the lurch, but if there was no transfer budget what could he do?
The job he was paid to do, just like every other manager in football.
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
I wonder if there is much friction within Team O'Neill. I know what my wife would be saying, every day, if I was sat at home unemployed just because somebody else told me to walk.
-
This is how I see it:-
RL had requested/ordered MON to reduce the wage & at the same time told PF that no money out until deadwood sold, fair enough.
MON realises he has to balance the books but at the same time strengthen the squad, therefore organises the McGeady & Keane deals.
PF acting on RL's instructions blocks the deal. MON views this as interference in playing matters spits his dummy out & walks.
Had RL been in the UK at the time I think a compromise could have been reached. McGeady & Keane signed with the proviso that Sidwell, NRC et al would be sold asap.
As I recall, Randy was in Brum, left on the Saturday thinking everything was fine. On the next day MON gets all his staff to agree to quit and hands in his resignation on the Monday morning to PF, who then calls a very shocked Randy Lerner.
My guess is MON realised he'd been found out:
He acknowledged that some Villa fans were not happy and beginning to question his decisions.
He knew he didn't have the appetite to carry on for another season, especially having been linked to the Liverpool job.
He realised he was going to look rather foolish when Lerner saw the resale value of his purchases.
He knew that if he left when he did he'd still have his reputation intact.
He knew he had a ready made excuse he could give his mates in the press
He knew the timing of his resignation would likely mean Villa would struggle to hit 6th place again.
He knew he'd soon be offered a new job.
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
They didn't have to. In fact, the entire team walking out en masse left us more in the shit than he did.
-
Come again ?
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
They didn't have to. In fact, the entire team walking out en masse left us more in the shit than he did.
They came as a team, if MON felt aggrieved then I am sure they shared it so it's no surprise that they stuck together. Just as if the manager had been sacked they'd have been shown the door too.
I think Willie Anderson has probably got it about right.
-
Team O'Neill didn't have to walk out just because their boss did. If they'd stayed to tide things over as most coaching staffs have the decency to do, we might not have fared so badly.
-
Team O'Neill didn't have to walk out just because their boss did. If they'd stayed to tide things over as most coaching staffs have the decency to do, we might not have fared so badly.
Oh Right, Yeah. I'm with you on that one Dave.
-
It showed some amazing loyalty from them, I wonder how they are all coping financially as none of them would have been on MON's salary. He is probably subsidising them!
-
It showed some amazing loyalty from them, I wonder how they are all coping financially as none of them would have been on MON's salary. He is probably subsidising them!
I bet they are constantly leaving long messages on his voicemail. And when they come by his house, he crouches behind the sofa and pretends to be out
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
They didn't have to. In fact, the entire team walking out en masse left us more in the shit than he did.
They came as a team, if MON felt aggrieved then I am sure they shared it so it's no surprise that they stuck together. Just as if the manager had been sacked they'd have been shown the door too.
I think Willie Anderson has probably got it about right.
Any chance of any proof with that one?
-
It showed some amazing loyalty from them, I wonder how they are all coping financially as none of them would have been on MON's salary. He is probably subsidising them!
I think they all got pay-offs from the club. MON being manager, had a different type of contract. The LMA site explains this in terms of how managers have certain additional clauses in their contracts.
-
How much do coaches earn? I doubt they will be struggling to get by and looking for some pennies for the meter down the back of the coach.
Do we know if any of them have successfully negotiated pay offs? It might be down to that if they haven't. If they have all mutually agreed with the club for pay offs then it obviously won't be that.
I still think there is something underneath this that we don't know that MoN is basing his claim on.
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
They didn't have to. In fact, the entire team walking out en masse left us more in the shit than he did.
They came as a team, if MON felt aggrieved then I am sure they shared it so it's no surprise that they stuck together. Just as if the manager had been sacked they'd have been shown the door too.
I think Willie Anderson has probably got it about right.
Any chance of any proof with that one?
Proof?
Why single out my bit of speculation when the whole thread contains nothing but?
-
And as we saw with Roeder, because a coach isn't employed permanently by one club doesn't mean he's not earning.
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
They didn't have to. In fact, the entire team walking out en masse left us more in the shit than he did.
They came as a team, if MON felt aggrieved then I am sure they shared it so it's no surprise that they stuck together. Just as if the manager had been sacked they'd have been shown the door too.
I think Willie Anderson has probably got it about right.
Any chance of any proof with that one?
Proof?
Why single out my bit of speculation when the whole thread contains nothing but?
Because it was my post you were disagreeing with?
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
They didn't have to. In fact, the entire team walking out en masse left us more in the shit than he did.
They came as a team, if MON felt aggrieved then I am sure they shared it so it's no surprise that they stuck together. Just as if the manager had been sacked they'd have been shown the door too.
I think Willie Anderson has probably got it about right.
Any chance of any proof with that one?
Proof?
Why single out my bit of speculation when the whole thread contains nothing but?
Because it was my post you were disagreeing with?
Proof? PROOF? YOU WANT PROOF?
You can't handle the Proof!
-
Anybody else thought that maybe MON's fighting for adequate payouts not just for him but all his staff who walked with him too?
They didn't have to. In fact, the entire team walking out en masse left us more in the shit than he did.
They came as a team, if MON felt aggrieved then I am sure they shared it so it's no surprise that they stuck together. Just as if the manager had been sacked they'd have been shown the door too.
I think Willie Anderson has probably got it about right.
Any chance of any proof with that one?
Proof?
Why single out my bit of speculation when the whole thread contains nothing but?
Because it was my post you were disagreeing with?
Have you got any proof that they didn't have to walk out?
-
From MON's perspective surely its easy to buy players than sell them & I'm sure he would have wanted replacements lined up before he got rid of anyone.
I mean in what industry do you sack a portion of your workforce & THEN put an advert inthe paper to replace them?
Ya think? Where were you between 2006-2010? (winky effort)
The above scenario played out on more than one occasion.
-
I get pissed off with many things every day at work, if I walk now without the right procedures I aint getting no tribunal.
In fact I do want to leave and will leave soon, as soon as my mortgage is sorted I will inform my employers and give them four weeks notice. I have already told my work mates I'm off to help prepare them (as mates).
I enjoyed his time with us, for the most part. I thought he was a man of integrity. I was wrong. Randy backed him well, we as fans pretty much backed him well. Leaving when he did is no way to pay back Aston Villa FC and it's fans.
-
Also while I'm having a rant, who (or have I just imagined this) refunded the fans back who went all the way to Vienna after fielding the weakened team? I presume it did not come out of MON's pocket.
If this tribunal costs Villa any money I hope he gets the Birmingham City job one day and rots in hell, or maybe gets to work alongside those muppets at West Ham and yo yo's up and down the league with them.
Rant over.
-
way i see it, we KNOW MON was telling his mates in the press this time last year how he was going to sit down with Lerner, how he didn't have to do the job and how the fans were very ungrateful and if the liverpool job was available he was free come June etc etc...
At the same time we KNOW Randy was worried about the wage bill and wanted it lowered
We KNOW MON agreed to stay following his meeting with Lerner as he was still here in August and putting the finishing touches to the disaster that was Ireland's transfer
Given those circumstances i'm guessing Milner off the wages budget and Ireland on hadn't probably lowered it, more likely raised it.
MON wants to add Keane and the other dullard to the wage bill, and the club baulk at allowing these transfers to go through while the squad is still full of overpaid deadwood.
And quite right too.
-
Aye.
"You want to sign McGeady when we already have three decent wingers on the books?" would also be a perfectly reasonable question for the powers at be to ask.
-
What pisses me off more than anything about this whole fucking mess, and the shit he left us in, is that it is still affecting the club today. I heard Brad Friedel talking to Collymore on the radio this afternoon and basically his contract talks are on hold until the tribunal is sorted. HE IS NOT EVEN AT OUR CLUB ANYMORE AND HE IS STILL AFFECTING DECISIONS!!! Why is this affecting the contract talks, i dont know, if anyone does, then please say, Im just a bit thick!
-
Everybody at the club is focusing on the tribunal. The board members and the lawyers both of whom are needed for contracts would be in particular affected.
-
Aye.
"You want to sign McGeady when we already have three decent wingers on the books?" would also be a perfectly reasonable question for the powers at be to ask.
You forgot the " and he's is absolutely crap" part of that sentence.
-
Everybody at the club is focusing on the tribunal. The board members and the lawyers both of whom are needed for contracts would be in particular affected.
Tribunals tend to be nightmares. Even if one party thinks they have a cast iron case, it doesn't mean they will win. Such is life.
-
What pisses me off more than anything about this whole fucking mess, and the shit he left us in, is that it is still affecting the club today. I heard Brad Friedel talking to Collymore on the radio this afternoon and basically his contract talks are on hold until the tribunal is sorted. HE IS NOT EVEN AT OUR CLUB ANYMORE AND HE IS STILL AFFECTING DECISIONS!!! Why is this affecting the contract talks, i dont know, if anyone does, then please say, Im just a bit thick!
Well, although I find that incredibly hard to believe, if it is true, thats the club's fault.
What possible ramifications could the outcome of a tribunal hearing have on a contract renewal for a member of the playing staff?
-
This is how I see it:-
RL had requested/ordered MON to reduce the wage & at the same time told PF that no money out until deadwood sold, fair enough.
MON realises he has to balance the books but at the same time strengthen the squad, therefore organises the McGeady & Keane deals.
PF acting on RL's instructions blocks the deal. MON views this as interference in playing matters spits his dummy out & walks.
Had RL been in the UK at the time I think a compromise could have been reached. McGeady & Keane signed with the proviso that Sidwell, NRC et al would be sold asap.
As I recall, Randy was in Brum, left on the Saturday thinking everything was fine. On the next day MON gets all his staff to agree to quit and hands in his resignation on the Monday morning to PF, who then calls a very shocked Randy Lerner.
My guess is MON realised he'd been found out:
He acknowledged that some Villa fans were not happy and beginning to question his decisions.
He knew he didn't have the appetite to carry on for another season, especially having been linked to the Liverpool job.
He realised he was going to look rather foolish when Lerner saw the resale value of his purchases.
He knew that if he left when he did he'd still have his reputation intact.
He knew he had a ready made excuse he could give his mates in the press
He knew the timing of his resignation would likely mean Villa would struggle to hit 6th place again.
He knew he'd soon be offered a new job.
His body language at the Valencia friendly was very odd.
For starters, it ws the first time I'd ever seen him in a suit at a Villa game. Wasn't he also up in the stands?
-
As above when you saw him post-match against Valencia it was obvious all wasn't well.
-
The players mentioned that he hadn't seemed himself all summer.
In fact Bannan went a step further and said it might have been down to not getting the Liverpool job.
-
All we know is that MON resigned but now wants compensation money off Villa??? Until we know what the "reported" truth is then we can't make a comment based of fact but it can be fun speculating.
So you start off by saying "All we know is..." then go on to state that you can only speculate.
So, which is it? You know or you speculate?
Does the series of question marks after your first statement not indicate that there's some question over whether Martin really did resign? That he's gone to a tribunal would indicate that not all is what it would seem, no?
But, you keep speculating. It's not something I do. I either know or I don't. And if I don't, I say as much.
And if I do know something, I don't share it for the attention. I share it because we're Villa fans. Some, I grant you (like myself), newer than others. But Villa fans, nonetheless.
Haha FAIL 1. The question marks clearly weren't cryptic enough for you! They were because I DIDN'T know if MON was after compensation, as for resigning as I said I'm one of the Plebs who only knows what was reported obviously you are an ITK.
FAIL 2. Are you now saying that you "share" this information because that's not what you said in your earlier posts, you are indeed a very cryptic person so much so that you have even confused yourself.
For all I know you may well be MON but I don't care who you are. I don't even care about the posters who claim to be ITK some of them are funny but the ones that piss me off are your smug type who say nothing while trying to imply they know more than anyone on the forum. Villa fan or not I "just don't like you". Hahahaha.
-
The players mentioned that he hadn't seemed himself all summer.
In fact Bannan went a step further and said it might have been down to not getting the Liverpool job.
Well, it's a good job that this tribunal isn't taking place in a court of law because this would be an open and shut case.
You don't turn up in the House of Lords without pretty clear evidence that people haven't seemed themselves or even that their employees consider that they might b a bit peeved because of a missed opportunity.
These tribunals really are a mockery of all it is to be a free Englishman. We already know, through our own conjectures, exactly what the details of this unreported case are. Why don't they just ask us?
-
Everybody at the club is focusing on the tribunal. The board members and the lawyers both of whom are needed for contracts would be in particular affected.
Tribunals tend to be nightmares. Even if one party thinks they have a cast iron case, it doesn't mean they will win. Such is life.
When I cover a tribunal these days I try to avoid speculating on who will win. I am nearly always wrong.
-
The players mentioned that he hadn't seemed himself all summer.
In fact Bannan went a step further and said it might have been down to not getting the Liverpool job.
Well, it's a good job that this tribunal isn't taking place in a court of law because this would be an open and shut case.
You don't turn up in the House of Lords without pretty clear evidence that people haven't seemed themselves or even that their employees consider that they might b a bit peeved because of a missed opportunity.
These tribunals really are a mockery of all it is to be a free Englishman. We already know, through our own conjectures, exactly what the details of this unreported case are. Why don't they just ask us?
Very droll.
You'll forgive me if I don't have a huge degree of sympathy for a bloke who had an exit strategy in place since (at least) last April.
-
We already know, through our own conjectures, exactly what the details of this unreported case are. Why don't they just ask us?
This is very true. As a fan of the job MON was doing at the club I am just as pissed of as anyone else with the timing of what happened, but some take it a step further with the conspiracy theories about trying to sabotage our season. Now I'm sure they genuinely believe this, but assumption becomes fact when tainted with the anger for the man involved.
I saw Gregnash mention a few pages back some thing that we 'know', when in fact a lot of these aren't facts, just widely held convictions and ITKs. Could be right and could be wrong, but all we actually know thus far is as follows:-
1. The board had concerns over the wagebill.
2. Martin walked (and even that might be wrong given the tribunal).
3. Both parties said they now longer agreed about how best to 'take the club forward'.
All else is conjecture and I doubt we'll hear anything startling from the tribunal. My own personal hope is that we can put this to bed and get back to talking about the club and people who are still here. MON seems to be a manager that divides opinion like few others, even almost a year after he left, and I think it's time to agree to disagree and move on.
-
Exactly and repeating as if it were fact that Keane and McGeady were about to be signed is laughable. We never had a clue who O'Neill was going to sign - it was the way he worked. Every pre-season people pretended that they had inside info and virtually always it was wrong. E.g. we are definitely going to sign Upson - oh look its James Collins.
-
We already know, through our own conjectures, exactly what the details of this unreported case are. Why don't they just ask us?
This is very true. As a fan of the job MON was doing at the club I am just as pissed of as anyone else with the timing of what happened, but some take it a step further with the conspiracy theories about trying to sabotage our season. Now I'm sure they genuinely believe this, but assumption becomes fact when tainted with the anger for the man involved.
I saw Gregnash mention a few pages back some thing that we 'know', when in fact a lot of these aren't facts, just widely held convictions and ITKs. Could be right and could be wrong, but all we actually know thus far is as follows:-
1. The board had concerns over the wagebill.
2. Martin walked (and even that might be wrong given the tribunal).
3. Both parties said they now longer agreed about how best to 'take the club forward'.
All else is conjecture and I doubt we'll hear anything startling from the tribunal. My own personal hope is that we can put this to bed and get back to talking about the club and people who are still here. MON seems to be a manager that divides opinion like few others, even almost a year after he left, and I think it's time to agree to disagree and move on.
Sorry but all the things i put down as us knowing were actual statements made public either by MON or the board. Unless you're claiming they were lying. i don't see how they can't be facts.
-
Sorry but all the things i put down as us knowing were actual statements made public either by MON or the board. Unless you're claiming they were lying. i don't see how they can't be facts.
OK then, lets take these one at a time:-
way i see it, we KNOW MON was telling his mates in the press this time last year how he was going to sit down with Lerner, how he didn't have to do the job and how the fans were very ungrateful and if the liverpool job was available he was free come June etc etc...
So you've got these conversations taped or a direct quote on MON saying he wanted the Liverpool job? I'm sure you'll come back with the Barry Bannan thing, but do you really think MON confided in him or was he just passing on dressing room rumours?
At the same time we KNOW Randy was worried about the wage bill and wanted it lowered
I'll give you that one via the General's comments.
We KNOW MON agreed to stay following his meeting with Lerner as he was still here in August and putting the finishing touches to the disaster that was Ireland's transfer
How do we know what involvement he had with that or whether he wanted Ireland or not. It has been suggested he did, but again is this not just vague ITKs?
Given those circumstances i'm guessing Milner off the wages budget and Ireland on hadn't probably lowered it, more likely raised it.
As far as I know Ireland signed for the same wage Milner was on with a pay off from City making up the difference.
MON wants to add Keane and the other dullard to the wage bill, and the club baulk at allowing these transfers to go through while the squad is still full of overpaid deadwood.
Again, there was paper speculation on these signings but never a single quote from the club, MON, the selling clubs or agents about the transfer. I'll be honest and say it's quite likely, but we don't KNOW it.
So basically the only 100% fact you've raised is Randy's desire to lower the wagebill.
-
erm.... the MON stuff i mentioned is from interviews with the guy himself with quotes i might add, so unless he was bullshitting i don't see your arguement. he said he might leave, he said he was having a meeting with lerner. the rest was questimation and supposition and never had the "know" before it.
-
erm.... the MON stuff i mentioned is from interviews with the guy himself with quotes i might add, so unless he was bullshitting i don't see your arguement. he said he might leave, he said he was having a meeting with lerner. the rest was questimation and supposition and never had the "know" before it.
OK. Thanks for clarifying that you 'know' very little.
-
Your inability to read a post properly is hardly my fault old chap.
-
Your inability to read a post properly is hardly my fault old chap.
Your ability to present opinion as fact is a great skill though.
-
As i've already pointed out john, the three points were i said "know" were from public utterances from the manager or board. Anything else you believe i claimed i know is in your own imagination. As usual.
-
way i see it, we KNOW MON was telling his mates in the press this time last year how he was going to sit down with Lerner, how he didn't have to do the job and how the fans were very ungrateful and if the liverpool job was available he was free come June etc etc...
Now, this may be down to my inability to read posts properly, so apologies in advance for that, but when we start a sentence with 'we know' it's usual to start a new sentence when we then move into stuff we don't know. Or in some way make it clear that the latter part is not fact.
And nice try, but I'll stay away from the insults and not bite back.
-
the liverpool bit is the only part of that you can claim is not known and was added as a bit of light relief. the fact that he was telling everyone he may not continue as manager of aston villa and basically putting himself in the shop window is without doubt. If a player had done that we'd have a very low opinion of it
Anyway i think i'll take the advice of your sig and say no more.
-
Anyway i think i'll take the advice of your sig and say no more.
Oh blessed relief.
-
When does this start?
-
When does this start?
It started last Thursday.
-
Do you know when we will find out the outcome? I have no doubt that specky twat has been preparing his case the day after he left.
-
This just in, wonder how much he got?
http://www.leaguemanagers.com/news/news-6816.html?
The League Managers Association (LMA) is able to confirm that Martin O’Neill OBE and Aston Villa have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club in August 2010.
The matter was placed before the FA Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal, but was resolved during the course of the hearing.
Premier League managers' contracts contain a clause requiring the parties to mediate their differences in the event of a dispute, and, if the dispute cannot be resolved at mediation, that the case moves forward to the Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal.
The Tribunal is ideally placed to resolve disputes of this nature, combining the skills and experience of prominent individuals from football and the law.
Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:
"It has taken a long time to deal with this matter but I am pleased that all issues have now been amicably finalised. I am very proud to have managed Aston Villa and I wish the club all the best for the future. I would also like to thank the LMA and my outstanding legal team, led by Paul Gilroy QC, and Geldards, solicitors, for their support and hard work in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion. I am now looking forward to the future and getting back into football management.”
Martin O’Neill OBE has managed over 800 games in professional football and joined Aston Villa in August 2006. Having stabilised the club in his first season, O’Neill went on to improve the club’s points total in the Barclays Premier League in each the following three seasons. Other notable successes during his time in charge at Villa Park included European qualification and two Wembley appearances last season, their first final in 10 years in the Carling Cup.
Prior to joining Aston Villa, O'Neill delivered success for Wycombe Wanderers, Leicester City and Celtic. His prodigious achievements at all levels of the game include eight major trophies and three promotions in a managerial career now spanning over 20 years.
On his departure from Aston Villa, O’Neill was the 11th longest serving manager in English football.
-
Too much by the sound of it but at least we can move on now
-
Too much by the sound of it but at least we can move on now
Yes, i'm sure the club can (and will) and i hope certain posters on here can as well, although sadly i have a strange feeling for some, that'll be extremely difficult.
-
It sounds like they came to some agreement rather than either party gaining outright victory. Wouldn't be suprised if part of the ruling is both sides keep their mouths shut about the amount paid out.
-
I hope one day we get to hear what went on. Glad it's finished and the board can get back to work.
-
About bloody time too, hopefully the club can start sorting out the team properly etc. etc.
-
Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:
... in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion.
[/quote]
He obviously thinks he got the best deal.
-
Now lets get started on sorting out the other issues so we can have a proper pre season .
-
Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:
... in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion.
He obviously thinks he got the best deal.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Might mean he went away with something, and he wants everyone to think he got the better deal.
-
Forget about certain Welsh wingers, this is the one legal process that I would like full disclosure on.
-
Not necessarily. Might mean he went away with something, and he wants everyone to think he got the better deal.
Valid point. Helps perpetuate the view that he's not a man to cross. Not a bad thing if you're about to put yourself back in the job market.
-
Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:
... in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion.
He obviously thinks he got the best deal.
Not surprising really, Villa's dealings at tribunals have not been covered in glory, the management seemingly have little idea in that department.
Be interesting to see how each side spins this one.
-
This is very true. As a fan of the job MON was doing at the club I am just as pissed of as anyone else with the timing of what happened, but some take it a step further with the conspiracy theories about trying to sabotage our season. Now I'm sure they genuinely believe this, but assumption becomes fact when tainted with the anger for the man involved.
It might be easier to give the man the benefit of the doubt had he not done something as bad at the end of his reign at Norwich.
At least it's now concluded, but I doubt we'll be hearing any details of it.
-
Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:
... in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion.
He obviously thinks he got the best deal.
Not necessarily. Might mean he went away with something, and he wants everyone to think he got the better deal.
[/quote]
Yep, but he thanked his Lawyers - he must have got what he wanted or at least a compromise that pays his fees and leaves him with a wodge of cash.
-
Shafts us and gets his pound of flesh as well. That must be some legal team - no wonder he bigs them up. Bastard.
-
If his comments today are anything like his post match analysis of how we after another dull game played "scintillating football" and "a terrific performance", my guess is his compensation amounts to his bus fare and just enough coins to buy half an apple.
-
Rightly or wrongly I will never forgive him for the way he left - but I think we deserve to know how much, if any, he walked away with.
-
If his comments today are anything like his post match analysis of how we after another dull game played "scintillating football" and "a terrific performance", my guess is his compensation amounts to his bus fare and just enough coins to buy half an apple.
I wish.
I'm sure his main achievement is to have gotten it out of the way so he can now talk freely again to boost his position in the jobs market. I'm sure he'll start appearing in the various media outlets again, in his new resurrected form
-
Interesting that thirty pieces of silver was enough to make him sling his hook.
He's already a rich man. If he was really hurt at the bottle job jibes or felt that the circumstances of his departure amounted to constructive dismissal, he'd have wanted that on record.
-
Rightly or wrongly I will never forgive him for the way he left - but I think we deserve to know how much, if any, he walked away with.
Why, doesn't make an iota of difference to his walk out, the damage he did then and subsequently.
Its now sorted, Randy and Faulkner have no excuses, we might even see General K again, who knows, its time to start the changes, post Mon and quickly.
-
Club statement coming up soon.....according to Pat Murphy.
-
I hope the ****** chokes on his money.
-
How can man appear so smug just from a written statement?! Lets hope everybody soon realises he is full of shit and not the second coming as many of fleet street now do, good riddance, lets move onwards and upwards.
-
I don't suppose we will find out the complete outcome of the tribunal and who gets what. There is bound to be a confidentuality aggreement in place.
No doubt it won't stop the speculation.
-
Hate the idea we have given the pillock a penny.... for resigning. A further sign the world has gone mad.
-
Villa thanked lawyers, said is was amicable. Nothing more. Pat Murphy
-
Club statement coming up soon.....according to Pat Murphy.
Just heard it. I don't expect MON will get a warm welcome from Randy on his return to Villa Park, assuming he gets a job with a Premier League club.
-
Murphy concluded that MON had pushed the action and that will be pleased that his reputation will be intact rather than with any monetary gain.
Seems to make sense, and until the true story emerges in a book sometime in the future, it really is time to move on.
-
Of course, brand O'Neill is all that counts.
-
Of course, brand O'Neill is all that counts.
I'd be more than happy to hear Randy Lerner or Paul Faulkner's account of events.
-
So would I, but I agree with Ads.
-
Well whatever we paid to finally stop the little parasite from draining us dry, it's worth it. In fact, its probably the first deal involving MON where you can say without question that we've got a bargain.
-
Well whatever we paid to finally stop the little parasite from draining us dry, it's worth it. In fact, its probably the first deal involving MON where you can say without question that we've got a bargain.
Absolutely. We can definitely say that without question, given that we know all the facts now.
It's kind of good in your world - somehow easier.
-
Of course, brand O'Neill is all that counts.
I'd be more than happy to hear Randy Lerner or Paul Faulkner's account of events.
I doubt that it would differ much from what the general has said. MON is the one who hasn't told his side of the story. He has had his tribunal; no details has been made public -- a cynic would claim that MON has played out this little farce to indicate that there's more to it than what we know when there really isn't.
-
must be the first time he has concluded a financial deal so far away from the closure of a transfer window
-
must be the first time he has concluded a financial deal so far away from the closure of a transfer window
The winner.
-
Thank fuck that's over, let's draw a line under it. No one man is bigger than Aston villa
-
We should have gone to court in March, always shot in March! :-)
Hope he got custody of Petrov!
Hope thats the last we see of the GUTLESS QUITTER!!
Thanks for the 'nearlies'....but best of all we have Aston Villa back no longer are we the team where Martin the Messiah happens to reside
-
must be the first time he has concluded a financial deal so far away from the closure of a transfer window
Very very good.
-
Like Gregory and O'Dreary before him, he won't get a bigger job again and he'll have plenty of regrets once he's finished managing.
-
O'Neils image is tarnished, maybe not in the media, but in football circles he will no longer be seen as the messiah. Grieves me that the club had to pay anything to the fucker. Wouldn't be surprised to see him roll up at QPR.
-
Aye, QPR might be a good shout. If Colin Wanker has a bad run in the lead up to Christmas.
-
Rumours going around that McLeish is to quit the Sty. MON and the Rags are made for each other.
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
I wouldn't go that far, or anywhere near. At the time he was the perfect appointment, but his limitations were found out.
-
I remember discussing with you that there wasn't a chance MON would consider joining us Dave. I wish i'd been right.
-
He would never have considered joining us. Until it became apparent to everyone that we would have shitloads of money as Randy Lerner was on the way. He buggered off as soon as it became apparent that Villa Park wasn't built on a bottomless pit of cash and he would have to start getting involved with boring things like 'scouting' and 'coaching'.
-
Like Gregory and O'Dreary before him, he won't get a bigger job again and he'll have plenty of regrets once he's finished managing.
With the exception of Graham Taylors misguided England appointment, like every single ex Villa manager in the last 41 years. They never get a bigger job.
-
I remarked on this in my first fanzine article of the season, if I remember correctly. I honestly believe that some of our fans just don't get how big a job the Villa managers one is.
-
Rumours going around that McLeish is to quit the Sty. MON and the Rags are made for each other.
That would certainly make for an interesting return on SHA's next visit to the Premier.
-
He would never have considered joining us. Until it became apparent to everyone that we would have shitloads of money as Randy Lerner was on the way. He buggered off as soon as it became apparent that Villa Park wasn't built on a bottomless pit of cash and he would have to start getting involved with boring things like 'scouting' and 'coaching'.
I suspect it's true that the promise of Doug selling the club and him having enough investment to compete at the top of the PL was the big attraction. I don't think he would have thought for one minute that the investment in the squad was going to be withheld at the point we were competing for CL qualification and trophies with teams that have invested AT LEAST double the amount of money in their squads. Then again, neither did I.
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
He seems to think there should be a bottomless pit of money. As did Martin.
In fact, come to think of it ..... surely not?
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
If Randy Lerner (personal fortune $1.5bn, family trust $5bn according to Forbes 2010) can't afford it that's fair enough. The owners of those other clubs clearly can.
In that case. what he should do is try to set supporters expectations accordingly. I believed them when they said they were going to invest enough to make us competitive in the PL and Europe
-
Brilliant. Let's tell supporters we expect to finish midtable every season that should be good for season ticket sales.
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
He seems to think there should be a bottomless pit of money. As did Martin.
In fact, come to think of it ..... surely not?
I don't think there should be a bottomless pit but I do know that running a successful, competitive PL football club costs a great deal of money. If you (or Randy) have a strategy for competing whilst investing less than half the amount your competitors are willing to invest in their squad I'm happy to listen.
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
He seems to think there should be a bottomless pit of money. As did Martin.
In fact, come to think of it ..... surely not?
I don't think there should be a bottomless pit but I do know that running a successful, competitive PL football club costs a great deal of money. If you (or Randy) have a strategy for competing whilst investing less than half the amount your competitors are willing to invest in their squad I'm happy to listen.
Where's this half what our competitors have invested come from?
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
He seems to think there should be a bottomless pit of money. As did Martin.
In fact, come to think of it ..... surely not?
I don't think there should be a bottomless pit but I do know that running a successful, competitive PL football club costs a great deal of money. If you (or Randy) have a strategy for competing whilst investing less than half the amount your competitors are willing to invest in their squad I'm happy to listen.
Where's this half what our competitors have invested come from?
Oh my, what have you done...
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
He seems to think there should be a bottomless pit of money. As did Martin.
In fact, come to think of it ..... surely not?
I don't think there should be a bottomless pit but I do know that running a successful, competitive PL football club costs a great deal of money. If you (or Randy) have a strategy for competing whilst investing less than half the amount your competitors are willing to invest in their squad I'm happy to listen.
Where's this half what our competitors have invested come from?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
I wouldn't go that far, or anywhere near. At the time he was the perfect appointment, but his limitations were found out.
My take on it as well. Can't stand the bloke now, but wouldn't let my dislike of him cloud the fact that he did a decent job, up to a point.
-
I think everyone accepts that Randy invests what we can, and probably a bit more, into the club. No, we haven't got a bottomless pit, but there's enough money there for people to a) get angry if/when it dries up for a bit and b) think we should be doing better than we are. When you then judge what MON delivered on the pitch you get drawn into the fact the football could be a bit dull and how that reflects on the money spent, when in truth (or at least my opinion anyway) it should be a balance of the results with money spent by those clubs around us.
Martin had a pragmatic approach to football management where the end justified the means - as in win the match and having Habib Beye on £40k a week doing fuck all was allowed. Other managers may have used the kids and cheaper overseas players more squad-wise, so got similar results while spending less, but I think only the very top managers, which we would struggle to attract, would have got better results without spending more money.
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
I wouldn't go that far, or anywhere near. At the time he was the perfect appointment, but his limitations were found out.
My take on it as well. Can't stand the bloke now, but wouldn't let my dislike of him cloud the fact that he did a decent job, up to a point.
I agree. I suppose the great divide on here during his time was whether or not he COULD take us any further. To my mind we were a top stiker, such as Bent, away from clinching a top 4 place. Although this was further complicated by the emergence of Man City making the top 4 slot harder to achieve whilst also costing us two of our best players.
Guess we'll never know now, not that that will stop us arguing the toss over it!
-
Its never about how much you spend but how successful the spend you make is.
None of the real big spenders would have tolerated Mon's failure rate let alone allow himto continue uncontrolled for so long.
We may not be as cash rich as Man City and Chelsea but few have splashed out for such small returns Mon gave, especially when you consider how managers like Moyes continually did better on much less.
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
He seems to think there should be a bottomless pit of money. As did Martin.
In fact, come to think of it ..... surely not?
I don't think there should be a bottomless pit but I do know that running a successful, competitive PL football club costs a great deal of money. If you (or Randy) have a strategy for competing whilst investing less than half the amount your competitors are willing to invest in their squad I'm happy to listen.
Where's this half what our competitors have invested come from?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've no intention of entering that debate again. The figures are out there and have been discussed thoroughly enough on here for anyone who wants to take an interest.
-
Its never about how much you spend but how successful the spend you make is.
None of the real big spenders would have tolerated Mon's failure rate let alone allow himto continue uncontrolled for so long.
We may not be as cash rich as Man City and Chelsea but few have splashed out for such small returns Mon gave, especially when you consider how managers like Moyes continually did better on much less.
If that's the case why didn't Randy sack him?
His final season saw us finis sixth, reach a cup final and a semi final. We'd all like it to have been even better but that is NOT underperforming on the money spent when we were up against clubs with far more expensive squads than we had available.
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
I wouldn't go that far, or anywhere near. At the time he was the perfect appointment, but his limitations were found out.
My take on it as well. Can't stand the bloke now, but wouldn't let my dislike of him cloud the fact that he did a decent job, up to a point.
And mine. He was good at getting us to base camp and a bit beyond but no further. I don't really count cups as they are a bit of a lottery really and you can be in the FA Cup final or semis by winning a couple of matches. There is no shame in having his limitations as his ability was about the same as many other managers in the Prem who can get you so far, but not quite far enough. Although, having said that, money is now the one big deciding factor. The days of a really good manager bringing a Norwich, Southampton, Derby, Ipswich etc through into the top four are, I fear, gone for ever...
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
What a ridiculous comment. I have been far more embarrassed this season than I ever was when MON was in charge.
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
I wouldn't go that far, or anywhere near. At the time he was the perfect appointment, but his limitations were found out.
My take on it as well. Can't stand the bloke now, but wouldn't let my dislike of him cloud the fact that he did a decent job, up to a point.
And mine. He was good at getting us to base camp and a bit beyond but no further. I don't really count cups as they are a bit of a lottery really and you can be in the FA Cup final or semis by winning a couple of matches. There is no shame in having his limitations as his ability was about the same as many other managers in the Prem who can get you so far, but not quite far enough. Although, having said that, money is now the one big deciding factor. The days of a really good manager bringing a Norwich, Southampton, Derby, Ipswich etc through into the top four are, I fear, gone for ever...
I'd agree with that.
My opinion was that we weren't really going to get any further than we had with him, and that that was mainly down to his limitations and style of football.
To suggest it was embarassing to ever have employed him, though, is mental, frankly. He did a decent job, and he galvanised the club when it needed it.
Similarly, there was no way he should have been sacked last summer, as some were suggesting - sixth again, while not being amazing, is certainly not sacking territory. I'd have given him another year to see what he could do. Unfortunately, he didn't fancy working on the wage bill, as per every other manager in the league, and opted out, so we'll never know.
-
Unfortunately, he didn't fancy working on the wage bill, as per every other manager in the league, and opted out, so we'll never know.
My own take on that is that he probably was Ok with it, but when we couldn't shift the players he wanted to spend anyway, which is when the strains between him and Randy/Faulkner started.
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
I wouldn't go that far, or anywhere near. At the time he was the perfect appointment, but his limitations were found out.
My take on it as well. Can't stand the bloke now, but wouldn't let my dislike of him cloud the fact that he did a decent job, up to a point.
And mine. He was good at getting us to base camp and a bit beyond but no further. I don't really count cups as they are a bit of a lottery really and you can be in the FA Cup final or semis by winning a couple of matches. There is no shame in having his limitations as his ability was about the same as many other managers in the Prem who can get you so far, but not quite far enough. Although, having said that, money is now the one big deciding factor. The days of a really good manager bringing a Norwich, Southampton, Derby, Ipswich etc through into the top four are, I fear, gone for ever...
There is hope of sorts. If we can build our youth set up to a level where we can replace or improve upon what's there already then there is a chance. The emphasis has to be on doing it this way as we can never compete with the Sheiks and Oligarchs. Far more rewarding too.
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
I wouldn't go that far, or anywhere near. At the time he was the perfect appointment, but his limitations were found out.
My take on it as well. Can't stand the bloke now, but wouldn't let my dislike of him cloud the fact that he did a decent job, up to a point.
And mine. He was good at getting us to base camp and a bit beyond but no further. I don't really count cups as they are a bit of a lottery really and you can be in the FA Cup final or semis by winning a couple of matches. There is no shame in having his limitations as his ability was about the same as many other managers in the Prem who can get you so far, but not quite far enough. Although, having said that, money is now the one big deciding factor. The days of a really good manager bringing a Norwich, Southampton, Derby, Ipswich etc through into the top four are, I fear, gone for ever...
There is hope of sorts. If we can build our youth set up to a level where we can replace or improve upon what's there already then there is a chance. The emphasis has to be on doing it this way as we can never compete with the Sheiks and Oligarchs. Far more rewarding too.
I also expect there will be lots of other clubs who have previously spent big, who will be looking at that route, too.
-
He was to Villa, as many "turn-around-management" is in normal business. Get a profile to turn the tide. When that is done, you change it with another profile to accelerate.
-
The key for clubs like us is the youth set up being successfully used alongside buying good players. We're not going to get a whole 1st 11 from the academy to challenge the top 4, but we might get one or two and that allows the funds we do have to be used better.
As a very simple example, you're building a team from scratch and need to buy 11 £10m players. If two of those can be youth products that's an extra £20m to spend, so you could then buy two £20m players, instead of £10m ones, and that might give you an edge.
-
As others have said, it was down to MON that we achieved 6th three times in a row. But it's also down to MON that we never could manage a full on attack on 4th place. The (comparably) poor conditioning of the squad plus his insistence on playing the same team whenever possible meant that we would always run out of steam come the business end of the season.
-
Contested hearings don't normally settle that far into them unless either:-
a) One side's witness(es) have been a disaster and they have been advised they are going to lose so they cave in; or
b) The Judge/Panel Chairman gives one side or another a strong hint that they should "reconsider their position" and they take the hint and settle.
I will leave people to decide what conclusions they may/may not draw from that.
-
Hope he got custody of Heskey.
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
What a ridiculous comment. I have been far more embarrassed this season than I ever was when MON was in charge.
I don't know. I was fairly red in the face at Stamford Bridge. That was as low since the Sty back in '02.
-
"It was terrific, just terrific. It was a difficult period, but we've overcome that now and I'm absolutely delighted with the outcome."
-
Aye. perfect for each other.Embarassment we ever employed him.
What a ridiculous comment. I have been far more embarrassed this season than I ever was when MON was in charge.
I don't know. I was fairly red in the face at Stamford Bridge. That was as low since the Sty back in '02.
Fair comment, I did think of that shambles just as I clicked post! The point I was trying to make though was how utterly ludicrous it is to say it's an embarrassment to have employed a manager who did so well for us. Yes I know there was no trophy but I will always remember MON's time very fondly and with great pride. In fact anything but embarrasment.
-
He would never have considered joining us. Until it became apparent to everyone that we would have shitloads of money as Randy Lerner was on the way. He buggered off as soon as it became apparent that Villa Park wasn't built on a bottomless pit of cash and he would have to start getting involved with boring things like 'scouting' and 'coaching'.
I suspect it's true that the promise of Doug selling the club and him having enough investment to compete at the top of the PL was the big attraction. I don't think he would have thought for one minute that the investment in the squad was going to be withheld at the point we were competing for CL qualification and trophies with teams that have invested AT LEAST double the amount of money in their squads. Then again, neither did I.
Surely in that case O'Neill would have tried to argue constructive dismissal at a tribunal?
And since when were Man United, Chelsea and Arsenal our competitors and Everton not? We were never any competition to them at any point in the last 10 years and of the chasing pack of clubs we were amongst only Man City have outspent us and whilst that has worked for them it would not have been sustainable for us or our owners.
-
Surely in that case O'Neill would have tried to argue constructive dismissal at a tribunal?
And since when were Man United, Chelsea and Arsenal our competitors and Everton not? We were never any competition to them at any point in the last 10 years and of the chasing pack of clubs we were amongst only Man City have outspent us and whilst that has worked for them it would not have been sustainable for us or our owners.
Two points:-
1. How do we know he didn't?
2. We were competing against Arsenal for 4th in 08/09, Man Utd for the Carling Cup in 2010 and Man City, plus Spurs, for 4th in 09/10.
-
"Competing against Man United" to me implies more than "playing them in the Carling Cup final"
By that definition, Blues not only were competing with Arsenal this season, they actually overtook them
-
The original point Villadawg made was:-
we were competing for CL qualification and trophies with teams that have invested AT LEAST double the amount of money in their squads
I wouldn't say that we were close to Man Utd because we played them in a final, or anything similar in relation to Blues/Arsenal, just that these sides were still impediments to us winnig trophies, which is what I think the 'dawg was getting at.
-
Mon did a decent job here, not great and not shit- he established us in the top 6 but couldn't take it to the next step.
The time was right for the club and him to part company but he should have gone last may-he had taken us as far as he could in my opinion, but I certainly will not forget some great times while he was in the hotseat as well as some dire ones.
-
Hope he got custody of Heskey.
Snigger
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
If Randy Lerner (personal fortune $1.5bn, family trust $5bn according to Forbes 2010) can't afford it that's fair enough. The owners of those other clubs clearly can.
In that case. what he should do is try to set supporters expectations accordingly. I believed them when they said they were going to invest enough to make us competitive in the PL and Europe
Didn't he say right from the outset that it wouldn't be a Chelsea scenario ( ie him throwing money at the thing with a load of vanity buys)?
I think being the third highest spenders in the league during MON's time here and backing his replacement with an £18 rising to £24 million investment on one player -just a few months after he arrived- might be viewed in most reasonable circles as investing enough to make us competitive in the PL and Europe.
That two managers in a row haven't maximised that advantage is a separate argument altogether.
-
Speaking of Chelsea, I wonder if MON is sitting by the phone waiting for it to ring?
-
Speaking of Chelsea, I wonder if MON is sitting by the phone waiting for it to ring?
*chuckle*
obviously, the Chelsea job wouldn't be a patch on the Liverpool one.
-
MON's a good manager. He has always done well wherever he has been. He just isn't as good as we hoped he would be.
MON has his ideas, knows how to build a good competitive team and has a good understanding of the game, especially British football (not every PL manager would have thought of moving Milner inside). What he doesn't have is the tactical nous, the attention to details and the patience that most great managers have. When he has built a good competitive team, his next move is to improve it by signing (hopefully) ever better players. The ability to work with the players on the training ground, improving them on tactics, skills and the details that may be decisive in close matches, that he lacks. And that's why he was found out. When told to slow down the spending, he had no idea of how to improve the team. It turned out that he was simply a decent manager, but not what we needed to take the next step.
-
MON's a good manager. He has always done well wherever he has been. He just isn't as good as we hoped he would be.
MON has his ideas, knows how to build a good competitive team and has a good understanding of the game, especially British football (not every PL manager would have thought of moving Milner inside). What he doesn't have is the tactical nous, the attention to details and the patience that most great managers have. When he has built a good competitive team, his next move is to improve it by signing (hopefully) ever better players. The ability to work with the players on the training ground, improving them on tactics, skills and the details that may be decisive in close matches, that he lacks. And that's why he was found out. When told to slow down the spending, he had no idea of how to improve the team. It turned out that he was simply a decent manager, but not what we needed to take the next step.
While I agree with what you say, Keegan thought of moving Milner inside at Newcastle - that's where he played his last few games for them.
A couple of Newcastle acquaintances of mine used to tell me that their fans always wanted to see him used inside more often.
-
MON's a good manager. He has always done well wherever he has been. He just isn't as good as we hoped he would be.
MON has his ideas, knows how to build a good competitive team and has a good understanding of the game, especially British football (not every PL manager would have thought of moving Milner inside). What he doesn't have is the tactical nous, the attention to details and the patience that most great managers have. When he has built a good competitive team, his next move is to improve it by signing (hopefully) ever better players. The ability to work with the players on the training ground, improving them on tactics, skills and the details that may be decisive in close matches, that he lacks. And that's why he was found out. When told to slow down the spending, he had no idea of how to improve the team. It turned out that he was simply a decent manager, but not what we needed to take the next step.
While I agree with what you say, Keegan thought of moving Milner inside at Newcastle - that's where he played his last few games for them.
A couple of Newcastle acquaintances of mine used to tell me that their fans always wanted to see him used inside more often.
Milner really impressed me at Newcastle when he played inside, he's never a winger, can't cross for a start.
Agree with Eig. MON's idea of tactically improving the team is restricted to buying better players. It's no wonder he ran away.
-
So you expected to see Villa bankrupt themselves trying to spend as much as Man City? I'm glad you're not Chairman.
If Randy Lerner (personal fortune $1.5bn, family trust $5bn according to Forbes 2010) can't afford it that's fair enough. The owners of those other clubs clearly can.
In that case. what he should do is try to set supporters expectations accordingly. I believed them when they said they were going to invest enough to make us competitive in the PL and Europe
Didn't he say right from the outset that it wouldn't be a Chelsea scenario ( ie him throwing money at the thing with a load of vanity buys)?
I think being the third highest spenders in the league during MON's time here and backing his replacement with an £18 rising to £24 million investment on one player -just a few months after he arrived- might be viewed in most reasonable circles as investing enough to make us competitive in the PL and Europe.
That two managers in a row haven't maximised that advantage is a separate argument altogether.
Our squad when he bought the club for £64m was worth £40m + Gabby. We know that because that is how much we raised by disposing of that squad.
During the first 4 years we invested £20m per season on improving the squad. That level of investment had been enough to keep steadily improving. I don't think it needed Chelsea or Man City type investment and there's been nothing to suggest the manager was asking for that type of investment.
It's great that we bought Bent but we did so with money raised from selling Milner, there hasn't been any significant investment in improving the squad since summer 2009.
I appreciate the job O'Neill did when he was here but I don't give a shit about him now. I'm concerned with how any manager can be expected to bridge the gap without even those modest (in PL terms) levels of investment.
-
MON's a good manager. He has always done well wherever he has been. He just isn't as good as we hoped he would be.
In a nutshell.
Nobody could reasonably describe his time with us as abject failure. But for a bloke whose modus operandi was -prior to the Villa job- getting more from less and generally exceeding expectations, he fell a fair bit short of that with us.
-
I can't remember the last time we missed a player as much as we do Milner. He should have given us another couple of seasons, he would have been a much better player for it.
-
Our squad when he bought the club for £64m was worth £40m + Gabby. We know that because that is how much we raised by disposing of that squad.
Using the same logic, Houllier must have inherited a squad only worth half that value.
-
Our squad when he bought the club for £64m was worth £40m + Gabby. We know that because that is how much we raised by disposing of that squad.
Out of interest, why the need to remind us how much he paid for the club in that sentence?
What are you getting at? Would it be a "he paid fuck all for the club .. he's invested bollocks all .. he's a tight arse" style line, by any chance? Apologies if it isn't, but that's the way it looks.
It's a bit hard to believe your comment about not giving a shit about O'Neill any more, given that pretty much everything you post is in some way about him - Lerner is a tight arse, Faulkner forced MON out, even - when people praise the Bent signing - yeah, but John Carew (a MON signing, lest we forget) was just as prolific.
That doesn't sound like someone who no longer gives a shit about O'Neill.
Incidentally, net spend table 2006-11
(http://imageshack.us/m/98/2443/captureww.png)
-
Our squad when he bought the club for £64m was worth £40m + Gabby. We know that because that is how much we raised by disposing of that squad.
Out of interest, why the need to remind us how much he paid for the club in that sentence?
What are you getting at? Would it be a "he paid fuck all for the club .. he's invested bollocks all .. he's a tight arse" style line, by any chance? Apologies if it isn't, but that's the way it looks.
That part also assumes that the fee those players eventually went for (and some of them went for nowt remember) was the same as their market value in 2006. So it's flawed from the outset. Or the kind of selective figures one might use to prop up/ attempt to give credibility to an already weak argument. But VD wouldn't do that...
-
During the first 4 years we invested £20m per season on improving the squad. That level of investment had been enough to keep steadily improving. I don't think it needed Chelsea or Man City type investment and there's been nothing to suggest the manager was asking for that type of investment.
It's great that we bought Bent but we did so with money raised from selling Milner, there hasn't been any significant investment in improving the squad since summer 2009.
We lost almost £38 million last year with wages accounting for 88% of our turnover.
How much more investment do you think we could sustain?
-
I really don't want this thread to go the way of so many others but we were paying catch up with squads who had far more invested in them over a much longer period and have a higher combined transfer vLue even now.
-
I really don't want this thread to go the way of so many others but we were paying catch up with squads who had far more invested in them over a much longer period and have a higher combined transfer vLue even now.
Indeed. Davies, Sidwell, Shorey, Harewood, Heskey et al spring to mind.
-
I really don't want this thread to go the way of so many others but we were paying catch up with squads who had far more invested in them over a much longer period and have a higher combined transfer vLue even now.
Whilst there was a degree of catching up required, we already had a solid base. It certainly isn't as if MON was completely starting from scratch.
Sorensen, Laursen, Mellberg, Bouma, Barry, Baros, Angel and quite a few promising youngsters already on the books would have easily provided the springboard for a top 6 - 10 challenge for most competent managers.
-
Our squad when he bought the club for £64m was worth £40m + Gabby. We know that because that is how much we raised by disposing of that squad.
Out of interest, why the need to remind us how much he paid for the club in that sentence?
What are you getting at? Would it be a "he paid fuck all for the club .. he's invested bollocks all .. he's a tight arse" style line, by any chance? Apologies if it isn't, but that's the way it looks.
It's a bit hard to believe your comment about not giving a shit about O'Neill any more, given that pretty much everything you post is in some way about him - Lerner is a tight arse, Faulkner forced MON out, even - when people praise the Bent signing - yeah, but John Carew (a MON signing, lest we forget) was just as prolific.
That doesn't sound like someone who no longer gives a shit about O'Neill.
Incidentally, net spend table 2006-11
(http://imageshack.us/m/98/2443/captureww.png)
I mentioned it because if we don’t have one or two facts and a bit of context in these debates, there's a danger the screaming drama queens will end up dominating opinion on the basis of views that lack merit.
-
Our squad when he bought the club for £64m was worth £40m + Gabby. We know that because that is how much we raised by disposing of that squad.
Out of interest, why the need to remind us how much he paid for the club in that sentence?
What are you getting at? Would it be a "he paid fuck all for the club .. he's invested bollocks all .. he's a tight arse" style line, by any chance? Apologies if it isn't, but that's the way it looks.
That part also assumes that the fee those players eventually went for (and some of them went for nowt remember) was the same as their market value in 2006. So it's flawed from the outset. Or the kind of selective figures one might use to prop up/ attempt to give credibility to an already weak argument. But VD wouldn't do that...
I wasn't trying to determine their sales value in 2006, I was using their actual sales value to determine the level of investment that has been made in the squad, it's the best figure to use.
-
I really don't want this thread to go the way of so many others but we were paying catch up with squads who had far more invested in them over a much longer period and have a higher combined transfer vLue even now.
Whilst there was a degree of catching up required, we already had a solid base. It certainly isn't as if MON was completely starting from scratch.
Sorensen, Laursen, Mellberg, Bouma, Barry, Baros, Angel and quite a few promising youngsters already on the books would have easily provided the springboard for a top 6 - 10 challenge for most competent managers.
Ironically we probably played better football before MON started spending.
-
Sorensen, Laursen, Mellberg, Bouma, Barry, Baros, Angel and quite a few promising youngsters already on the books
Sorry - can't agree with that.
If we're talking from an investment perspective, then you need to remove Laursen, Mellberg and Bouma, the best three players on that list, as they walked for nothing and we then needed to spend heavily to replace them. Sorensen is a decent keeper and Barry obviosuly a great asset, but Angel was pretty much done and Baros was, quite frankly, shit. And of these 'promising youngsters' - where are they now? Gabby and the Bolton Defender turned out well, but look at where the likes of Ridgewell, Gardner and Moore are now.
The simple fact is that the side NEEDED big investment anyway just to stay away from the relegation zone. The fact that we had the 4th highest net spend is an interesting one, but when you see Man City and Spurs above us (Spurs by £18m and already having a better squad in 2006 and City by £300m) is it any wonder they came ahead of us in that race for 4th? The only one on there that shows us up is Everton.
-
that squad finished 6th though. All the reasons given for the decline of the current team could quite as easily be applied to that side, i.e. bad manager, bad morale
-
that squad finished 6th though. All the reasons given for the decline of the current team could quite as easily be applied to that side, i.e. bad manager, bad morale
It finished 6th in 03/04 and two key elements in that, Hitz and Solano, had left, plus it had a fresh and firing Angel. It finished 16th just before MON arrived, as you well know.
-
right so 3 players have gone so its now a shit squad needing major investment? Have to admit i never considerd Hitz are key playrt As i said, the bad finish in DOL's last season could be put down to the manager losing the plot and the awful morale.
-
right so 3 players have gone so its now a shit squad needing major investment? Have to admit i never considerd Hitz are key playrt As i said, the bad finish in DOL's last season could be put down to the manager losing the plot and the awful morale.
That side went from 6th, to 10th to 16th, so was on a decline. Angel was the main goal getter, plus Hitz from midfield, and Solano our main creator. It'd be like taking Bent, Ash and Downing out of what we have now. I wouldn't call it a shit squad, but it did need investement, especially when it's three best players were about to either retire or leave on Bosmans.
-
I'd agree it was in decline but then so is the current side. Good players have left and not been replaced and others have got past it.
-
I'd agree it was in decline but then so is the current side. Good players have left and not been replaced and others have got past it.
I think the major difference now is we have some re-sale value on the players going. Ash is the obvious one, but I think we'll get circa £3m each for Dunne and Warnock, whereas Laursen and Bouma we got nothing. It's also a better squad right now as evidenced by the difference between Angel and Bent. So we'll need less money spent to get to 6th again than we did in 2006.
-
well that with hindsight really. If Larusen hadn't have got crocked, we'd have pocketed more that what we'll get from Dunne and Warnock combined. Likewise, if Mellberg had been given a contract offer earlier he'd probably have had a re-sale value
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
-
My argument is not that we should have got money for Laursen, just that his loss as a player meant we needed to replace him and things like that should be taken into account when we are examining MON's spending.
Took over the 16th placed side, lost three key players for nothing and then made 6th spot ours. During that time the club we often get compared to, Spurs, who finished 5th when we were 16th, have a net spend £18m greater than ours, yet people still ask why they could get 4th and we didn't.
MON is not blame free and shoud have used the money better in some areas, yet if we are going to look at the spending lets do it in the right context.
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
Rewriting history? Bakke was injury prone, in fact he was injured when he joined us. Leeds did not want to extend the loan, preferring to sell him. He was also on stupid wages and would have been our highest paid player had we signed him. We rightly sent him back to Leeds.
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season
The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season
The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.
heh!
And i'll think i'll leave it there....
-
We were midtable until January that season and then signed Solano, who seemed to gell everything together and we went on a fanstastic run to the end of the season scoring loads of goals.
Anyone expecting the squad as it was when MON joined to finish 6th wants locking up for public safety.
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
Rewriting history? Bakke was injury prone, in fact he was injured when he joined us. Leeds did not want to extend the loan, preferring to sell him. He was also on stupid wages and would have been our highest paid player had we signed him. We rightly sent him back to Leeds.
We didn't try to buy him, Doug turned down the money to extend the loan. It was a side that relied on the likes of Aaron Hughes, Gavin McCann, De la Cruz, Jlloyd Samual and Milan Baros.
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season
The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.
heh!
And i'll think i'll leave it there....
If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between 3 consecutive league placings and a one off then it's probably best for all concerned that you do.
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season
The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.
heh!
And i'll think i'll leave it there....
If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between 3 consecutive league placings and a one off then it's probably best for all concerned that you do.
well i'm not sure how you fluke 38 games but as our last title as well as GT's title challenging side stuck out like sore thumbs too its obviously a common occurance
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season
The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.
heh!
And i'll think i'll leave it there....
16th, 6th, 10th, 16th.
O'Leary had two top ten finsihes which earned him the chance to another season but he just took us back to where were were before he came.
O'Neill took us to sixth and kept us there.
You'd have to be a fool to think the two things were comparable.
-
well i'm not sure how you fluke 38 games but as our last title as well as GT's title challenging side stuck out like sore thumbs too its obviously a common occurance
I admit defeat here - you've lost me.
Exactly what principal of nash-logic are you using this time to prove MON was shit?
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
Rewriting history? Bakke was injury prone, in fact he was injured when he joined us. Leeds did not want to extend the loan, preferring to sell him. He was also on stupid wages and would have been our highest paid player had we signed him. We rightly sent him back to Leeds.
We didn't try to buy him, Doug turned down the money to extend the loan.
Leeds were not willing to extent the loan, they wanted cash and you're right, we didn't try to buy him.
Ignoring Bakke, your original post hit the right notes, just not in the wrong order. We didn't have the cash to strengthen or at least, not on players Doug didn't approve of. You never knew with Ellis.
-
On a 'would you believe it' note - The Tehran Times has this story, which proves that they know what's important in terms of world sport - the Villa!
Or are they hoping for MON to join their domestic league?
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=241452
-
In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.
I would argue that the disarray between DOL and the chairman before MON took over is very similar to the scenario GH encountered. What we had to spend on players at the end of DOL's reign doesn't come into it because like it or not that squad minus a few faces finished 6th, as did the squad from last season
The sixth place finish sticks out like a sore thumb from what went before and after, in hindsight it was clearly a fluke.
heh!
And i'll think i'll leave it there....
16th, 6th, 10th, 16th.
O'Leary had two top ten finsihes which earned him the chance to another season but he just took us back to where were were before he came.
O'Neill took us to sixth and kept us there.
You'd have to be a fool to think the two things were comparable.
Take into account getting beat 3-0 at Doncaster and DOL flopping in his only other job in the 5 years since he's been gone.
-
well i'm not sure how you fluke 38 games but as our last title as well as GT's title challenging side stuck out like sore thumbs too its obviously a common occurance
I admit defeat here - you've lost me.
Exactly what principal of nash-logic are you using this time to prove MON was shit?
I'm not trying to prove anything about MON John. I'm just pointing out that teams with the same group of players can finish in wildly differing league positions whatever their value on paper.. My amusement at Chris' comments are based on being told DOL's only good season was a fluke by the last guy on here and probably the whole world to adandon the goodship HMS DOL before it finally sunk, and even then had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the lifeboats.
I'd imagine on a golf course somewhere a pigfaced irishman has suddenly felt like someone has walked over his grave....
-
well i'm not sure how you fluke 38 games but as our last title as well as GT's title challenging side stuck out like sore thumbs too its obviously a common occurance
I admit defeat here - you've lost me.
Exactly what principal of nash-logic are you using this time to prove MON was shit?
I'm not trying to prove anything about MON John. I'm just pointing out that teams with the same group of players can finish in wildly differing league positions whatever their value on paper.. My amusement at Chris' comments are based on being told DOL's only good season was a fluke by the last guy on here and probably the whole world to adandon the goodship HMS DOL before it finally sunk, and even then had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the lifeboats.
I'd imagine on a golf course somewhere a pigfaced irishman has suddenly felt like someone has walked over his grave....
Do you understand the meaning of the word "hindsight"?
It is only after the 3rd season where we finished 16th that we are able to say that he's taken us back to where we started. I realise that honesty and consistency are alien concepts in your world but my position was very straightforward. I said after the 10th place he deerved another season and at the end of that I said that he should go as he flopped.
-
I'd agree it was in decline but then so is the current side. Good players have left and not been replaced and others have got past it.
I think the major difference now is we have some re-sale value on the players going. Ash is the obvious one, but I think we'll get circa £3m each for Dunne and Warnock, whereas Laursen and Bouma we got nothing. It's also a better squad right now as evidenced by the difference between Angel and Bent. So we'll need less money spent to get to 6th again than we did in 2006.
But it's not exactly anyone's fault that Laursen had to retire and that Bouma suffered a bad injury and was released? Had neither of those things happened they would probably have fetched more money than Warnock and Dunne will in light of their being significantly better players. Indeed, the same may have gone for Mellberg had his contract been renewed earlier. We can't exactly blame O'Leary for these things. Though I'm quite happy to.
I do think that a lot of people are being quite unfair on the squad MoN inherited. It was not a 16th place team. The main factor in that was the incompetent jerk managing them. There was a nucleus of decent players and some solid premier league players in it who have had decent enough careers. 11th was about the level of it with a decent manager though to say it was capable of much higher is wrong.
-
My argument is not towards blaming anyone for Laursen's injury, but to point out that the squad, which you say was about right at 11th, then lost significant players for no income. So what was the 11th best squad without 3 of it's 4 best players - 12th, 14th or lower? That is therefore the 'starting point' we need judge MON's spending from and to get to 6th from there HAS to have significant investment.
-
I remember O'Leary as a poor man's O'Neill. They had somewhat the same ideas and the same approach. In the first season he bought McCann and Sorensen, and we were suddenly more competitive. But he quickly lost interest when it appeared that Doug was unwilling to spend, and the lack of interest seemed to spread to the players, and after a while we weren't that competitive anymore. When he left, we appeared to be in free-fall. I don't see MON allowing the kind of decline that we witnessed under DOL, allthough one could argue is that some of the difference is that our problems were evident in DOL's last season, whereas MON was smart enough to stuff the skeletons in the cupboards to some degree.
-
Sorensen, Laursen, Mellberg, Bouma, Barry, Baros, Angel and quite a few promising youngsters already on the books
Sorry - can't agree with that.
If we're talking from an investment perspective, then you need to remove Laursen, Mellberg and Bouma, the best three players on that list, as they walked for nothing...
After three and two years respectively.
The point still remains, the core of the squad was in place to oversee a top half finish when MON joined. It was widely accepted in DOL's final season that we had underachieved with what we had -even though there were a few notable gaps in that side.
I deliberately described the conditions inherited as providing a springboard for a top 6-10 challenge, not that 6th (or higher) was virtually nailed on even without investment.
We needed investment, but MON wasn't starting from scratch -trying to turn a Hull, Ipswich or Blackpool into a top 6 side. I thought that would have been an easy enough concept to grasp.
When MON joined in 2006, the top 4 plus Tottenham, Newcastle and Everton (just about) probably had a better calibre of player to call upon. No other sides did, and I'd include the likes of Bolton, Boro and Blackburn in that. Sides who all finished above us the season prior.
-
We needed investment, but MON wasn't starting from scratch -trying to turn a Hull, Ipswich or Blackpool into a top 6 side. I thought that would have been an easy enough concept to grasp.
I have no trouble grasping what you're saying, just agreeing with it.
The point at which you start means an inherent value to the squad, either as players you use or assets which you sell to buy your own players. So no matter how good that squad was or wasn't, losing two key players to career ending injuries means you can't use them or get any money for them. So when judging how much he's spent issue like that need to be factored in as we needed to spend to repalce them, thereby effectively standing still, before we were then able to add to what we have and transform into a top 6 side. OK those things may have happened out of order (adding the likes of Ash and Carew before needing replacing Laursen), but would you not agree that the 2006 squad would have been poorer without the players lost for nothing? And if so should we not then either take that weakened inherited squad as our 'true' starting point to judge where the post MON spending took us from and to?
-
Sorry, why is this 'true' starting point halfway into his reign now?
Just sounds like more cack handed attempts to make excuses for the man.
-
Sorry, why is this 'true' starting point halfway into his reign now?
Just sounds like more cack handed attempts to make excuses for the man.
Nothing of the kind.
This whole debate started over his spending at the club. That spending was then judged taking into acount the squad he inherited. A squad which needed significant spending to stand still as it lost players for no income.
So it's a simple equation:-
11th best squad at the time (someone else's estimation and not mine, but I'll go with it) minus 3 key players plus net spend = 6th place. If you think the end of that equation should have been better than 6th fair enough.
-
I see he is being touted for the Cardiff City job and Skybet have him as favourite. I thought he was a shoe in for the Man United job! (camp winky face)
-
Chelsea are going to be well pissed off if they miss out on him.
-
Perfect job for him, Cardiff. He can be bigger than the club and they will put up with it.
-
Apparently he really, really wanted the West Ham job.
Not just at Christmas, but recently too.
Seems he's lowered his expectations quite a bit.
-
Whether you think he was a success on the pitch or not, a lot of Chairman will have noticed that he walked out on Villa and then was still trying to wrangle money out of the club ten months on. Doesn't look good and a lot of clubs will have marked his card.
-
I though I heard on the radio this morning that he might be off to the Middle East. O'Leary's last job.
-
I'm guessing his ego is having a problem coping with the fact he still can't get a job in the premier. 10 months and counting.....
-
nailed on for fulham if hughes goes to villa.
-
Whether you think he was a success on the pitch or not, a lot of Chairman will have noticed that he walked out on Villa and then was still trying to wrangle money out of the club ten months on. Doesn't look good and a lot of clubs will have marked his card.
My thoughts as well. The way he walked out on villa and then had the neck to get some milions ut of us may restrict his opportunities somewhat.
I bet Sidwell will be overjoyed (not) if MON turns up at Fulham.
-
Fayed and O'Neill. That'll be fun.
-
Fulham won't want him. I can see them bringing in Martin Jol. MON will have to wait until Bruce has a bad spell to land the Sunderland job.
-
Could see McClaren winding up at Fulham.
-
Whether you think he was a success on the pitch or not, a lot of Chairman will have noticed that he walked out on Villa and then was still trying to wrangle money out of the club ten months on. Doesn't look good and a lot of clubs will have marked his card.
My thoughts as well. The way he walked out on villa and then had the neck to get some milions ut of us may restrict his opportunities somewhat.
I bet Sidwell will be overjoyed (not) if MON turns up at Fulham.
It's a waste of time normally comparing football with normal employment law, but in the current climate, and bearing in mind his CV, I think he'll have to seriously lower his expectations employment wise. Some victories aren't quite the victory they initially appear. Still, he's rich.
-
He is but the saying goes "greedy always wants more".
-
I wouldnt slag off too much, stranger things have happened.
He could be enveiled as our new manager on Monday.
-
No way, not in a million years.
-
Enveilled? Is he going to dress up in a full burqa?
-
I wouldnt slag off too much, stranger things have happened.
He could be enveiled as our new manager on Monday.
If that happens I will publicly eat my own eyeballs. There is more chance of Fat Barry the bluenose getting the job than that odious egomaniac
-
Two seasons ago after we lost 7-1 at Chelsea and MON went on a rant about needing to realise his net worth and other veiled threats, he really needed someone to advise him about how good he had it. By leaving the way he did, considering his control freak status and how he spent the 90m net or so he was given for transfer fees, his status in the game is pretty low at the moment. I really think like other ex Villa managers he will struggle to get a role that even comes close to AVFC. To see him linked with West Ham in Jan and now Cardiff says it all. I don't see Fulham going for him at all. Sunderland perhaps if Bruce doesn't start well but otherwise the EPL could be closed for him I think.
-
Fayed and O'Neill. That'll be fun.
Be amusing to see this supposed managerial genius end up at Fulham.
-
Fayed and O'Neill. That'll be fun.
Be amusing to see this supposed managerial genius end up at Fulham.
Yes, indeed, and with no war chest as regards transfer funds. Incredible yesterday to hear him lauded in all quarters as if he is almost on a par with Ferguson et al. 'Won things everywhere he has gone' and the like..
-
Yes, indeed, and with no war chest as regards transfer funds. Incredible yesterday to hear him lauded in all quarters as if he is almost on a par with Ferguson et al. 'Won things everywhere he has gone' and the like..
Such things used to be said on here.
-
Yes, indeed, and with no war chest as regards transfer funds. Incredible yesterday to hear him lauded in all quarters as if he is almost on a par with Ferguson et al. 'Won things everywhere he has gone' and the like..
Such things used to be said on here.
Come, come.
He won loads of Scottish honours, the fact that you can get one when spending £20 at a Shell garage in Glasgow, is neither here nor there.
-
I wouldnt slag off too much, stranger things have happened.
He could be enveiled as our new manager on Monday.
Are you still banging on about that? You are truly mental.
-
Fayed and O'Neill. That'll be fun.
Be amusing to see this supposed managerial genius end up at Fulham.
Not as funny as him going to Cardiff.
I have a desire to see him fail miserably. Not because I dislike the man, not because of how he left (I'm not entirely sure of the circumstances) but because the media are so far up his arse.