Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Villa Memories => Topic started by: passport1 on November 15, 2014, 11:27:34 PM
-
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
That's a bit like your wife or husband maxing out the credit card, remortgaging the house and spending the kids' birthday money on foreign holidays. Still, at least Magaluf was nice.
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
Yes - that'll be the reason - not the overpriced signings we are still lumbered with and shite home form.
Oh and the way he left - that's the one - you recall the way he left?
I wonder do you actually believe that tripe or whether you have to keep repeating it to justify what has happened in the interim.
And no I don't rate Lerner.
-
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
That's a bit like your wife or husband maxing out the credit card, remortgaging the house and spending the kids' birthday money on foreign holidays. Still, at least Magaluf was nice.
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
Yes - that'll be the reason - not the overpriced signings we are still lumbered with and shite home form.
Oh and the way he left - that's the one - you recall the way he left?
I wonder do you actually believe that tripe or whether you have to keep repeating it to justify what has happened in the interim.
And no I don't rate Lerner.
You mean you don't like top six finishes, trips to Wembley and getting into Europe?
-
Scotland are on a massive high at present and will come out of the traps buzzing . When did they last beat us ? 77 ?
The last competitive meeting, 1999.
-
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
That's a bit like your wife or husband maxing out the credit card, remortgaging the house and spending the kids' birthday money on foreign holidays. Still, at least Magaluf was nice.
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
Yes - that'll be the reason - not the overpriced signings we are still lumbered with and shite home form.
Oh and the way he left - that's the one - you recall the way he left?
I wonder do you actually believe that tripe or whether you have to keep repeating it to justify what has happened in the interim.
And no I don't rate Lerner.
You mean you don't like top six finishes, trips to Wembley and getting into Europe?
Odd... very odd .
He didnt appoint MON. He did however appoint Houlier, McLeish and Lambert. Do you rate him and stand behind the vitriol aimed at MON?
It diminishes our club and makes us look Mickey Mouse in my opinion.
-
O'Neill failed. He did no better than Gregory, but spent more than any manager in our history, bringing the club to it's knees financially, which is also Lerner's fault for handing the cretin the cash so readily. The summer he said hang on, the bellend walked out on us to cause maximum damage.
Wrong manager, wrong time. Somebody with a more progressive approach to football would have won us the home games needed to qualify for the champions league. The home form under O'Neill was disproportionately poor compared to our peers because we were so one dimensional. Now we're lacking dimensions of any sort when we attack, so of course the O'Neill years look attractive.
What a wasted opportunity.
-
What a wasted opportunity.
Sadly, an all-to-often rued recurrence over the last 32 years. We'll get another. Just hope I live to see one taken!
-
O'Neill failed. He did no better than Gregory, but spent more than any manager in our history, bringing the club to it's knees financially, which is also Lerner's fault for handing the cretin the cash so readily. The summer he said hang on, the bellend walked out on us to cause maximum damage.
Wrong manager, wrong time. Somebody with a more progressive approach to football would have won us the home games needed to qualify for the champions league. The home form under O'Neill was disproportion8ately 5poor compared to our peers because we were so one dimensional. Now we're lacking dimensions of any sort when we attack, so of course the O'Neill years look attractive.
What a wasted opportunity.
Lets deal in facts;
1)Gregory inherited a decent Villa team , MON did not.
2)MON worked to the budget and plan provided, he didnt set it.
3) The club settled out of court with him when he left. If they were in the right they would not have settled.
4) Every manager has a style of play he favours.Its usually to get the most out of the personal he has at his disposal.We had tremendous pace in that team, it made sence to play the way we did.
MON is held in high regard in the game, there are however a small minority of Villa fans who continue to peddle nonsence about his time at the club.
A wasted opportunity ? We have form for that as a club and usually it involves a talented manager walking out the door in dubious circumstances followed by years of mediocrity. Thats the wasted opportunity.
-
Scotland are on a massive high at present and will come out of the traps buzzing . When did they last beat us ? 77 ?
The last competitive meeting, 1999.
That's a bit like saying we beat Bradford. A hollow victory.
-
Lets deal in facts;
1)Gregory inherited a decent Villa team , MON did not.
2)MON worked to the budget and plan provided, he didnt set it.
3) The club settled out of court with him when he left. If they were in the right they would not have settled.
4) Every manager has a style of play he favours.Its usually to get the most out of the personal he has at his disposal.We had tremendous pace in that team, it made sence to play the way we did.
MON is held in high regard in the game, there are however a small minority of Villa fans who continue to peddle nonsence about his time at the club.
A wasted opportunity ? We have form for that as a club and usually it involves a talented manager walking out the door in dubious circumstances followed by years of mediocrity. Thats the wasted opportunity.
1) Yes, and he made it better, but he did so by paying extraordinary amounts of money for plodding British mediocrities while everyone else was busy looking everywhere for players. His BNP-like transfer policy was humiliating for the club.
2) Indeed, but Lerner trusted him and what did he do with the money? See 1).
3) We have no idea why they settled or what went on in court, but we do know that MON walked out five days before the season started even though the transfer policy had been set at the beginning of the summer. That is the action of a colossal, sulking man-child.
4) Why does 'pace' mean 4-4-fucking-2 every match? Why does 'pace' mean we couldn't pass the ball quickly? Why does 'pace' mean we couldn't move off the ball? Why does 'pace' mean we lost the ball from every throw-in? Why does 'pace' mean that a team assembled for that much money should still lump the ball long like Wimbledon? Every manager does indeed have his style, and some of those styles are shit.
Let me let you in on a secret: MON is not 'held in high regard' in the game. All of the foreign journalists working in England, who weren't blinded by the Clough connections, the apparent charm or the shared assumption that kick-and-rush 4-4-2 was somehow a valid style in the modern game, all though he was bollocks. I don't care if Shearer and Lawrenson and Savage like him - ask Marcotti, Honigstein, Bandini, etc (oh, and Sunderland fans) if they think he's any good. They don't.
Your last sentence, that we as a club are just too dysfunctional to be worthy of such a pure and innocent gift such as MON gave us, is just intensely silly.
-
Right a somewhat wordy answer, but when quoting the likes of Gabriel Marcotti an intense O'Neill hater as someone in the game whose opinion counts it it all falls apart somewhat.
Silly? Extremely.
-
Yep, one name and all of the points on which you're wrong vanish. By the way, Marcotti is right to dislike O'Neill. I know he dislikes O'Neill - that's why I brought it up.
-
I'm wrong, Marcottis right, your right.
As long as we keep ignoring the facts.
-
Facts such as...what? Paying £8.5m for Nigel Reo-Coker? Consistently scoring very few goals at home compared to the rest of the top ten? Come on, drop your blind, puppyish love for Saint Martin and actually try and argue a cogent case in his defence. Or, you could continue to be snide, sarcastic and sulky.
-
Belgium v Wales today at 5pm, hopefully it's on TV
Benteke 5/1 first goal
-
I'm wrong, Marcottis right, your right.
As long as we keep ignoring the facts.
You certainly do ignore them.
-
I thought the last few remnants of the O'Neill myth had been ground into dust by the Sunderland debacle?
-
Belgium v Wales today at 5pm, hopefully it's on TV
Benteke 5/1 first goal
Its on SKY
-
[quote autpuppyonty link=topic=52273.msg2711142#msg2711142 date=14ignore6135814]
Facts such as...what? Paying £8.5m for Nigel Reo-Coker? Consistently scoring very few goals at home compared to the rest of the top ten? Come on, drop your blind, puppyish love for Saint Martin and actually try and argue a cogent case in his defence. Or, you could continue to be snide, sarcastic and sulky.
[/quote]
A cogent case as opposed to selectivity? You name Reo-Coker, but Ignore Milner. Any manager you care to name has made signings that did not work out.
MON was trying to sign first team aswell as squad players.The price was dictated by the market. Do you think Milner was worth £28m? Managers do not set prices the market does.
As I stated earlier what he inherited was abysmal, so if the aim was to get into the top four within five years then a lot of money had to be spent.That was the stated agenda.
Imagine what would have to be spent to achive that now.We are roughly where we were when MON took over.
That illustrates why denigrating his achievements by calling him a bellend etc is disrespectful and illustrates a lack of football knowledge and complete disregard for the facts.
You may not like his tactics or formations but quoting Gabriel Marcotti, a journalist who to the best of my jnoledge has never kicked a ball does not support your argument.He has a preconceived bias already stated. I think he was the one who used the phrase'the myth of O'Neill.' Wonder how is is coping with him replacing Trapattoni
I have no puppy eyed love of MON, but I would swap what we have now to have those days back in a heartbeat, and anyone arguing that they were bad is frankly deluded.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
-
Marcotti may have never kicked a ball professionally, but neither has Mourinho, whereas Alan Shearer and Diego Maradona were both brilliant players. Who is better at managing?
The Milner signing, along with the Ashley Young and, in its way, Carew signings, were impressive. However, the majority of his signings were overpriced and fantastically unimaginative. Remember when he spent a summer trying to pay £15m for David Bentley? How embarrassing was that?
The crucial factor behind our relative success at the time was not Martin O'Neill but Randy Lerner's money. We should have done better, we should have played better, and we sure as hell deserved better than a manager who seemed to refuse to learn from his mistakes almost out of spite.
-
MON inherited Mellberg, Laursen, Gabby, Cahill, Sorensen, Delaney, Barry, Bouma, Angel. Certainly not horrible, I always felt the vibe around the club was worse than the players we actually had...... which sounds familiar to what we see right now.
For all the money he spent and the relative ''success'' we had under him Moyes and Redknapp both finished top 5 during his reign here and he spent considerably more cash than both.
-
Marcotti may have never kicked a ball professionally, but neither has Mourinho, whereas Alan Shearer and Diego Maradona were both brilliant players. Who is better at managing?
The Milner signing, along with the Ashley Young and, in its way, Carew signings, were impressive. However, the majority of his signings were overpriced and fantastically unimaginative. Remember when he spent a summer trying to pay £15m for David Bentley? How embarrassing was that?
The crucial factor behind our relative success at the time was not Martin O'Neill but Randy Lerner's money. We should have done better, we should have played better, and we sure as hell deserved better than a manager who seemed to refuse to learn from his mistakes almost out of spite.
Are you seriously suggesting that Gabrielle Marcotti is on a par with Mouriniho??
He is not someone whose opinion of MON counts, he is a journalist, not exactly a breed known for their integrity.
If all that matters is Lerners money, then that spent on Bent, N'Zogbia,Given, Hutton etc should have just resulted in more of the same.
They were all top dollar aswell and MON had nothing to do with it.
-
Marcotti may have never kicked a ball professionally, but neither has Mourinho, whereas Alan Shearer and Diego Maradona were both brilliant players. Who is better at managing?
The Milner signing, along with the Ashley Young and, in its way, Carew signings, were impressive. However, the majority of his signings were overpriced and fantastically unimaginative. Remember when he spent a summer trying to pay £15m for David Bentley? How embarrassing was that?
The crucial factor behind our relative success at the time was not Martin O'Neill but Randy Lerner's money. We should have done better, we should have played better, and we sure as hell deserved better than a manager who seemed to refuse to learn from his mistakes almost out of spite.
Are you seriously suggesting that Gabrielle Marcotti is on a par with Mouriniho??
He is not someone whose opinion of MON counts, he is a journalist, not exactly a breed known for their integrity.
If all that matters is Lerners money, then that spent on Bent, N'Zogbia,Given, Hutton etc should have just resulted in more of the same.
They were all top dollar aswell and MON had nothing to do with it.
On what planet was Bent not a good signing?
-
You can't be serious
-
Marcotti may have never kicked a ball professionally, but neither has Mourinho, whereas Alan Shearer and Diego Maradona were both brilliant players. Who is better at managing?
The Milner signing, along with the Ashley Young and, in its way, Carew signings, were impressive. However, the majority of his signings were overpriced and fantastically unimaginative. Remember when he spent a summer trying to pay £15m for David Bentley? How embarrassing was that?
The crucial factor behind our relative success at the time was not Martin O'Neill but Randy Lerner's money. We should have done better, we should have played better, and we sure as hell deserved better than a manager who seemed to refuse to learn from his mistakes almost out of spite.
Are you seriously suggesting that Gabrielle Marcotti is on a par with Mouriniho??
He is not someone whose opinion of MON counts, he is a journalist, not exactly a breed known for their integrity.
If all that matters is Lerners money, then that spent on Bent, N'Zogbia,Given, Hutton etc should have just resulted in more of the same.
They were all top dollar aswell and MON had nothing to do with it.
On what planet was Bent not a good signing?
It must be the one where he didn't pretty much single handedly keep us up in his first 4 months as a Villa player.
-
I'm not saying that Marcotti is 'on a par' with Mourinho, I'm just saying that the views of someone who could kick a football don't necessarily trump those of someone who watches a lot of it. You're right that Marcotti really dislikes MON, but you haven't discredited his reasons, which are that he feels MON is a vastly overrated kick-and-rush merchant who wouldn't make it in any other league of the European top five, and he's right. Oh, but I forgot, Marcotti's a journalist, which instantly invalidates everything he thinks. Strong argument that.
As for the rest of your points, the fact there have been so few such signings since MON's day that you had to pick out Hutton (a lot in wages but not in fee), a player who is in fact now playing pretty well, shows how desperate you are. I'd argue further, but it would be like putting my foot on the head of a puppy who's floundering in the sea.
-
And his current resale value?
-
And his current resale value?
When you consider Reo-Coker, Sidwell, Beye, Luke Young, Harewood, Friedel, Davies, Dunne, Routledge, Shorey, Cuellar, Heskey and Warnock is that really a route of discussion that you feel works in O'Neill's favour?
-
Marcotti may have never kicked a ball professionally, but neither has Mourinho, whereas Alan Shearer and Diego Maradona were both brilliant players. Who is better at managing?
The Milner signing, along with the Ashley Young and, in its way, Carew signings, were impressive. However, the majority of his signings were overpriced and fantastically unimaginative. Remember when he spent a summer trying to pay £15m for David Bentley? How embarrassing was that?
The crucial factor behind our relative success at the time was not Martin O'Neill but Randy Lerner's money. We should have done better, we should have played better, and we sure as hell deserved better than a manager who seemed to refuse to learn from his mistakes almost out of spite.
Are you seriously suggesting that Gabrielle Marcotti is on a par with Mouriniho??
He is not someone whose opinion of MON counts, he is a journalist, not exactly a breed known for their integrity.
If all that matters is Lerners money, then that spent on Bent, N'Zogbia,Given, Hutton etc should have just resulted in more of the same.
They were all top dollar aswell and MON had nothing to do with it.
On what planet was Bent not a good signing?
It must be the one where he didn't pretty much single handedly keep us up in his first 4 months as a Villa player.
Or the one where he was averaging a goal every other game before an injury which ruined his career.
-
And there we have it.
Asks for a cogent argument then resorts to name calling and sarcasm.
Look in your parallel universe on here you clearly have a party line.Its just regretable that the media treat some as the voice of Villa supporters.
Sound more like the voice of Randys PR machine to me.
-
I must say I always had my doubts about Bent, as I felt that he's the kind of player whose personal goal tally goes up as the rest of the team's goes down, but considering we were scoring roughly zero goals a game in that season there's no question that Bent was crucial in keeping us in the league, which is worth a lot more than £18m.
-
And there we have it.
Asks for a cogent argument then resorts to name calling and sarcasm.
Look in your parallel universe on here you clearly have a party line.Its just regretable that the media treat some as the voice of Villa supporters.
Sound more like the voice of Randys PR machine to me.
Oh God yeah, we're so pro-Randy on here. In fact I think the website will be renamed 'Shunnamites and Co.'
-
In the entire history of the club, MON has done more damage to us than any other single individual , closely followed by Randolph Lerner.
-
In the entire history of the club, MON has done more damage to us than any other single individual , closely followed by Randolph Lerner.
Yeah, right.
-
I must have imagined Herbert Douglas Ellis.
-
For a long time during MON's time here it was exciting again and a breath of fresh air after DOL. I was enjoying the football in General and we had some exciting games and players. Ash, Carew Gabby and Milner were a joy at times. Petrov and Lauren were a joy to have in the team. However come the final few months and the way he departed and the mess of the wage bill left us in a right state.
My biggest gripe is the experienced players Dunne, Collins and Warnock especially wh let us down when MON walked and didn't stand up and fight for us as club, instead they caused all sorts of trouble because they didn't like GH.
-
In the entire history of the club, MON has done more damage to us than any other single individual , closely followed by Randolph Lerner.
We've gone from 15th to 15th under Lerner, I'm no fan of his, he's blown it at Villa and his disengagement from the club has been pathetic but compare to Ellis... he managed to take the European champions down in half a decade. We built on nothing. After World Cup 90 and then Euro 96 when sky got involved and football went through the roof we we're one of the 3/4 biggest teams in the country, no argument. By the time he left we'd been left behind and haven't caught up or are likely to. His corner shop mentality at a time when the game was changing has probably been the biggest chance missed in our history.
-
I must have imagined Herbert Douglas Ellis.
I must have imagined Graham Turner.
-
In the entire history of the club, MON has done more damage to us than any other single individual , closely followed by Randolph Lerner.
In the entire history of H&V, i'm not sure that i've read anything so ridiculous.
-
In the entire history of the club, MON has done more damage to us than any other single individual , closely followed by Randolph Lerner.
We've gone from 15th to 15th under Lerner, I'm no fan of his, he's blown it at Villa and his disengagement from the club has been pathetic but compare to Ellis... he managed to take the European champions down in half a decade. We built on nothing. After World Cup 90 and then Euro 96 when sky got involved and football went through the roof we we're one of the 3/4 biggest teams in the country, no argument. By the time he left we'd been left behind and haven't caught up or are likely to. His corner shop mentality at a time when the game was changing has probably been the biggest chance missed in our history.
25 years of H&V summed up in a paragraph.
-
I hope MON leads Ireland to the Euros.
He's a thouroghly decent individual , who as I have said previously is held in high regard in the game, by fellow managers, ex pros and former players.
I disaprove of the vitriol displayed by many on here towards him.
He was good for our club while he was here.We were compedative, teams feared playing us and were at the right end of the table.
Infact all the things that are currently sadly lacking.
The ground was generally full , we were on tv regularly and we had record season ticket sales. .I'm guessing that generated a fair bit of revenue.
I quite liked that.
-
'Thoroughly decent'? And, again, 'held in high regard' - by whom? By Robbie Savage and Steve Claridge?
He is remarkable in one way. There aren't many managers who are so good at one thing and so bad at another. MON is, or at least was, quite amazing at motivating players, creating a club mentality or even a siege mentality, and inspiring loyalty in players and individual performances of a level higher than they often should be. However, he was a good candidate, even while with us, for the title of League's Least Progressive Tactician, along with training methods, player diets, squad use etc. He would have been a brilliant manager in the 1970s, but he was an inadequate one in the 2000s.
-
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
That's a bit like your wife or husband maxing out the credit card, remortgaging the house and spending the kids' birthday money on foreign holidays. Still, at least Magaluf was nice.
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
Yes - that'll be the reason - not the overpriced signings we are still lumbered with and shite home form.
Oh and the way he left - that's the one - you recall the way he left?
I wonder do you actually believe that tripe or whether you have to keep repeating it to justify what has happened in the interim.
And no I don't rate Lerner.
You do realise that since 92 our average finishing position was 6th before O'Neill came in? So, despite having the most money at his disposal of any other Villa manager he managed no better than to get us to an average finish. He bought two new defences in the space of 1 calendar month and still played centre-halves as right-backs and right-backs as left backs. He had his favourites and rarely used the bench, despite the fact that our fitness levels were so poor as a team we looked shagged after about 70 minutes. Then, come March we were a waste of time. His famed man management consisted of not saying anything to him save you'll be dumped in the reserves at a whim. and lets not forget the way he left. How to destabilise a club purposely. In january Lerner had started to ask him to address the wages situation and as soon as he realised he wouldn't get the Milner money he left us up the creek. If O'neill had his way we could be further down the road to ruin and for what 3 6 place finishes? Other than the media who else thought it something worth trumpeting for little Aston Villa? Europe? Great. Obviously O'Neill saw it as a distraction seeing the way he threw the towel in when we were in Europe. And a League Cup final? Otheer than 2000 have we ever been so disappointing? We tend to respond in finals after going 1 up we were so dull and poor it was never a surprise that we lost.
Laud O'Neill? Are you bloody crazy? We fell for it, the emperor's new clothes and all that, the proud history bright future, a manager that was going to win us things with a billionaire's money. Turnsd out Lerner was going to have one shot at it and O'Neill wasn't good enough to deliver. We didn't see it then, but it's clear as day now.
-
O Neill was close but no cigar. Whilst his football wasn't always brilliant, IMO at it's best he produced the best looking stuff since Little's side. When Ash, Gabby, Carew, Barry, Miner etc were in full flow doing their stuff, we played some great stuff. He made us competitive against top sides (and often matching them for attacking intent in games).
The idea that O Neill's football was dreadful is kind of oversold in my view. Yes we struggled at home to break down defensive sides and lack that little bit of mercurial guile from a good locksmith player. He was very much set on 4-4-fucking-2, and using wingers with the big man, little man combo. Even a Robbie Keane type, who could drop off could have been a very useful option in home games. Still, I'd settle for his average home record over our utterly appalling one.
He wasted money no doubt but his better signings were incredibly successful. We scoffed at breaking records on Young, Milner and Downing, but their impact and sell on fees speak volumes.
He was better than Gregory in my view. I think we came more consistently close to competing with the big boys, and indeed in an even more closed off, difficult era. Also Gregory never managed to get over 60 points. O Neill did it three times, including notching up 64 points in his final season, which is more than Brian Little managed in the year we finished 4th.
Losing that cup final, as it did for Gregory too, also took a lot of gloss off I suppose, as did the annual March melt-downs. I don't simply compare him with JG because his best finish was 6th. We were definitely a better side under O Neill than Gregory. The points, and some of the standout results prove that, and indeed our football (at its best).
O Neill also never lost more than 10 games a season in the Prem for us. That's a very good record indeed. If we could just have turned some of the draws into wins...
Stubborn, outdated, wrongly given carte-blanche by a naive owner, but he was mostly effective. The manner of his leaving has tarnished how he'll be remembered here. He is pube-head, that absolute bastard, as opposed to if he'd resigned in May that year and said "I've gone as far as I can go, it's time for a fresh face" he'd have been remembered more fondly.
Frankly compared to the current state. O Neill's Villa is Brazil circa 1970. An absolute class above the dross now. O Neill also wasn't the only Villa manager to have a healthy transfer kitty to play with. Nor is he the first or last to waste a lot of it. Gregory blew huge amounts. Ron could blow money in his sleep, a Little had some duffers too (with no small amount given to him by the standards of the time).
-
I must have imagined Herbert Douglas Ellis.
I must have imagined Graham Turner.
And his replacement (if only.)
-
I must have imagined Neale Cooper.
-
Lets deal in facts;
You are Rafa Benitez and I claim my five pounds.
-
'Thoroughly decent'? And, again, 'held in high regard' - by whom? By Robbie Savage and Steve Claridge?
He is remarkable in one way. There aren't many managers who are so good at one thing and so bad at another. MON is, or at least was, quite amazing at motivating players, creating a club mentality or even a siege mentality, and inspiring loyalty in players and individual performances of a level higher than they often should be. However, he was a good candidate, even while with us, for the title of League's Least Progressive Tactician, along with training methods, player diets, squad use etc. He would have been a brilliant manager in the 1970s, but he was an inadequate one in the 2000s.
In regards to our training and fitness I think O Neills injury records compared to each of our managers since speaks volumes. Also whilst his rotating policies should have been better. We kept a high tempo for 90 minutes far better under O Neill than the last couple of managers.
I think there's some fallacy that O Neill had this lazy bunch of booze guzzling, fag smoking wasters at his disposal who couldn't last the season. I don't care how fit you are if you don't rotate your squad a bit, or make substitutions, even the fittest squad would struggle by March-April as we annually did. But in my view, on the seasons on a whole under O Neill our squad looked in much better nick than it does now. Players didn't drop like flies. And they always gave 110%
Compare Gabby now to back then. Fitness, attitude but mostly work-rate. It's like a different player.
If I had a squad of players I wanted fit for Prem competition and to be looked after. I'd be asking O Neill to do it long before I'd ask Houllier, Lambert, or TSM1.
-
Well, some of the players were very fit but others palpably were not. Anyway, by training I really don't just mean fitness, and that's the problem, we need to alter how we think as fans. We can't just accept a man whose training methods, according to loads of former players, essentially consisted of fitness and five-a-side. If you look at the successful managers these days, nobody else does that and the results show. By the way, saying that we kept a high tempo for 90 minutes better under MON is just obviously wrong - remember John Terry's interview where he said that everyone knew how to play against us - you just wait for the hour mark and we'll get knackered. That was MON's sustained high tempo for you.
-
Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .
-
3) The club settled out of court with him when he left. If they were in the right they would not have settled.
That might not be a case. Quite often the person who takes a company to court gets an settlement out of court offer usually when the outcome is 50:50, The person quite often accepts the out of court settlement as if the result is 50:50 it's best to accept because of the risk of the court siding with the company. That way the complainant is happy because they get some money and the company are happy because they don't have to be distracted by a lengthy court case.
-
MON wasn't a failure. But that doesn't mean he was a success either. What he did was underachieve with the resources he was given. He had 2 major faults, not including being a pubeheaded little shit, and that was lack of tactics, and a very short sighted and expensive transfer policy. He signed about 25 players in his time, I think only 3 weren't playing in the UK, and one of those was gifted to him on a plate by GH.
-
I thought he was great when he was here. I was gutted when he went. I don't hate him now. I thoroughly enjoyed the majority of his 4 years in charge. The 4 years since....
-
MON wasn't a failure.
In my opinion he failed. He was given (at the time) CL money and he failed to get us there, certainly blowing it spectacularly in the Moscow Stoke apex.
I hate him for the way he left , but thoroughly enjoyed probably 85% of his time at the club.
-
Its quite simple really. If MON had bought a goalscoring forward (say for example that bloke Bent who played for Sunderland) to replace Agbonlahor who never has scored consistently we might be in European competition again.
But he didn't he bought Heskey. Emile had many good qualities but like Agbonlahor goalscoring is not one of them.
Not a failure as others have agreed.But by no means a big success. And he is drifting out of the game slowly but surely.
-
He also thought it would be a good idea to buy Marlon F. Harewood.
-
MON inherited Mellberg, Laursen, Gabby, Cahill, Sorensen, Delaney, Barry, Bouma, Angel. Certainly not horrible, I always felt the vibe around the club was worse than the players we actually had...... which sounds familiar to what we see right now.
Not to mention Gardner, Ridgewell and Davis who have all gone on to be solid Premiership players.
MO~N bought Marlene Scarewood, Pub player Davies, Zak, Habib ...
I was delighted when he joined us as part of the "Bright Future" gig and not disappointed when he departed (apart from the manner of his exit which was spiteful, vindictive and deeply disrespectful of the fans).
-
We've gone from 15th to 15th under Lerner, I'm no fan of his, he's blown it at Villa and his disengagement from the club has been pathetic but compare to Ellis... he managed to take the European champions down in half a decade. We built on nothing. After World Cup 90 and then Euro 96 when sky got involved and football went through the roof we we're one of the 3/4 biggest teams in the country, no argument. By the time he left we'd been left behind and haven't caught up or are likely to. His corner shop mentality at a time when the game was changing has probably been the biggest chance missed in our history.
Well said.
-
He also thought it would be a good idea to buy Marlon F. Harewood.
Sounds like a Marx Brothers character!
-
It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality.
-
It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality.
And that was why there was so much energy back then going into things like the AVST and the other fan groups that sprung up. Not individually game-changing but cumulatively there was a groundswell that eventually had some impact on Ellis' decision to quit.
The fans' energy of that time does not seem to be replicated in the same way these days: maybe we have just had too much mediocrity for too long, and that has become the norm. Sad, if true.
-
Fans money ie. gate receipts was a huge chunk of turnover back then. Nowadays it's insignificant as are the match day attending fans. We are merely unpaid extras in a TV soap.
-
It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality.
And that was why there was so much energy back then going into things like the AVST and the other fan groups that sprung up. Not individually game-changing but cumulatively there was a groundswell that eventually had some impact on Ellis' decision to quit.
The fans' energy of that time does not seem to be replicated in the same way these days: maybe we have just had too much mediocrity for too long, and that has become the norm. Sad, if true.
I don't think Doug quit because of the fans - he received a good offer, he was in his eighties and he hadn't been enjoying good health. He rang rings round all of us.
I also think that there are many reasons why what happened then hasn't happened now; you had people who remembered the seventies boardroom battles and were willing to take part, the media were more willing to listen to supporters' genuine opinions rather pushing for controversy and the Sky line of fans as sad twats and the comparative lack of outlets for dissent made it easier to contact a mass audience. There was also a genuine belief that a better-run club could compete whereas now we know that will never happen without a billion pound investment.
-
Yes O'Neill era is a bit like crashing your car deliberately so that repair firm will wash, shine and valet it upon return.
-
Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .
Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.
-
Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .
Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.
Oh for a Graham Taylor to come in now and grab this club by the scruff of it's neck.
-
Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .
Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.
He was the manager at the time but the writing was on the wall since Turner which is ultimately Ellis.
-
It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality.
Not building on 96 was a big miss for us and we have not recovered from. We were nearly there. Collymore was added a year too late. If only Ellis had said "Finishing 4th is not good enough Brian what do you need to win us the title next season?"
-
Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .
Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.
Going down worked out well for us. It allowed us time to rebuild and relaunch ourselves. Not that I'd advocate going down in this era. The landscape has changed too much
-
Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .
Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.
Going down worked out well for us. It allowed us time to rebuild and relaunch ourselves. Not that I'd advocate going down in this era. The landscape has changed too much
It only worked out well because we came straight back up. What if we hadn't?
-
It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality.
And that was why there was so much energy back then going into things like the AVST and the other fan groups that sprung up. Not individually game-changing but cumulatively there was a groundswell that eventually had some impact on Ellis' decision to quit.
The fans' energy of that time does not seem to be replicated in the same way these days: maybe we have just had too much mediocrity for too long, and that has become the norm. Sad, if true.
I don't think Doug quit because of the fans - he received a good offer, he was in his eighties and he hadn't been enjoying good health. He rang rings round all of us.
I also think that there are many reasons why what happened then hasn't happened now; you had people who remembered the seventies boardroom battles and were willing to take part, the media were more willing to listen to supporters' genuine opinions rather pushing for controversy and the Sky line of fans as sad twats and the comparative lack of outlets for dissent made it easier to contact a mass audience. There was also a genuine belief that a better-run club could compete whereas now we know that will never happen without a billion pound investment.
Agree with all of this - I'd only add that I think the build-up of fan discontent would have had some effect on HDE's decision about when to sell; but I accept that all the other factors you mention were relevant.
-
Agree with all of this - I'd only add that I think the build-up of fan discontent would have had some effect on HDE's decision about when to sell; but I accept that all the other factors you mention were relevant.
I think the only factor in his decision was that someone finally showed him the colour of their money. Thinking about it as well, the fact that the mainstream media is so reluctant to provide a platform for proper supporter debate is a big problem.
-
Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .
Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.
Going down worked out well for us. It allowed us time to rebuild and relaunch ourselves. Not that I'd advocate going down in this era. The landscape has changed too much
It only worked out well because we came straight back up. What if we hadn't?
There's a chance we'd still be there. Luckily we were very good away from home with Sir Graham and were ok at drawing at home as we were most teams cup final that season possibly with Leeds as the exception
-
Well my point was MON set us back decades by all his frivolous expenditure on dodgy centre halves and suspect midfielders .
Billy NcNeil took us down. That could have set us back even further.
Going down worked out well for us. It allowed us time to rebuild and relaunch ourselves. Not that I'd advocate going down in this era. The landscape has changed too much
It only worked out well because we came straight back up. What if we hadn't?
There's a chance we'd still be there. Luckily we were very good away from home with Sir Graham and were ok at drawing at home as we were most teams cup final that season possibly with Leeds as the exception
Your post summed up why going down for a club our size would be terrible.
-
I never said it would be good if it happened again. Just that it actually worked out well for us back in 1987
-
I never said it would be good if it happened again. Just that it actually worked out well for us back in 1987
Like i said, it only worked out well because we came straight back up. Hindsight in a wonderful thing.
-
I never said it would be good if it happened again. Just that it actually worked out well for us back in 1987
And pretty disastrously in 1967.
-
Agree with all of this - I'd only add that I think the build-up of fan discontent would have had some effect on HDE's decision about when to sell; but I accept that all the other factors you mention were relevant.
... the fact that the mainstream media is so reluctant to provide a platform for proper supporter debate is a big problem.
Again (worryingly!) I agree
-
I might be wrong about this (and I'm sure the older h&v'ers will put me right if so) but didn't Sir Graham say we were that much of a mess that could have gone all the way down?
-
Words to that effect.
-
He didn't say all of that or I don't remember. He said that club had no structure or organisation and needed sorting from top to bottom.
-
I think he used the word shambles.
-
He used his nose, he definitely said it all smelt wrong.
-
"The whole of the club needs restructuring. The youth policy is not good enough, the scouting system is not good enough, the football team is a shambles and I've come to sort it out."
-
"The whole of the club needs restructuring. The youth policy is not good enough, the scouting system is not good enough, the football team is a shambles and I've come to sort it out."
And he fucking did as well.
-
"The whole of the club needs restructuring. The youth policy is not good enough, the scouting system is not good enough, the football team is a shambles and I've come to sort it out."
We've gone full circle
-
Sunderland.
-
Well, some of the players were very fit but others palpably were not. Anyway, by training I really don't just mean fitness, and that's the problem, we need to alter how we think as fans. We can't just accept a man whose training methods, according to loads of former players, essentially consisted of fitness and five-a-side. If you look at the successful managers these days, nobody else does that and the results show. By the way, saying that we kept a high tempo for 90 minutes better under MON is just obviously wrong - remember John Terry's interview where he said that everyone knew how to play against us - you just wait for the hour mark and we'll get knackered. That was MON's sustained high tempo for you.
That I'd agree with. We've been a high tempo sort of side for years now. We don't make it look effortless, we don't conserve, and we indeed, John Terry was unfortunately proved right.
Some clubs make football look very easy. They know sometimes you have to spend 10 minutes slowing the game down, keeping the ball and trying to keep something in your tank.
That takes a manager with some nous and forward thinking.
I enjoyed O Neill's football when it worked. But he was outdated. As was McLeish, as is Lambert.
The trouble in changing the footballing culture of a football club is that it can be difficult. Houllier but for signing Bent probably would have taken us down doing it, and with one half step forward in the last couple of months, we took a huge leap back with TSM1.
If we want to be like Southampton or Swansea, the reality is we may have to go down first. I hope not. But forward progression and actually joining the modern game won't happen with the current owner, and definitely not with the current manager.
-
I don't think we need to go down to be successful again. We just need a decent manager, which is something we have been lacking for a very long time now.
-
The fact we only had £7m to spend this summer despite an income of nigh on £100m is down to the legacy MON left us. He bankrupted Celtic too
-
I don't think we need to go down to be successful again. We just need a decent manager, which is something we have been lacking for a very long time now.
In an ideal world a new manager comes with a new owner, with a budget enough to bring in 4-5 good footballers to make the transition easier. With Lerner's budget, should someone akin to Pochettino or Koeman come in, we may actually get worse before we get better, particularly as too many of our squad are more physically adept than technically. The trouble is, even a little bit worse as we are could mean going down.
That's worst case scenario of course and hopefully wouldn't work out like that.
-
It's also made me think just how many clubs were undoubtedly bigger than us in 1996-ish. Liverpool and Manchester United definitely, Arsenal were re-building after George Graham and they'd have gone past us helped by the fact that Nick bloody Hornby helped make them the ideal club to cash in on the new footie boom but apart from that who? Spurs were doing poorly, Newcastle were massively in debt, Everton were mid-table in a good year and struggling in a bad one, Chelsea's rescuer was still six years away. We could have been right up there but for that corner shop mentality.
Come on Dave write the book, you know there's a story there. And you know you really really want too ;)
-
I don't think we need to go down to be successful again. We just need a decent manager, which is something we have been lacking for a very long time now.
In an ideal world a new manager comes with a new owner, with a budget enough to bring in 4-5 good footballers to make the transition easier. With Lerner's budget, should someone akin to Pochettino or Koeman come in, we may actually get worse before we get better, particularly as too many of our squad are more physically adept than technically. The trouble is, even a little bit worse as we are could mean going down.
That's worst case scenario of course and hopefully wouldn't work out like that.
Yes get your drift. The first step to turning this around I would have thought would be keeping the core decent players. The problem we have with this regime is that the opposite will happen.
-
O'Neill failed. He did no better than Gregory, but spent more than any manager in our history, bringing the club to it's knees financially, which is also Lerner's fault for handing the cretin the cash so readily. The summer he said hang on, the bellend walked out on us to cause maximum damage.
Wrong manager, wrong time. Somebody with a more progressive approach to football would have won us the home games needed to qualify for the champions league. The home form under O'Neill was disproportionately poor compared to our peers because we were so one dimensional. Now we're lacking dimensions of any sort when we attack, so of course the O'Neill years look attractive.
What a wasted opportunity.
Can't disagree with any of that. The subsequent decision making by the board was largely woeful but doesn't detract from O'Neill's underachievements.
-
The fact we only had £7m to spend this summer despite an income of nigh on £100m is down to the legacy MON left us. He bankrupted Celtic too
And Leicester if I remember had money troubles when he left
-
I don't think we need to go down to be successful again. We just need a decent manager, which is something we have been lacking for a very long time now.
In an ideal world a new manager comes with a new owner, with a budget enough to bring in 4-5 good footballers to make the transition easier. With Lerner's budget, should someone akin to Pochettino or Koeman come in, we may actually get worse before we get better, particularly as too many of our squad are more physically adept than technically. The trouble is, even a little bit worse as we are could mean going down.
That's worst case scenario of course and hopefully wouldn't work out like that.
Yes get your drift. The first step to turning this around I would have thought would be keeping the core decent players. The problem we have with this regime is that the opposite will happen.
Yeah, the problem right off the bat with that is we could be looking at next season without Vlaar, Delph and should this season begin improving for him, probably Benteke.
-
The fact we only had £7m to spend this summer despite an income of nigh on £100m is down to the legacy MON left us. He bankrupted Celtic too
And Leicester if I remember had money troubles when he left
Though his financial dealings (as much down to Randy's naivity) have buggered us we've actually scraped survival largely in part down to the ever dwindling assets O Neill left.
Delph's still here and a key player.
Bent saved us and came in largely from the Milner sale and impending exit of Downing and Young. Some of that cash undoubtedly probably helped fund Benteke.
Our budget this summer just gone really shows that the O Neill reserve has probably well and truly run out now.
So whilst our situation has been shit, his better signings and the money we received has played it's part in just about keeping us up, as we've still managed to keep hold of a reasonable decent core of players.
Bent was good for a year.
Vlaar (when he plays) is okay, Delph has been good for Lambert and Benteke a real difference on his day.
Next season when we're unable to keep hold of the strong core, and struggle to replace them? That's when things get really bad. But Lerner and his management should have been able to steady the ship by now and look toward progressing rather than merely treading water. O Neill can't be blamed any more. His final season is a distant memory now. Beaten into the shadows by an ever dwindling level of quality and increasing ineptitude.
O Neill left us with a strong spine. A spine that's been getting progressively weaker. Some have come in become a strong part of our spine as others leave, but since Benteke, we've not made a significant signing. We'll make no money on Delph. We'll not make much on Vlaar. If Benteke wants to leave, he'll probably not fetch anything like what we may have been offered a year ago.
-
And there we have it.
Asks for a cogent argument then resorts to name calling and sarcasm.
Look in your parallel universe on here you clearly have a party line.Its just regretable that the media treat some as the voice of Villa supporters.
Sound more like the voice of Randys PR machine to me.
Honestly, what is it with fucking divs having a swipe at all and sundry because their shitty argument doesn't hold up?
-
Christ's chin, this makes for depressing reading. Bad enough turning 30 tomorrow and having to sit two exams this week.
-
We have a party line? Ace! Anyone for more beer?
-
Christ's chin, this makes for depressing reading. Bad enough turning 30 tomorrow and having to sit two exams this week.
Turning 30, that sounds like heaven
-
And there we have it.
Asks for a cogent argument then resorts to name calling and sarcasm.
Look in your parallel universe on here you clearly have a party line.Its just regretable that the media treat some as the voice of Villa supporters.
Sound more like the voice of Randys PR machine to me.
Honestly, what is it with fucking divs having a swipe at all and sundry because their shitty argument doesn't hold up?
Bad arguments they might be, but at least he's not had to resort to childish insults.
-
'Thoroughly decent'? And, again, 'held in high regard' - by whom? By Robbie Savage and Steve Claridge?
He is remarkable in one way. There aren't many managers who are so good at one thing and so bad at another. MON is, or at least was, quite amazing at motivating players, creating a club mentality or even a siege mentality, and inspiring loyalty in players and individual performances of a level higher than they often should be. However, he was a good candidate, even while with us, for the title of League's Least Progressive Tactician, along with training methods, player diets, squad use etc. He would have been a brilliant manager in the 1970s, but he was an inadequate one in the 2000s.
In regards to our training and fitness I think O Neills injury records compared to each of our managers since speaks volumes. Also whilst his rotating policies should have been better. We kept a high tempo for 90 minutes far better under O Neill than the last couple of managers.
I think there's some fallacy that O Neill had this lazy bunch of booze guzzling, fag smoking wasters at his disposal who couldn't last the season. I don't care how fit you are if you don't rotate your squad a bit, or make substitutions, even the fittest squad would struggle by March-April as we annually did. But in my view, on the seasons on a whole under O Neill our squad looked in much better nick than it does now. Players didn't drop like flies. And they always gave 110%
Compare Gabby now to back then. Fitness, attitude but mostly work-rate. It's like a different player.
If I had a squad of players I wanted fit for Prem competition and to be looked after. I'd be asking O Neill to do it long before I'd ask Houllier, Lambert, or TSM1.
He really should've learnt from 08/09 in regards squad rotation.
I still think of the two seasons 09/10 was our best opportunity to finish top 4 (clearly it had to be with the money Man. City were spending) and yet in March 2010 we had results like Villa 2 Wolves 2, Villa 1 Sunderland 1 and Chelsea 7 Villa 1 which knackered our GD compared to Spurs anfd Man., City.
We didn't change the team enough. It wasn't impossible to win with below par 11s, christ early on in the season we won at Anfield with Shorey and Beye as our full backs.
That reminds me, Habib fecking Beye. What was the point of signing him when Luke Young was already at the club and in the end he just decided to play Cuellar at RB for the whole season, what a waste of a signing.
He did some good things for the club I'm not going to deny, 6th was about par for what we were spending but we did mess up some great opportunites.
-
The fact we only had £7m to spend this summer despite an income of nigh on £100m is down to the legacy MON left us. He bankrupted Celtic too
And Leicester if I remember had money troubles when he left
He's like a Harry Redknapp with glasses.
-
And there we have it.
Asks for a cogent argument then resorts to name calling and sarcasm.
Look in your parallel universe on here you clearly have a party line.Its just regretable that the media treat some as the voice of Villa supporters.
Sound more like the voice of Randys PR machine to me.
Honestly, what is it with fucking divs having a swipe at all and sundry because their shitty argument doesn't hold up?
Bad arguments they might be, but at least he's not had to resort to childish insults.
But he has though, with his 'party line' nonsense.
He's not the first, hence my reaction, and I'm sorry but it seriously pisses me off.
-
When he calls anybody 'fucking divs' then he'll be told to stop it.
He has a ridiculous argument, but one that is hardly undermined by people throwing around insults that a ten-year old would find immature.
-
When he calls anybody 'fucking divs' then he'll be told to stop it.
He has a ridiculous argument, but one that is hardly undermined by people throwing around insults that a ten-year old would find immature.
I apologise for the choice of insult. I offer 'contemptible buffons' in it's place.
I trust this matter is now closed.
-
I offer 'contemptible buffons' in it's place.
Good keeper. Did MON attempt to sign him too ?
-
Randy has to be applauded for the money he spent trying to bring success but he has not made one successful appointment in the time he has been with us. His lack of football savvy is and always has been at the root of all our problems. Alarm bells should have been ringing loud and clear when we bought Emile Heskey.
-
I offer 'contemptible buffons' in it's place.
Good keeper. Did MON attempt to sign him too ?
Ha!
-
We have a party line? Ace! Anyone for more beer?
Sorry, I had the line. I'm now in the back room with the crack pipe.
Anyway, haven't read a few pages - looks like I'll have to. Sounds like fun.
-
The fact we only had £7m to spend this summer despite an income of nigh on £100m is down to the legacy MON left us. He bankrupted Celtic too
I think we have now gone from the sublime to the ridulous
And Leicester if I remember had money troubles when he left
He's like a Harry Redknapp with glasses.
-
The fact we only had £7m to spend this summer despite an income of nigh on £100m is down to the legacy MON left us. He bankrupted Celtic too
I think we have now gone from the sublime to the ridulous
And Leicester if I remember had money troubles when he left
He's like a Harry Redknapp with glasses.
I'm wondering whether he was behind the global banking crisis aswell
-
Quite ironic that as the global economy went into meltdown with toxic debt rearing it's head around the same time MON emerged down B6 and constructed his own mini whirlpool of economic woe. We had some great days on him but it came at one hell of a price.
-
'Thoroughly decent'? And, again, 'held in high regard' - by whom? By Robbie Savage and Steve Claridge?
He is remarkable in one way. There aren't many managers who are so good at one thing and so bad at another. MON is, or at least was, quite amazing at motivating players, creating a club mentality or even a siege mentality, and inspiring loyalty in players and individual performances of a level higher than they often should be. However, he was a good candidate, even while with us, for the title of League's Least Progressive Tactician, along with training methods, player diets, squad use etc. He would have been a brilliant manager in the 1970s, but he was an inadequate one in the 2000s.
In regards to our training and fitness I think O Neills injury records compared to each of our managers since speaks volumes. Also whilst his rotating policies should have been better. We kept a high tempo for 90 minutes far better under O Neill than the last couple of managers.
I think there's some fallacy that O Neill had this lazy bunch of booze guzzling, fag smoking wasters at his disposal who couldn't last the season. I don't care how fit you are if you don't rotate your squad a bit, or make substitutions, even the fittest squad would struggle by March-April as we annually did. But in my view, on the seasons on a whole under O Neill our squad looked in much better nick than it does now. Players didn't drop like flies. And they always gave 110%
Compare Gabby now to back then. Fitness, attitude but mostly work-rate. It's like a different player.
If I had a squad of players I wanted fit for Prem competition and to be looked after. I'd be asking O Neill to do it long before I'd ask Houllier, Lambert, or TSM1.
He really should've learnt from 08/09 in regards squad rotation.
I still think of the two seasons 09/10 was our best opportunity to finish top 4 (clearly it had to be with the money Man. City were spending) and yet in March 2010 we had results like Villa 2 Wolves 2, Villa 1 Sunderland 1 and Chelsea 7 Villa 1 which knackered our GD compared to Spurs anfd Man., City.
We didn't change the team enough. It wasn't impossible to win with below par 11s, christ early on in the season we won at Anfield with Shorey and Beye as our full backs.
That reminds me, Habib fecking Beye. What was the point of signing him when Luke Young was already at the club and in the end he just decided to play Cuellar at RB for the whole season, what a waste of a signing.
He did some good things for the club I'm not going to deny, 6th was about par for what we were spending but we did mess up some great opportunites.
I always look at that game with Man City toward the end of O Neill's final season. It just set the course and path for two sides to go in wildly different directions. We were ahead of them at the time. 1-0 up and fairly good value for it. They won the game 3-1, finished the season ahead of us, got Milner that summer and the rest is (painful) history.
To think within a year we went from competing with the likes of City, Spurs, Liverpool to push the established top 3 of that time, to squeeky bumming it in relegation scraps.
I think often not using very energetic players like Sidwell or Coker enough to freshen things up was to his detriment. They may not have been brilliant but to rest a Barry or Petrov etc, in that middle and try and inject some energy in the spring decline. Some players didn't get enough of a look in either. Routledge, who's proved useful at this level since with a bit of faith in him, and wee Shaun. It's not just that he bought a few duffers. He bought useful squad fillers and didn't use them and they ultimately became duffers.
But as we know, O Neill never learned from mistakes and never had a plan B. And what we've been left with in the last two appointments is two poor mans answer to O Neill.
-
Hang on a minute, what happened to the clique? Is it a party line now?
-
The fact we only had £7m to spend this summer despite an income of nigh on £100m is down to the legacy MON left us. He bankrupted Celtic too
I think we have now gone from the sublime to the ridulous
And Leicester if I remember had money troubles when he left
He's like a Harry Redknapp with glasses.
I'm wondering whether he was behind the global banking crisis aswell
I wish you'd learn to use the quote thingy correctly.
-
Hang on a minute, what happened to the clique? Is it a party line now?
Yes, were you not at the covert planning meeting on Thursday?
-
When he calls anybody 'fucking divs' then he'll be told to stop it.
He has a ridiculous argument, but one that is hardly undermined by people throwing around insults that a ten-year old would find immature.
I apologise for the choice of insult. I offer 'contemptible buffons' in it's place.
I trust this matter is now closed.
*flicks through handbook*
Fine, much better choice of words.
-
Hang on a minute, what happened to the clique? Is it a party line now?
Yes, were you not at the covert planning meeting on Thursday?
What? I was never in the clique in the first place, is that what you're telling me?
-
I guess some on here hated top six finishes, getting to Wembley, playing in Europe and being a club that actually mattered.
That must account for the MON vitriol.
That's a bit like your wife or husband maxing out the credit card, remortgaging the house and spending the kids' birthday money on foreign holidays. Still, at least Magaluf was nice.
You forgot to mention she was a really crap shag.
-
Hang on a minute, what happened to the clique? Is it a party line now?
Yes, were you not at the covert planning meeting on Thursday?
What? I was never in the clique in the first place, is that what you're telling me?
There are cliques within cliques...
http://youtu.be/s6jYoagXmZE
-
How about the improvements he brought about in the players he inherited.
Bouma lost weight and played very well.
Laursen became something of a cult hero and played regularly when most thought we would never get more than the odd game out of him.
Barry who had been adrift became an England regular and wasnt it a unique experience to see a Villa manager see off a so called bigger club when Liverpool came calling? Normally our default setting was to roll over and take the money.
I quite liked feeling we were behaving like a club with ambition.
-
'Thoroughly decent'? And, again, 'held in high regard' - by whom? By Robbie Savage and Steve Claridge?
He is remarkable in one way. There aren't many managers who are so good at one thing and so bad at another. MON is, or at least was, quite amazing at motivating players, creating a club mentality or even a siege mentality, and inspiring loyalty in players and individual performances of a level higher than they often should be. However, he was a good candidate, even while with us, for the title of League's Least Progressive Tactician, along with training methods, player diets, squad use etc. He would have been a brilliant manager in the 1970s, but he was an inadequate one in the 2000s.
In regards to our training and fitness I think O Neills injury records compared to each of our managers since speaks volumes. Also whilst his rotating policies should have been better. We kept a high tempo for 90 minutes far better under O Neill than the last couple of managers.
I think there's some fallacy that O Neill had this lazy bunch of booze guzzling, fag smoking wasters at his disposal who couldn't last the season. I don't care how fit you are if you don't rotate your squad a bit, or make substitutions, even the fittest squad would struggle by March-April as we annually did. But in my view, on the seasons on a whole under O Neill our squad looked in much better nick than it does now. Players didn't drop like flies. And they always gave 110%
Compare Gabby now to back then. Fitness, attitude but mostly work-rate. It's like a different player.
If I had a squad of players I wanted fit for Prem competition and to be looked after. I'd be asking O Neill to do it long before I'd ask Houllier, Lambert, or TSM1.
He really should've learnt from 08/09 in regards squad rotation.
I still think of the two seasons 09/10 was our best opportunity to finish top 4 (clearly it had to be with the money Man. City were spending) and yet in March 2010 we had results like Villa 2 Wolves 2, Villa 1 Sunderland 1 and Chelsea 7 Villa 1 which knackered our GD compared to Spurs anfd Man., City.
We didn't change the team enough. It wasn't impossible to win with below par 11s, christ early on in the season we won at Anfield with Shorey and Beye as our full backs.
That reminds me, Habib fecking Beye. What was the point of signing him when Luke Young was already at the club and in the end he just decided to play Cuellar at RB for the whole season, what a waste of a signing.
He did some good things for the club I'm not going to deny, 6th was about par for what we were spending but we did mess up some great opportunites.
I always look at that game with Man City toward the end of O Neill's final season. It just set the course and path for two sides to go in wildly different directions. We were ahead of them at the time. 1-0 up and fairly good value for it. They won the game 3-1, finished the season ahead of us, got Milner that summer and the rest is (painful) history.
To think within a year we went from competing with the likes of City, Spurs, Liverpool to push the established top 3 of that time, to squeeky bumming it in relegation scraps.
I think often not using very energetic players like Sidwell or Coker enough to freshen things up was to his detriment. They may not have been brilliant but to rest a Barry or Petrov etc, in that middle and try and inject some energy in the spring decline. Some players didn't get enough of a look in either. Routledge, who's proved useful at this level since with a bit of faith in him, and wee Shaun. It's not just that he bought a few duffers. He bought useful squad fillers and didn't use them and they ultimately became duffers.
But as we know, O Neill never learned from mistakes and never had a plan B. And what we've been left with in the last two appointments is two poor mans answer to O Neill.
We also won at Bolton just before the cup semi with Milner on the bench who was in incredible form at the time.
Back in 09/10 the four games against Man. City and Spurs (who both narrowly finished above us) ended in 3 draws and a defeat. Not too bad but I remember the manner of those games and use being on the back foot in both v Spurs and also Man. City at home, we took the lead in three of those games aswell.
Ultimately under MON as much as we had a decent record against most of the top teams, very rarely would we dominate or play the game in our terms, it was very much backs to the wall on many occasions. This was even after spending 100m + on revamping the squad.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
I think it was Tom Ross who said that everything he did was for the benefit of Team O'Neill. What I do know is that he left us without a single senior coach, four days before the season started.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Which he wasn't.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Yes, horrible Randy Lerner forcing him to resign five days before the start of the new season because he wasn't allowed to sign Aidan McGeady.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
I think it was Tom Ross who said that everything he did was for the benefit of Team O'Neill. What I do know is that he left us without a single senior coach, four days before the season started.
Absolutely, it was the act of either a selfish man protecting his mystique or even worse a calculated act designed to cause the most damage possible.
-
There was a little more to it than that.
-
There was a little more to it than that.
I'd be very interested to know what, and how you know it.
-
There was a little more to it than that.
This better be good, because either you are privy to some earth shattering revelation or you know absolutely nothing at all and find yourself in dark corner. Good luck.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
I'd forgotten that he dragged it out for months to get his 30 pieces of silver
-
There was a little more to it than that.
This better be good, because either you are privy to some earth shattering revelation or you know absolutely nothing at all and find yourself in dark corner. Good luck.
Don't hold your breath mate.
-
Bloody heck, does all this mean there's an impending argument about Ged Houllier right around the corner?
-
There was a little more to it than that.
passport, passport give us the facts, passport, give us the facts - shhhhhhhhhhhh...........
-
Bloody heck, does all this mean there's an impending argument about Ged Houllier right around the corner?
He never got the credit he deserved.
(Pulls up chair, opens popcorn....)
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Yes, horrible Randy Lerner forcing him to resign five days before the start of the new season because he wasn't allowed to sign Aidan McGeady.
My comment was made in response to this childishness.
I would however be delighted to hear Mr Woodhalls categorical proof of the "no he wasn't" respose to the comment that MON was constructively dismissed.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Yes, horrible Randy Lerner forcing him to resign five days before the start of the new season because he wasn't allowed to sign Aidan McGeady.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Yes, horrible Randy Lerner forcing him to resign five days before the start of the new season because he wasn't allowed to sign Aidan McGeady.
It must have required some quick revisionism when all those who had been so scathing of McGeady had to confront the fact that the esteemed Roberto Martinez thought him worth signing for Everton. He is a good player who would have added to the squad, problem was that, although we didn't yet know it, we were heading into this ongoing period of austerity where the club had scaled back their ambitions without seemingly coming to any agreement with the manager.
Of course MoN soured everything with his flounce off but as we are seeing with Lambert now there is a rush, in some quarters, to rubbish everything about people in a 'hell hath no fury' kind of style.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Yes, horrible Randy Lerner forcing him to resign five days before the start of the new season because he wasn't allowed to sign Aidan McGeady.
My comment was made in response to this childishness.
I would however be delighted to hear Mr Woodhalls categorical proof of the "no he wasn't" respose to the comment that MON was constructively dismissed.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Yes, horrible Randy Lerner forcing him to resign five days before the start of the new season because he wasn't allowed to sign Aidan McGeady.
Strange how it's always 'childishness' when anyone disagrees with you.
-
Most of the good things about the MON era came from Randy's bank account.
Unfortunately, so did all the really shit ones.
-
Strange I ignored the abuse from the Neanderthal that called me a f$#@@ div, I explain tagain.
Pleasentext of my comment from last night in , which several posters thought meant soneting else and ask you to prove your comment.
Your response whilst appearing to admonish me does not answer the question. So I'll try again.
What is your proof that he was not constructively dismissed? Other than stating"no he wasn't"
-
You can't prove a negative. You said he was constructively dismissed, the burden of proof therefore rests with yourself to discharge on the balance of probabilities. This is not something you can do, as you have no evidence.
I therefore, in my Judgment, grant Dave Woodhall's application under CPR 24.2(a)(i) for Summary Judgment and dismiss the case. I will now hear your submissions for costs.
-
You can't prove a negative. You said he was constructively dismissed, therefore the burden of evidence therefore rests with yourself to discharge on the balance of probabilities. This is not something you can do, as you have no evidence.
I therefore, in my Judgment, grant Dave Woodhall's application under CPR 24.2(a)(i) and dismiss the case. I will now hear your submissions for costs.
I've been approaching my advocacy in Employment Tribunals all wrong all these years. In future in a constructive dismissal case I shall call no evidence at all but just ask the Respondent's first witness "You prove that my client wasn't constructively dismissed!" and will then sit down and ask no further questions.
If someone has some credible evidence that Aston Villa Football Club were in fundamental breach of MON's contract of employment then I would love to see it.
-
Strange I ignored the abuse from the Neanderthal that called me a f$#@@ div, I explain tagain.
Pleasentext of my comment from last night in , which several posters thought meant soneting else and ask you to prove your comment.
Your response whilst appearing to admonish me does not answer the question. So I'll try again.
What is your proof that he was not constructively dismissed? Other than stating"no he wasn't"
Apart from the obvious difficulty of disproving a negative, the fact (and you've stated that you like facts) is that he and the rest of his staff walked out five days before the season started. I could point you in several directions that would tell you the full extent of this supposed dismissal but as they wouldn't be able to disprove said negative with any written evidence you probably wouldn't believe them either.
Martin O'Neill timed his departure knowing it would cause maximum inconvenience. That's a fact. I await any justification for his actions.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Yes, horrible Randy Lerner forcing him to resign five days before the start of the new season because he wasn't allowed to sign Aidan McGeady.
It must have required some quick revisionism when all those who had been so scathing of McGeady had to confront the fact that the esteemed Roberto Martinez thought him worth signing for Everton. He is a good player who would have added to the squad, problem was that, although we didn't yet know it, we were heading into this ongoing period of austerity where the club had scaled back their ambitions without seemingly coming to any agreement with the manager.
Of course MoN soured everything with his flounce off but as we are seeing with Lambert now there is a rush, in some quarters, to rubbish everything about people in a 'hell hath no fury' kind of style.
He's a perfectly reasonable player. But had he cost the £15m that O'Neill wanted to pay Celtic rather than the £1.5m paid to Spartak Moscow I wonder if Martinez would still have been so keen.
-
You can't prove a negative. You said he was constructively dismissed, therefore the burden of evidence therefore rests with yourself to discharge on the balance of probabilities. This is not something you can do, as you have no evidence.
I therefore, in my Judgment, grant Dave Woodhall's application under CPR 24.2(a)(i) and dismiss the case. I will now hear your submissions for costs.
I've been approaching my advocacy in Employment Tribunals all wrong all these years. In future in a constructive dismissal case I shall call no evidence at all but just ask the Respondent's first witness "You prove that my client wasn't constructively dismissed!" and will then sit down and ask no further questions.
If someone has some credible evidence that Aston Villa Football Club were in fundamental breach of MON's contract of employment then I would love to see it.
You might take them by surprise with that approach! You'd have to double check your professional indemnity insurance beforehand though, just in case!
As you and Dave say, the only fact that we have is that O'Neill, and his coaching staff, left the club 5 days before the start of the season which caused significant consequences. How anybody, without any other evidence, can make an assessment that he was constructively dismissed, is beyond me.
-
Didn't O'Neill win his court case against Lerner which led people into thinking he was constructively dismissed?
-
Didn't O'Neill win his court case against Lerner which led people into thinking he was constructively dismissed?
No. It was settled out of court, as most Tribunal cases are. Employer clients of mine settle all the time without this being an admission of liability. There might be all manner of reasons for doing so.
-
Didn't O'Neill win his court case against Lerner which led people into thinking he was constructively dismissed?
John Lerwill won his case. I think it was Lizz who said that some massive percentage of unfair dismissals are successful, mainly because it's easier to settle than fight them.
-
One reason why employers tend to settle is that it is very difficult indeed to get an Order for costs in the Employment Tribunal even if you win, so fighting the case inevitably leaves the employer out of pocket.
-
MON peaked with Celtic when he got them to the UEFA cup final.At Leicester he did remarkably well with a mostly journey man squad winning the League cup twice there were a solid if unspectacular team that got results.
By time he got to us he star was on the wane , even with far more money that he had a Leicester at Villa he was unable to replicate the cup success and only finished 2 places higher 6th than he managed with Leicester.His spent significant sums on transfer fee's at Villa for some very ordinary players compounded by huge wages (the club Lerner etc also need to take a share of responsibility for the wage issue ) the latter seeing us unable to offload players ,having to pay up contracts and then have no funds to replace them.The football its self got worse as time went on , the best we played style wise was with Berger in the team once he went we relied on a more counter attacking which was eventually found out.
Whilst we did receive decent fee's for Young / Downing / Milner / the profit was not huge.In Milners case considering we got lumbered with a highly paid Ireland you could argue we made zero on that deal , any profits on them were completely wiped out by the fee's never recouped from Harewood ,Davies , Dunne , Young , Baye to name a few.
MON was no tactical genius his management relies on his man management that to me seems to include giving average players huge salaries and telling them there are world beaters.He never rotated the squad , he seemed to have no scouting network and clearly had favorites in the squad.I recall for instance Bouma suffering his big iniury and getting a replacement and the best option he could come up with was £3.5mil on Nicky Shore who ended up on the bench with Luke Young player LB !!
He never looked abroad at players and yet ironically his one oversea's purchase ,Guzan is arguably his best value buy !
Leaving us in lurch he ended up at Sunderland and was was no better there, the transfer policy there was similar buying from UK and highly priced in general.£27MIL he spent on Fletcher /Johnson/ Graham.The team performed poorly and they were struggling near the relegation zone and he was sacked.He may do ok with Ireland ,only have to motivate players every month or so and he has no transfers to worry about but I suspect he won't do anything spectacular.
I think with Villa he didn't do as well as the money allowed and he had to keep rebuilding rather than add to a settle squad.Other manager's could have done as well or better with the resources he had at the time.He had too much control at the club and once that was (rightly) taken from him he stormed off and left us in the lurch and for that I have zero time for him.
-
Nobody has said that the O'Neill years were bad. What HAS been said is that with the resources he had available he should have done better, and his legacy continues to cause problems.
Exactly my thoughts...with the addition that the way and timing of him leaving wiped out every drop of good faith that he built up. The act of a gutless man.
Or one that was constructively dismissed
Yes, horrible Randy Lerner forcing him to resign five days before the start of the new season because he wasn't allowed to sign Aidan McGeady.
It must have required some quick revisionism when all those who had been so scathing of McGeady had to confront the fact that the esteemed Roberto Martinez thought him worth signing for Everton. He is a good player who would have added to the squad, problem was that, although we didn't yet know it, we were heading into this ongoing period of austerity where the club had scaled back their ambitions without seemingly coming to any agreement with the manager.
Of course MoN soured everything with his flounce off but as we are seeing with Lambert now there is a rush, in some quarters, to rubbish everything about people in a 'hell hath no fury' kind of style.
He's a perfectly reasonable player. But had he cost the £15m that O'Neill wanted to pay Celtic rather than the £1.5m paid to Spartak Moscow I wonder if Martinez would still have been so keen.
Clearly those figures are just speculation, we never got as far as making a bid and the Everton fee was reported as 'undisclosed. In any case, I was talking from a football rather than a financial point of view. One of MON's failings is that he was old school in that he didn't consider it his remit to worry about the money side but those days are long gone other than at a small number of super rich clubs.
-
The fact he was going for McGeady, an inconsistent winger (he has improved in the past four years) from another British club who would command generous wages, like all the other British-based players he bought, was yet another sign that he had tunnel-vision when it came to transfer policies - pacy, direct, will understand my accent when I bark at them, and above-all a huge financial commitment when fee and wages were factored in compared to what a foreign-based alternative would have cost.
-
I'll always remember the day O'Neill managed to get Bouma to lose weight. It always brings a tear to my eyes.
-
MON is one of the best examples there is of the glass ceiling. How is it that he spent increasing amounts of money only for us to stand exactly still? Sixth was literally the best he could do. His defenders really have to ask themselves if they think his football 'style' really stood a chance of getting us to the top in the age of Mourinho. Kick-and-rush-and-run-about-a-bit have absolutely no place at that end of the league, and it showed. A man with a pathological addiction to a flat 4-4-2 straight out of 1975, with a big-man-quick-man striker arrangement from the same year, is really so out of place in the high areas of the league that it's comical. Remember other managers calling us a 'long-ball team'? They were right.
-
MON is one of the best examples there is of the glass ceiling. How is it that he spent increasing amounts of money only for us to stand exactly still? Sixth was literally the best he could do. His defenders really have to ask themselves if they think his football 'style' really stood a chance of getting us to the top in the age of Mourinho. Kick-and-rush-and-run-about-a-bit have absolutely no place at that end of the league, and it showed. A man with a pathological addiction to a flat 4-4-2 straight out of 1975, with a big-man-quick-man striker arrangement from the same year, is really so out of place in the high areas of the league that it's comical. Remember other managers calling us a 'long-ball team'? They were right.
64 points was undoubtedly our peak, at the end of 3 years of slow and steady progression (in terms of points and perhaps regression in style).
In other years that might have got us higher than 6th, but as we see with the league now, the gap between the big boys and the dross is getting bigger. Though this season given the erratic form of some clubs, we've only really a big two, and even City are struggling for consistency.
Certainly though I think part of O Neill's leaving was undoubtedly an admission that he knew a fall was coming. We largely sensed it too. We perhaps didn't sense quite such a fall so quickly from 6th to a relegation scrap, but O Neill wanted to look after number one. Leave a club with three 6th placed finishes as opposed to a year later when we probably finish 8th-10th, maybe lower.
-
O'Neill failed. He did no better than Gregory, but spent more than any manager in our history, bringing the club to it's knees financially, which is also Lerner's fault for handing the cretin the cash so readily. The summer he said hang on, the bellend walked out on us to cause maximum damage.
My thoughts precisely.
-
MON is one of the best examples there is of the glass ceiling. How is it that he spent increasing amounts of money only for us to stand exactly still? Sixth was literally the best he could do. His defenders really have to ask themselves if they think his football 'style' really stood a chance of getting us to the top in the age of Mourinho. Kick-and-rush-and-run-about-a-bit have absolutely no place at that end of the league, and it showed. A man with a pathological addiction to a flat 4-4-2 straight out of 1975, with a big-man-quick-man striker arrangement from the same year, is really so out of place in the high areas of the league that it's comical. Remember other managers calling us a 'long-ball team'? They were right.
You are right, Monty I do think that is as far as he could with his limited approach. That said the world moved on and the money we spent is comparatively insignificant when you see what Man City had to fork out in order to break into the Cartel. Everton and Spurs have similarly failed to make any significant impact despite sniffing around for a number of years. It's a rigged game.
-
MON is one of the best examples there is of the glass ceiling. How is it that he spent increasing amounts of money only for us to stand exactly still? Sixth was literally the best he could do. His defenders really have to ask themselves if they think his football 'style' really stood a chance of getting us to the top in the age of Mourinho. Kick-and-rush-and-run-about-a-bit have absolutely no place at that end of the league, and it showed. A man with a pathological addiction to a flat 4-4-2 straight out of 1975, with a big-man-quick-man striker arrangement from the same year, is really so out of place in the high areas of the league that it's comical. Remember other managers calling us a 'long-ball team'? They were right.
The difference between MON, a decent manager, and the really good managers is that they can all get to a certain point via the traditional route of spending a bit and doing their job - say sixth or so - but to get beyond that, other things come in to play which make all the difference.
Like you said, Monty, tactical acuity, and also an ability to spot a player and work the transfer system a bit to get as much out of it as you can.
On the first of those, MON was absolutely hopeless. We just did the same thing game after game. I can't remember him ever significantly changing our set up to reflect the team we were playing. It was "one size fits all". Even his substitutions were the same week after week.
On the second one, he was even worse, just lumping huge amounts of money at predictable signings. All of his 40 plus signings bar two (Guzan and Carew) came from the overpriced UK market, and of those one was a suggestion from elsewhere rather than his idea, and the other was a punt on a cheap back up goalkeeper.
If we had given MON another three seasons with the same sort of money to spend every year, he'd have got us no further at all, we'd reached the point where extra money wouldn't have improved us, it would just have got us further in the mire.
-
We needed to get into the Champions' League and procure all the associated money while Randy's cheques were still big enough to make the difference - that's to say, before City got there and Spurs stopped being terrible. MON has many qualities, but his smorgasbord of faults were the deciding factor in our failing to make it in those years.
-
Strange I ignored the abuse from the Neanderthal that called me a f$#@@ div, I explain tagain.
Pleasentext of my comment from last night in , which several posters thought meant soneting else and ask you to prove your comment.
Your response whilst appearing to admonish me does not answer the question. So I'll try again.
What is your proof that he was not constructively dismissed? Other than stating"no he wasn't"
I retracted that, and replaced it with contemptible buffoon, which I presume you are satisfied with.
Again, I trust the matter is now closed.
-
Didn't O'Neill win his court case against Lerner which led people into thinking he was constructively dismissed?
*sadly chalks another mark on the wall*
That's a comment we see pretty much every time MON is discussed. As Richard E said, no.
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
Didn't he just use to do some scouting for us?
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
Didn't he just use to do some scouting for us?
Yes and in the grand scheme of everything else going only the club his presence was less than a blip in our history.
-
On Wiki it states Storey Moore (a colleague of MON's at Forest) was our Chief Scout.
I wonder how much that job paid? Did he travel abroad?
-
On the second one, he was even worse, just lumping huge amounts of money at predictable signings. All of his 40 plus signings bar two (Guzan and Carew) came from the overpriced UK market, and of those one was a suggestion from elsewhere rather than his idea, and the other was a punt on a cheap back up goalkeeper.
How can you forget Salifou!
-
Sally ... Salifou, Sally... Salifou! Great song at least. I thought Maloney was a good player, reminded me a bit of Tommy Johnson. He left because he couldn't settle, is that right? Great free-kicks at Sunderland and City and a 5 star performance at Stamford Bridge in the 4-4.
-
Clearly those figures are just speculation, we never got as far as making a bid and the Everton fee was reported as 'undisclosed. In any case, I was talking from a football rather than a financial point of view. One of MON's failings is that he was old school in that he didn't consider it his remit to worry about the money side but those days are long gone other than at a small number of super rich clubs.
It's not that much speculation considering what Spartak paid for him, and there are plenty of undisclosed fees where the approximate fee is known.
-
On Wiki it states Storey Moore (a colleague of MON's at Forest) was our Chief Scout.
I wonder how much that job paid? Did he travel abroad?
Let's get Ian on the blower for his side of the storey. Maybe MON gagged him and said not to complain about being paid to do nowt.
-
Like you said, Monty, tactical acuity, and also an ability to spot a player and work the transfer system a bit to get as much out of it as you can.
On the first of those, MON was absolutely hopeless. We just did the same thing game after game. I can't remember him ever significantly changing our set up to reflect the team we were playing. It was "one size fits all". Even his substitutions were the same week after week.
I was listening to the radio on friday and they were discussing the tactics displayed by Ireland in the Germany game last month, and the wingers being switched regularly was noted, even being praised by the journalist. Had to have a wry chuckle to myself. That said, O'Neill did start the scotland game with 1 up front, not 4-4-2 (not that it did us any good) so maybe he has been weaned off that particular habit.
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
Didn't he just use to do some scouting for us?
Yes and in the grand scheme of everything else going only the club his presence was less than a blip in our history.
But it did provide the most hysterically over the top reaction in H+V history.
-
Clearly those figures are just speculation, we never got as far as making a bid and the Everton fee was reported as 'undisclosed. In any case, I was talking from a football rather than a financial point of view. One of MON's failings is that he was old school in that he didn't consider it his remit to worry about the money side but those days are long gone other than at a small number of super rich clubs.
It's not that much speculation considering what Spartak paid for him, and there are plenty of undisclosed fees where the approximate fee is known.
And the football and financial side are intrinsically linked. If O'Neill had wanted £1.5m (the fee that Everton fans seem to think that he cost) to buy him, then I don't think either Randy or the fans would have had any issue with that.
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
Didn't he just use to do some scouting for us?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder a coach for us in the G Hou season, and IIRC did a good job in shoring us up defensively during the final couple of months of the season?
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
Didn't he just use to do some scouting for us?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder a coach for us in the G Hou season, and IIRC did a good job in shoring us up defensively during the final couple of months of the season?
Nah Roeder was just a scout thankfully.
-
Dib, dib, dib. Dob, dob, dob.
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
Didn't he just use to do some scouting for us?
Yes and in the grand scheme of everything else going only the club his presence was less than a blip in our history.
But it did provide the most hysterically over the top reaction in H+V history.
Considering his recent cv included some good work in relegating Newcastle it's kind of understandable.
-
Not sure you can compare ONeills spending with previous managers, for one inflation and secondly the fees/wages in the premier league era are way ahead than those previously spent.
-
Bloody heck, does all this mean there's an impending argument about Ged Houllier right around the corner?
I'll go.
Houllier was an enigma, on the one hand you had the "between 8th and 12th" comments, the Liverpool love in and and our cunning ability to chuck away points.
But on the other hand, he was probably the most ambitious manager we'd had since Big Ron. It seemed more the players struggling to adapt to modern methods than a lack of ideas, and he'd have cut out the rot out before it spread, but in my opinion the board shit it, and jumped at the chance to get rid as it would've cost to much.
This also explains what I can only think is the driving reason for bringing in McLeish, so he could get Dunne and friends back on board and squeeze a bit more out of them.
It's such a shame that someone of Houllier's calibre, a man with those kind of connections, could've done had he come in on the back of the takeover.
Instead of that twat.
-
Bloody heck, does all this mean there's an impending argument about Ged Houllier right around the corner?
I'll go.
Houllier was an enigma, on the one hand you had the "between 8th and 12th" comments, the Liverpool love in and and our cunning ability to chuck away points.
But on the other hand, he was probably the most ambitious manager we'd had since Big Ron. It seemed more the players struggling to adapt to modern methods than a lack of ideas, and he'd have cut out the rot out before it spread, but in my opinion the board shit it, and jumped at the chance to get rid as it would've cost to much.
This also explains what I can only think is the driving reason for bringing in McLeish, so he could get Dunne and friends back on board and squeeze a bit more out of them.
It's such a shame that someone of Houllier's calibre, a man with those kind of connections, could've done had he come in on the back of the takeover.
Instead of that twat.
I'd agree with the first bit, but he left because of his health. "He wanted to spend too much" doesn't really hold up when you bear in mind that O'Neill walked out for the same reason. And I agree with the last bit.
I also wonder what would have happened had Randy gone with his alleged first choice, Jurgen Klinsmann.
-
What we had when MON and Randy arrived was a situation that gave the manager carte-Blanche to act as he saw fit with impunity. What we have now is exactly the same thing, only the manager now has virtually no money. I'm sorry for stating the obvious.
-
Spot on, Dave. As I've said before, Lambert is MON without the money. Both f**king clueless.
-
Bloody heck, does all this mean there's an impending argument about Ged Houllier right around the corner?
I'll go.
Houllier was an enigma, on the one hand you had the "between 8th and 12th" comments, the Liverpool love in and and our cunning ability to chuck away points.
But on the other hand, he was probably the most ambitious manager we'd had since Big Ron. It seemed more the players struggling to adapt to modern methods than a lack of ideas, and he'd have cut out the rot out before it spread, but in my opinion the board shit it, and jumped at the chance to get rid as it would've cost to much.
This also explains what I can only think is the driving reason for bringing in McLeish, so he could get Dunne and friends back on board and squeeze a bit more out of them.
It's such a shame that someone of Houllier's calibre, a man with those kind of connections, could've done had he come in on the back of the takeover.
Instead of that twat.
Right idea but really the wrong man.
Someone who let's not forget had been out of football management for 4 years (remember he couldn't take over straight away because he was scouting for the French FA or something which immediately gave him an uneasy feeling) and of course his health which was always a lingering worry.
His problem was following MON so expectation of a top 6 finish was still very high so fighting a relegation battle for most of that season was a massive shock. Like Lambert he'd have got a lot more time and support if he'd followed McLeish.
I liked his ideas and signings though. More possession football, Bent supplied by Young and Downing, continuing to play some of the young players. Signings like Makoun and Bradley were unlucky in not working out/getting a chance.
Where we massively fcuked up which Paulie for once correctly brings up time and again was then going from that continental template and instead of getting Martinez or another young foreign coach was somehow appointing McLeish.
Any team can have a bad season and recover. Spurs and Everton have both been bottom half teams in recent years and yet been up in the top 6 again very quickly.
When Houllier left we still had some pretty good players in our squad so we could've been easily around 8th the following year. Instead we started the downward spiral we're still arguably on.
Now that Mcleish fellow....
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
Didn't he just use to do some scouting for us?
Yes and in the grand scheme of everything else going only the club his presence was less than a blip in our history.
But it did provide the most hysterically over the top reaction in H+V history.
Considering his recent cv included some good work in relegating Newcastle it's kind of understandable.
He got relegated Newcastle as a scout?
-
Houllier was in a totally different league to the likes of Lambert and MON, the problem was that he couldn't help putting his foot in the mouth all the fecking time.
Over the course of the season, though, it is hard to deny we started to play better football. I also got the idea that over time he'd have settled into the job comfortably.
The Houllier appointment wasn't the big problem, though. The enormous fuck up was who we followed him with. Not just because of the obvious poor record and dire football, but because we went through quite a lot of pain in the Houllier season, and really needed to take that and build on the progress we had made with a manager of the same ilk.
Instead .... well, you know.
-
I may be wrong (I usually am!) but wasn't Ian Storey Moore our foreign scout. If MON took no notice of his recomendations what was the point of paying him a salary?
Wasn't Glenn Roeder bizarrely on the payroll too? Or did I imagine that one.
Didn't he just use to do some scouting for us?
Yes and in the grand scheme of everything else going only the club his presence was less than a blip in our history.
But it did provide the most hysterically over the top reaction in H+V history.
Considering his recent cv included some good work in relegating Newcastle it's kind of understandable.
Not really.
Roeder left Newcastle at the end of the 2007 season, it was another two years and four managers until they got relegated.
-
It wasn't even Newcastle, or for that matter his time at West Ham. Houllier had asked him to look at future opponents, the sort of job where you see who takes the throw ins and how many defenders they leave back at corners. The hysteria that greeted this lowest-scale possible temporary appointment on here was akin to him having been made manager, team captain and head ball boy.
-
Sometimes it's all about symbolics. Glenn Roeder was always going to get peoples backs up. Maybe that's what they wanted.
Are we seeing another attempt now with Keane !
-
Sometimes it's all about symbolics. Glenn Roeder was always going to get peoples backs up. Maybe that's what they wanted.
Are we seeing another attempt now with Keane !
It was only symbolic to those people who are susceptible to hysteria. Most people saw it for what it was.
-
Sometimes it's all about symbolics. Glenn Roeder was always going to get peoples backs up. Maybe that's what they wanted.
Are we seeing another attempt now with Keane !
He was never going to get anyone's back up if they were in their right mind. He was doing some part-time scouting yet the response was laughable.
-
Not sure you can compare ONeills spending with previous managers, for one inflation and secondly the fees/wages in the premier league era are way ahead than those previously spent.
Unsurprisingly this rather relevant point has been ignored.
-
Not sure you can compare ONeills spending with previous managers, for one inflation and secondly the fees/wages in the premier league era are way ahead than those previously spent.
Unsurprisingly this rather relevant point has been ignored.
because it is not relevant, no other manager left us in the same financial mess, no other manager left us paying over 90% of revenue on wages. No other manager was given the then equivalent of £200 million to spend.
If you can think of a Villa manager that had the same investment and was allowed the same prolificacy, please name him.
-
Sometimes it's all about symbolics. Glenn Roeder was always going to get peoples backs up. Maybe that's what they wanted.
Are we seeing another attempt now with Keane !
It was only symbolic to those people who are susceptible to hysteria. Most people saw it for what it was.
Also worth remembering that 95% of Villa fans won't have even known he was here.
-
Not sure you can compare ONeills spending with previous managers, for one inflation and secondly the fees/wages in the premier league era are way ahead than those previously spent.
Unsurprisingly this rather relevant point has been ignored.
Not really.
I dont think many other clubs were busy making Heskey their 65k a week top earner on a 3.5 year deal, aged 32 and a bit. Or giving a 31 year old Habib Beye a three year, 40k a week deal. Or buying one whole defence one summer, and then another whole defence the next summer. Or buying players like Nicky Shorey, seeing them in training, then opting never to use him.
-
Guess the only other era we had some serious wedge (at the time) was when we had that windfall of cash under Ellis , can't recall which sponsor pumped it in ?
-
Houiller gave the impression that he was disconnected from the club in the sense that he didn't get it. The reality was that he was in the same boat as O'Leary and O'Neill in that respect, but the difference was, old Ged would be at BMH until 3am with Gary Mac watching DVD's of matches after a game and working on how to improve.
We should have followed him with continuity. We saw how he wanted to play with Young central, Downing wide and with players like Makoun and Bradley. Ok, they may have not worked out (I didn't think Bradley was given a chance and did well for Roma) but it was clear that we had a plan. Beyond an overarching strategic aim to reduce expenditure, there has been nothing on a smaller tactical level since.
I also agree with Lee that Houiller would have cut the corrosive element from the club a lot sooner in the likes of Warnock, Dunne and Collins and players of their character. At the least we would have not had the schism in the dressing room between those that had embraced Ged's ideas and those that were clearly against it. Performances like Liverpool, Wolves and Man City may not have reoccurred in a second season, who knows. We may have seen more performances like Man United at home, when a midfield of Hogg and Herd brought us pretty darn close to beating them for the first time since Morning Glory was in the charts.
I am not sure what it was that had scared Lerner and why he reverted to a type in McLeish, that has been followed by Lambert, rather than continuing down the path we were on.
-
Performances like Liverpool, Wolves and Man City may not have reoccurred in a second season, who knows. We may have seen more performances like Man United at home, when a midfield of Hogg and Herd brought us pretty darn close to beating them for the first time since Morning Glory was in the chart
Bannan and Hogg, but totally agree, i came out of that game disappointed we didn't win, but really positive about where we were going.
-
Guess the only other era we had some serious wedge (at the time) was when we had that windfall of cash under Ellis , can't recall which sponsor pumped it in ?
NTL
-
Guess the only other era we had some serious wedge (at the time) was when we had that windfall of cash under Ellis , can't recall which sponsor pumped it in ?
NTL
Yep that's them .
-
Performances like Liverpool, Wolves and Man City may not have reoccurred in a second season, who knows. We may have seen more performances like Man United at home, when a midfield of Hogg and Herd brought us pretty darn close to beating them for the first time since Morning Glory was in the chart
Bannan and Hogg, but totally agree, i came out of that game disappointed we didn't win, but really positive about where we were going.
Then I'm pretty sure in the return game at OT Makoun ran the show in midfield and we lost only because our defence was still quite shit and Vidic scored a goal which most centre halves would have no business scoring
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
-
Performances like Liverpool, Wolves and Man City may not have reoccurred in a second season, who knows. We may have seen more performances like Man United at home, when a midfield of Hogg and Herd brought us pretty darn close to beating them for the first time since Morning Glory was in the chart
Bannan and Hogg, but totally agree, i came out of that game disappointed we didn't win, but really positive about where we were going.
That was the thing, I remember quite a few games we drew or lost that we should have won.
I can barely think of any over the last few seasons.
-
Sometimes it's all about symbolics. Glenn Roeder was always going to get peoples backs up. Maybe that's what they wanted.
Are we seeing another attempt now with Keane !
It was only symbolic to those people who are susceptible to hysteria. Most people saw it for what it was.
Also worth remembering that 95% of Villa fans won't have even known he was here.
I shamefully had no idea.
Is it too late for me to be pissed off?
-
No, please vent.
Back to the manager and post GED, there's a strong case that says we should have kept Gary McAllister in the chair with GED is some sort of remote consultation role as a continuity plan.
-
No, please vent.
Back to the manager and post GED, there's a strong case that says we should have kept Gary McAllister in the chair with GED is some sort of remote consultation role as a continuity plan.
Except McAllister was a crap manager and Ged didn't want to be in the background.
-
except that we showed some good form when G-Mac was manager and finished an improbable 9th
-
You're forgetting the tactical masterstroke of Gary Mac at the Shrine. He decided to vacate our midfield when they were down to 10 men which saw us lose for the first time there since dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Even crap Villa managers like O'Leary, McLiesh and Lambert don't get beat at the Shrine by the Stripey Filth.
-
This thread is depressing!!!!!
-
This thread is depressing!!!!!
You know you're in the shite when you're pining for the halcyon days of Gerard Houllier.
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
Who would have been a "natural" successor at the time even? An aloof Liverpool fan whose health wouldn't hold up for a full season?
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
Who would have been a "natural" successor at the time even? An aloof Liverpool fan whose health wouldn't hold up for a full season?
You could argue Martinez in terms of footballing philosophy would have been a natural successor. Would it have been a year too early for him in a job like that? Perhaps.
But this is where a better structure in the clubs hierarchy would help us. So we can identify a Pochettino or a Koeman, as opposed to just blindly going for different variations of the same mould.
As for now it's difficult really. The trouble is, with our budget you may have to account for the fact a change in the way we play might see an initial drop off. That drop off could indeed take us down. But in the long term it would be better.
Klinsmann perhaps. That would only happen under new ownership.
Under Randy I'd just go for someone like Pulis. Nothing progressive, just solidifying us until we can get Randy out and someone with (hopefully) some more interest in. I don't think a progressive manager would come to us under current restrictions. Nor do I think Randy could identify the right sort of manager.
The sooner we get taken over, the better, then we can start afresh.
-
This thread is depressing!!!!!
You know you're in the shite when you're pining for the halcyon days of Gerard Houllier.
Ha I know. I hated Houllier. I hated his arrogant entry, and the hold up from leaving his semi-retirement position on the French FA. I hated his we're a team that usually finishes 8th-12th comment. The City 4-0 hammering when we couldn't get out of our own half, the Anfield love-in. I was at all of those abject away performances. The signing of Pires, the ability to throw away points.
It's only with hindsight that I realised he had a plan. If only he'd have wanted a DOF role.
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
Indeed, I absolutely hate it, too, it is such a pointless, reductive argument.
I would have no idea how to identify and find managerial candidates, and appoint them, but that's because I run a software company, not a Premier League football club.
If I ever get to run a Premier League football club, I will make it top of my list of "things to be good at", though.
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
Indeed, I absolutely hate it, too, it is such a pointless, reductive argument.
I would have no idea how to identify and find managerial candidates, and appoint them, but that's because I run a software company, not a Premier League football club.
If I ever get to run a Premier League football club, I will make it top of my list of "things to be good at", though.
To be honest, a couple of nights researching Football Manager and Wikipedia would probably tell you what you need to know.
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
Indeed, I absolutely hate it, too, it is such a pointless, reductive argument.
I would have no idea how to identify and find managerial candidates, and appoint them, but that's because I run a software company, not a Premier League football club.
If I ever get to run a Premier League football club, I will make it top of my list of "things to be good at", though.
To be honest, a couple of nights researching Football Manager and Wikipedia would probably tell you what you need to know.
You mean what Randy does?
-
I doubt they've got that far, Tom.
Still awaiting further instruction from Siralex.
-
I doubt they've got that far, Tom.
Still awaiting further instruction from Siralex.
Yeah. I'm expecting Brian Kidd to be unveiled as our new manager in a years time, as we push for promotion.
-
Would imagine the next one would be recommended by Wenger rather than Fergie.
Gilles Grimandi?
-
I remember seeing GHou at the Emirates last year where I think he was working for French tv. I couldn't believe how frail and gaunt he looked, not to mention huge circles under his eyes. Easy to imagine that he sleeps and breathes football. I think we would have been the last long-term project for him to get his teeth into and as has been said before, it really is a shame that his management consultant style wasn't explored further when he left. Instead we went back to the old-fashioned approach that O'Neills, McLeish's and Lamberts' all adhere to. Given the fact that he's pretty outspoken I'm surprised Houllier hasn't spoken about his troubles at the club that season.
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
Indeed, I absolutely hate it, too, it is such a pointless, reductive argument.
I would have no idea how to identify and find managerial candidates, and appoint them, but that's because I run a software company, not a Premier League football club.
If I ever get to run a Premier League football club, I will make it top of my list of "things to be good at", though.
To be honest, a couple of nights researching Football Manager and Wikipedia would probably tell you what you need to know.
You mean what Randy does?
At least it distracts him from firing up MS Paint and designing us a new badge.
-
I remember seeing GHou at the Emirates last year where I think he was working for French tv. I couldn't believe how frail and gaunt he looked, not to mention huge circles under his eyes
Yep; The Villa will do that to you alright!
-
My new favourite thing on the internet
https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Martin_ONeill/personality
Grumpy, confrontational, bad listener? Who'd a thunk it.
-
My new favourite thing on the internet
https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Martin_ONeill/personality
Grumpy, confrontational, bad listener? Who'd a thunk it.
Why don't they profile fans of 'Anal Sex'? I demand answers.
-
We should have followed him with continuity. We saw how he wanted to play with Young central, Downing wide and with players like Makoun and Bradley. Ok, they may have not worked out (I didn't think Bradley was given a chance and did well for Roma) but it was clear that we had a plan. Beyond an overarching strategic aim to reduce expenditure, there has been nothing on a smaller tactical level since.
I also agree with Lee that Houiller would have cut the corrosive element from the club a lot sooner in the likes of Warnock, Dunne and Collins and players of their character. At the least we would have not had the schism in the dressing room between those that had embraced Ged's ideas and those that were clearly against it. Performances like Liverpool, Wolves and Man City may not have reoccurred in a second season, who knows. We may have seen more performances like Man United at home, when a midfield of Hogg and Herd brought us pretty darn close to beating them for the first time since Morning Glory was in the charts.
Amusingly enough it was actually MON in pre season who started playing Young in the hole and then MacDonald played him there in his games at caretaker so Houllier just continued doing that rather than some revolutionary tactic he developed.
In any case I argued at the time Young should've been kept on the wing and Downing played inside which is relevant given how well he's playing there for West Ham. Young was overrated in that position if you compare him to someone like Van Der Vaart who signed for Spurs around that time.
He was right on the defence. The trouble with that is they had so much credit from the previous year's effort that I didn't like him messing around with them and the resulting deluge of goals that followed. In hindsight and the long term totally spot on however particuarly with signing Kyle Walker on loan as we badly needed pace in full back areas and most top clubs have that with their full backs.
He didn't help himself however dropping Cuellar for Dunne that one time after a MOTM performance.
-
You're forgetting the tactical masterstroke of Gary Mac at the Shrine. He decided to vacate our midfield when they were down to 10 men which saw us lose for the first time there since dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Even crap Villa managers like O'Leary, McLiesh and Lambert don't get beat at the Shrine by the Stripey Filth.
Yep, I always bring that up when people say McAlister should've been given the full time job. That game sticks in my mind as he brought on Pires (hopeless in his time here) who single handedly slowed down all our counter attacks and we lost against 10 men.
-
Pleased to see that MON added another win to his international cv tonight. USA a good deal higher in the FIFA world rankings so a goid confidence booster.
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
Indeed, I absolutely hate it, too, it is such a pointless, reductive argument.
I would have no idea how to identify and find managerial candidates, and appoint them, but that's because I run a software company, not a Premier League football club.
If I ever get to run a Premier League football club, I will make it top of my list of "things to be good at", though.
So you guys just see yourselves as background tactics consultants then?
-
Pleased to see that MON added another win to his international cv tonight. USA a good deal higher in the FIFA world rankings so a goid confidence booster.
You're a real banterlope! Top bants!
-
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
There was no 'argument' in my question, Paul. Just curiosity and 'putting ourself in Randy's shoes'.
My challenge is that there are no obvious candidates if we want to move in a more root-and-branches direction to change our playing style and the club footballing structure, which have been suggested on this thread. There are plenty of candidates if we want to continue bumping along in the Premiership basement.
But then I'm not particularly familiar with all the potential candidates.
FWIW, I think it's highly unlikely - even if he releases Lambert - that Randy will go radical on his next choice; which probably does not augur well.
-
Buying the Villa was probably very radical to other members of his family. Continuing his ownership would, to them, constitute extreme radicalism.
-
Pleased to see that MON added another win to his international cv tonight. USA a good deal higher in the FIFA world rankings so a goid confidence booster.
Do you think it is Bibs or Cones manning the defence?
You're a real banterlope! Top bants!
-
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
There was no 'argument' in my question, Paul. Just curiosity and 'putting ourself in Randy's shoes'.
My challenge is that there are no obvious candidates if we want to move in a more root-and-branches direction to change our playing style and the club footballing structure, which have been suggested on this thread. There are plenty of candidates if we want to continue bumping along in the Premiership basement.
But then I'm not particularly familiar with all the potential candidates.
FWIW, I think it's highly unlikely - even if he releases Lambert - that Randy will go radical on his next choice; which probably does not augur well.
I wasn't singling you out, but as you yourself say you don't know the candidates, that's the point, none of us do. The obvious names (like Pulis) will all get mentioned but that doesn't mean they're the only options, Pochettino had an average record from a few years with Espanyol before Southampton took him and I'd be very surprised if he was named by any of their fans as a potential replacement before the official links started to appear. It that kind of bravery that we need to show for the next manager.
-
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
There was no 'argument' in my question, Paul. Just curiosity and 'putting ourself in Randy's shoes'.
My challenge is that there are no obvious candidates if we want to move in a more root-and-branches direction to change our playing style and the club footballing structure, which have been suggested on this thread. There are plenty of candidates if we want to continue bumping along in the Premiership basement.
But then I'm not particularly familiar with all the potential candidates.
FWIW, I think it's highly unlikely - even if he releases Lambert - that Randy will go radical on his next choice; which probably does not augur well.
I wasn't singling you out, but as you yourself say you don't know the candidates, that's the point, none of us do. The obvious names (like Pulis) will all get mentioned but that doesn't mean they're the only options, Pochettino had an average record from a few years with Espanyol before Southampton took him and I'd be very surprised if he was named by any of their fans as a potential replacement before the official links started to appear. It that kind of bravery that we need to show for the next manager.
You could call the appointment of Alex McLeish brave. A walking slowly through a muddy field of barbed wire into a hail of machine gun fire kind of bravery but bravery nonetheless.
-
MON-Houllier-McLeish-Lambert
I think the phrase 'under achievement whilst at Villa' is applicable to all regardless of circumstances in which they were hired / fired.
-
Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.
McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.
Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.
So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?
I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available. An owner of a club should be able to find out though. I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.
Indeed, I absolutely hate it, too, it is such a pointless, reductive argument.
I would have no idea how to identify and find managerial candidates, and appoint them, but that's because I run a software company, not a Premier League football club.
If I ever get to run a Premier League football club, I will make it top of my list of "things to be good at", though.
So you guys just see yourselves as background tactics consultants then?
No, just people talking about football on a forum.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
To be fair, we made a profit on Zat Knight. Unlike Curtis Davies.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
To be fair, we made a profit on Zat Knight. Unlike Curtis Davies.
I'd have Curtis Davies in our back four quite happily now.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
To be fair, we made a profit on Zat Knight. Unlike Curtis Davies.
I'd have Curtis Davies in our back four quite happily now.
To be honest, you could probably add Curtis Stigers to our back four these days and it'd improve it.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
3 top 6 finishes? Yes please!
-
exactly the best Villa manager of the last eight years bar none.
-
The problem with MON's time here was not the top six finishes, it was the cost of achieving them, relative to how much a slightly better coach would have needed, or how much better we'd have done with the same investment.
Too little reward for too much investment.
The need to address the out of kilter finances was inevitable, and should probably have been started 12 months earlier (saving approx. £30M on a second new back 4)
That the following retrenchment has been carried out at a suicidal pace is another matter.
MONs family moto:
Veni, feci, non vincere
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
3 top 6 finishes? Yes please!
We all liked top 6 finishes....not so much the gutless, running away & quitting when challenged to work within means!
He was both good and bad for the club....the memories would be far better if his actions hadn't led to a complete tailspin.
He wasn't as bad as Billy McNeill but neither was he anything like as good as Sir Graham etc
-
On the pitch - great... mostly - however, off it, we all knew it was unsustainable and we was never going to get top 4 - the style of play and lack of plan B made that obvious.
-
exactly the best Villa manager of the last eight years bar none.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
-
exactly the best Villa manager of the last eight years bar none.
Just because he finished highest, doesn't make him the best manager. None of the last 6 managers have exactly shone as glittering examples.
Gregory - vastly overspent relative to what he achieved.
SGT II - just a mistake, but at least he was decent enough to admit it.
DOL - the missing member from The Italian Job.
MON see Gregory, with further deductions for being a spineless, whinging little shit who couldn't be bothered to sort out a mess he'd helped to make.
GED. Right ideas, wrong man/time. Bonus points for at least trying to move our football into the current decade, and trying to deal with the poison in the dressing room.
McLeish. Just wrong in every way.
Lambert. Even allowing for the differences in budget, see MON and Gregory for achievement v budget.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
3 top 6 finishes? Yes please!
We all liked top 6 finishes....not so much the gutless, running away & quitting when challenged to work within means!
He was both good and bad for the club....the memories would be far better if his actions hadn't led to a complete tailspin.
He wasn't as bad as Billy McNeill but neither was he anything like as good as Sir Graham etc
The O'Neill era was basically the only bright spot in the last 12 or so years, and even then it ended in tears.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
To be fair, we made a profit on Zat Knight. Unlike Curtis Davies.
I'd have Curtis Davies in our back four quite happily now.
To be honest, you could probably add Curtis Stigers to our back four these days and it'd improve it.
"And I wonder why we go down, with tears in our eyes"
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
Tell that to the chairman
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
MON walked away with compensation.
The chairman is trying to run away now though.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Everyone knows the chairman's apathy and desire to get out is the real reason for the decline of Aston Villa, but it's the manager who receives the majority of the grief from the fans. Lambert deserves everything he gets but I won't forget who the real villain of the piece is, and that's Randy Lerner.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
On that basis couldn't you say that the mess was the chairman's responsibility more than the manager's?
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
MON walked away with compensation.
The chairman is trying to run away now though.
The good old "he got compensation" line, as discredited every time it crops up.
Good for the chairman. That's what you want isn't it?
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
The buck stops with the chairman. And irrespective of how O'Neill walked away, what Lerner has done to the club in the 5 years since is simply unforgivable.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
The buck stops with the chairman. And irrespective of how O'Neill walked away, what Lerner has done to the club in the 5 years since is simply unforgivable.
In all seriousness, and I'm not defending him, but what would you have realistically done differently? We have regular Lerner/Lambert/everyone else is/was shit arguments on here, but I'm interested in knowing what else could have been done given the situation we faced in 2010.
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
Randy forced the situation then, and is still responsible for the situation now, (with Lamberts inadequacy not helping)
Or do you prefer the good old "MON flounced out" line
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
The buck stops with the chairman. And irrespective of how O'Neill walked away, what Lerner has done to the club in the 5 years since is simply unforgivable.
In all seriousness, and I'm not defending him, but what would you have realistically done differently? We have regular Lerner/Lambert/everyone else is/was shit arguments on here, but I'm interested in knowing what else could have been done given the situation we faced in 2010.
Forced the transfer budget issue earlier in the summer? If MON was going to leave then getting out of the way at the start of that pre-season would have been beneficial to all parties, allowing us adequate time to get his replacement in.
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
Randy forced the situation then, and is still responsible for the situation now, (with Lamberts inadequacy not helping)
Or do you prefer the good old "MON flounced out" line
I don't believe he "flounced out" as that would indicate an element of spur of the moment emotion. I believe he walked out at a time he deliberately calculated would cause maximum damage to Aston Villa. If you want to see the compensation element discussed, scroll back a few pages to where industrial tribunal experts talk about it.
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
Randy forced the situation then, and is still responsible for the situation now, (with Lamberts inadequacy not helping)
Or do you prefer the good old "MON flounced out" line
As has been described several times before, most employment tribunals of that ilk usually end up settled out of court.
For the claimant a quick win and avoids the possibility of losing face in court.
For the employer, usually cheaper than paying your legal bills all the way through, when the chances of being awarded costs, much less actually reclaiming them are something less than the square root of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001.
How would you chose to describe the actions of someone who leaves such a high profile and significant role within an organisation so close to the start of an important project because he can't get his own way over spending even more on a budget that is already hopelessly out of control.
I've worked for a few of project managers like that and they were to a man (and woman) spineless, back stabbing, self image fixated wankers. Reputations to protect, and the first sign of a slightly bumpy ride and offski.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
The buck stops with the chairman. And irrespective of how O'Neill walked away, what Lerner has done to the club in the 5 years since is simply unforgivable.
In all seriousness, and I'm not defending him, but what would you have realistically done differently? We have regular Lerner/Lambert/everyone else is/was shit arguments on here, but I'm interested in knowing what else could have been done given the situation we faced in 2010.
Continuing to spend like we were wasn't an option, which is what I suspect some people wanted the chairman to carry on doing. Despite that, he still gave Houiiler £24m to spend on two players when he came in.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
you just beat me to it
Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.
The buck stops with the chairman. And irrespective of how O'Neill walked away, what Lerner has done to the club in the 5 years since is simply unforgivable.
In all seriousness, and I'm not defending him, but what would you have realistically done differently? We have regular Lerner/Lambert/everyone else is/was shit arguments on here, but I'm interested in knowing what else could have been done given the situation we faced in 2010.
It just seems that Lerner decided to change course, and that was it. MON didn't agree, and went, then Lerner just continued on his journey. The only hint of where he is/was trying to take us is the Deloitte top 20, not sure if this is still his target.
Maybe the definition of a successful football club is different between chairman and manager, and chairman and fans.
-
MON ran away. Lerner couldn't run away, and still can't, he owns the club.
The problem is that, although he can't run away, he has mentally detached himself from the club in the last few years, and this is part of the problem.
Of course, another part of the problem is that when he mentally re-attaches himself to the club, he seems to make more bad decisions than good ones.
-
None of the decisions Randy has made indicate that he really understands the first thing about football.
And for a high-powered American businessman, he seems very naive.
-
exactly the best Villa manager of the last eight years bar none.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Yup. Kind of like saying the new U2 album is their best work in the last eight years.
-
I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.
This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.
Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.
Give them what he had and see.
That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.
He has been the common denominator.
The "success" of MON and the subsequent fall from grace has been a result of his astronomical naivety
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
This nonsense again?
Really?
-
I wonder if consistently finishing 6th but with no trophies, spending similar money to what MON did would cause the Liverpool fans to be calling for the bullet. I'm sure it would, as they are now thinking Rodgers is not the man for them. Why should it be different for us to think the time MON spent here was a massive underachievement in relation to money spent or waisted?
-
Why should it be different for us to think the time MON spent here was a massive underachievement in relation to money spent or waisted?
I'm not sure that 'massive underachievement' is fair either.
I think that he just about managed parity with what could reasonably expected of him given what was happening with the other teams around us at the time. I think it was a missed opportunity certainly, but I don't think that's the same as a massive underachievement.
-
I think we should have finished in the top four. 50 odd points, 3rd in the table come March and we blow it, because the manager had no appreciation of variety. Be that tactical variety, squad selection or players to be brought into that squad.
Ultimately, our house blew in very, very quickly after MON went. All that money that was invested and we got so little return for it. What a bloody waste of a chance.
-
Why should it be different for us to think the time MON spent here was a massive underachievement in relation to money spent or waisted?
I'm not sure that 'massive underachievement' is fair either.
I think that he just about managed parity with what could reasonably expected of him given what was happening with the other teams around us at the time. I think it was a missed opportunity certainly, but that's I don't think that's the same as a massive underachievement.
I really meant I'm sure Liverpool fans would be thinking spending the money he did was a massive underachievement.
I was trying to put a different spin on things between the thinking of fans from different clubs. I was speaking to a colleague the other day who thinks MON was the best thing we have ever had and we probably wished he was still with us. He finds it hard to believe we don't like him and does not understand that for most part from the creation of the Premier League we have averaged 6th in the league (up to point of MON leaving).
I asked him, a Liverpool fan if that record would be good enough for him and he said no chance.
-
I think we should have finished in the top four. 50 odd points, 3rd in the table come March and we blow it, because the manager had no appreciation of variety. Be that tactical variety, squad selection or players to be brought into that squad.
Ultimately, our house blew in very, very quickly after MON went. All that money that was invested and we got so little return for it. What a bloody waste of a chance.
I agree entirely. Especially as Everton finished above us for three of his four seasons in charge, and Tottenham finished in the top four in his last season.
-
That Everton point is a good one, particularly given that their recent placings have been seen as a surprise.
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
This nonsense again?
Really?
Maybe i am wrong in assuming you read the title of the thread.
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
This nonsense again?
Really?
Well he did recieve a payout. This would imply he was wronged in some way
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
This nonsense again?
Really?
Well he did recieve a payout. This would imply he was wronged in some way
<bangs head on desk in frustration>
He didn't receive a payout - the parties reached an out of Court settlement.
Companies make settlement payments in litigation for all manner of reasons, mainly related to legal costs.
For all we know it might have been MON for whom the case was going really badly and if so perhaps he agreed to accept a settlement at a much lower figure than it was going to cost Aston Villa (and MON) to have a silk there for any longer. Certainly the guy who was representing MON is very good indeed and therefore not cheap.
-
Lulz, didn't I give Summary Judgment on this last week before Baron von Ricardo of Tiptonshire made the exact same point as he has been forced to make again?
When will you humans ever learn?
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
This nonsense again?
Really?
Well he did recieve a payout. This would imply he was wronged in some way
<bangs head on desk in frustration>
He didn't receive a payout - the parties reached an out of Court settlement.
Companies make settlement payments in litigation for all manner of reasons, mainly related to legal costs.
For all we know it might have been MON for whom the case was going really badly and if so perhaps he agreed to accept a settlement at a much lower figure than it was going to cost Aston Villa (and MON) to have a silk there for any longer. Certainly the guy who was representing MON is very good indeed and therefore not cheap.
I think you've got more chance convincing Danlanza that the twin towers wasn't an inside job.
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
This nonsense again?
Really?
Well he did recieve a payout. This would imply he was wronged in some way
<bangs head on desk in frustration>
He didn't receive a payout - the parties reached an out of Court settlement.
Companies make settlement payments in litigation for all manner of reasons, mainly related to legal costs.
For all we know it might have been MON for whom the case was going really badly and if so perhaps he agreed to accept a settlement at a much lower figure than it was going to cost Aston Villa (and MON) to have a silk there for any longer. Certainly the guy who was representing MON is very good indeed and therefore not cheap.
Eh? He didn't receive a payout, but reached an out of court settlement. What is the difference?
-
Go do your LLB or your GDL if you already have a degree, then your LPC, get a Training Contract, work at it for 2 years (unless you have time to count) then all will become clear.
Alternatively, just take it on face value that the lawyer master race knows more than you.
-
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
This nonsense again?
Really?
Well he did recieve a payout. This would imply he was wronged in some way
<bangs head on desk in frustration>
He didn't receive a payout - the parties reached an out of Court settlement.
Companies make settlement payments in litigation for all manner of reasons, mainly related to legal costs.
For all we know it might have been MON for whom the case was going really badly and if so perhaps he agreed to accept a settlement at a much lower figure than it was going to cost Aston Villa (and MON) to have a silk there for any longer. Certainly the guy who was representing MON is very good indeed and therefore not cheap.
That's all just semantics, he recieved a settlement , you know it I know it,
the rest is just bollocks to make us feel better because we hate the little twat
-
Effectively an out of court settlement, with agreements to not slag each other off in the press, was almost certainly cheaper and 'nicer' than pushing through the courts. There's no acceptance of blame involved it's a simple "you want X we don't want to pay and court action is going to cost both of us Y so can we just settle on Z and agree to be adults about it" where z is less than x and y, simple. I don't really get how people are struggling to understand this after all this time.
-
"Received a payout" suggests (to me) a scenario where the Court/Tribunal/Whatever found in his favour and ordered Villa to cough up.
It was an out of Court settlement because Villa coughed up something, for what reason we don't know, how much we don't know, without being ordered to.
You can't read into the fact that we paid him some money that he had a good case and it certainly does not mean that he won. I genuinely do not know what his case was and whether he would have won had it gone the distance, none of us do.
-
all just semantics, he recieved a settlement , you know it I know it,
the rest is just bollocks to make us feel better because we hate the little twat
In my heart of hearts I suspect you a probably right but technically we do not know that, and it does make me feel a bit better to argue otherwise because I hate the little tw*t, yes.
-
John it's not semantics.
Compensation is an admission of wrongdoing, which was not part of the public statement. Don't you think he'd have turned the knife the last 1/4 turn if he'd had the chance and had it included in the statement if he was in such a strong position.
A settlement is a way of getting a case off the agenda at least possible cost, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case. (without prejudice I believe is the correct term).
My former employers in the UK were constantly getting screwed over for a few thousand here and there on cases where it would cost more to even investigate a claim to a point where it could be refuted, let alone take it through a tribunal. Until a former production manager returned from a period at head office in France as the new site director.
He made a point of chasing a couple of multiple claimants through to tribunal on cases he knew we were in the right on. It cost an arm and a leg on the individual cases, but the net effect was that we were only pursued for a fraction of cases from then on, as people believed that they had to be sure on their case, rather than trying their luck.
-
all just semantics, he recieved a settlement , you know it I know it,
the rest is just bollocks to make us feel better because we hate the little twat
In my heart of hearts I suspect you a probably right but technically we do not know that, and it does make me feel a bit better to argue otherwise because I hate the little tw*t, yes.
Yes that is the heart of the matter
He walked out on us 5 days before the season starts, then he comes back and fills his pockets with cash, we Don't like it we hate that, so we then try and think of scenarios where maybe he didn't
But ultimately we know he did, were just gona have to get over it......given time
-
Go do your LLB or your GDL if you already have a degree, then your LPC, get a Training Contract, work at it for 2 years (unless you have time to count) then all will become clear.
Alternatively, just take it on face value that the lawyer master race knows more than you.
So you don't know, fair enough, why didn't you just say so.
-
all just semantics, he recieved a settlement , you know it I know it,
the rest is just bollocks to make us feel better because we hate the little twat
In my heart of hearts I suspect you a probably right but technically we do not know that, and it does make me feel a bit better to argue otherwise because I hate the little tw*t, yes.
Yes that is the heart of the matter
He walked out on us 5 days before the season starts, then he comes back and fills his pockets with cash, we Don't like it we hate that, so we then try and think of scenarios where maybe he didn't
But ultimately we know he did, were just gona have to get over it......given time
Except there's not much thinking needed here. As others have said, the fact he received a payout doesn't mean he won any case.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
-
I seem to recall when John Gregory left Derby in somewhat fractious circumstances and he launched a tribunal against him, Derby coughed up out of court and pretty much flat out said that they couldn't afford to lose a tribunal even though they had a strong claim against him and that an out of court settlement was the most palatable option open to them. Seems pretty similar to me.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
I blame Randy for lots of things, and MON for others. Some things, I find them both guilty for.
It really isn't that complicated. The two parties settled.
As two legal people have pointed out here, you can not deduce from that that MON won his case, or that Randy won it either. It means they've settled the dispute between themselves. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand?
What we do know is that MON walked out on us five days before the start of the season.
-
Whatever he got and how he got it, it's too much for me to stomach. Spiteful bell-end.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
And how do you know that?
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
I blame Randy for lots of things, and MON for others. Some things, I find them both guilty for.
It really isn't that complicated. The two parties settled.
As two legal people have pointed out here, you can not deduce from that that MON won his case, or that Randy won it either. It means they've settled the dispute between themselves. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand?
What we do know is that MON walked out on us five days before the start of the season.
MON walked, Randy settled. MON got a payout.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
What about the people who think that they both made a big of a pig's ear out of the situation and don't really have a particular horse that they are backing?
-
Someone above suggested that had we instituted a tougher line on transfers earlier in the summer of 2010 we might have either forced MOM earlier or he'd have had time to accept the situation and act accordingly.
This seems sensible to me - although of course it may have been initiated earlier to MON b it only came to a head in mid-August. Either way, his departure was spiteful and vindictive and does him no credit whatsoever.
Lerner's big mistake was not having the long-term strategy that better-defined the future management choice ... Even though he got unlucky with GHou's health.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
And how do you know that?
It's my belief.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
I blame Randy for lots of things, and MON for others. Some things, I find them both guilty for.
It really isn't that complicated. The two parties settled.
As two legal people have pointed out here, you can not deduce from that that MON won his case, or that Randy won it either. It means they've settled the dispute between themselves. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand?
What we do know is that MON walked out on us five days before the start of the season.
MON walked, Randy settled. MON got a payout.
From which you can not deduce that MON in anyway "won" his case, because we don't know any of the details.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
What about the people who think that they both made a big of a pig's ear out of the situation and don't really have a particular horse that they are backing?
Come on, you've got to blame someone, that's what this thread is all about.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
No he was not forced out. For the first time he was being asked to do the job without a completely free hand in everything from transfer budget to appointing the club's administrative staff. In other words he was being asked to do the same as every other manager in the league, and every other Villa manager in history. Rather than carry on doing the job for which he was very well paid, and in which he had been given almost total support by everyone from owner to supporters, he walked out. And he didn't just walk out; he walked out at a time purposely designed to cause maximum inconvenience and, almost uniquely, took his backroom staff with him.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
I blame Randy for lots of things, and MON for others. Some things, I find them both guilty for.
It really isn't that complicated. The two parties settled.
As two legal people have pointed out here, you can not deduce from that that MON won his case, or that Randy won it either. It means they've settled the dispute between themselves. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand?
What we do know is that MON walked out on us five days before the start of the season.
MON walked, Randy settled. MON got a payout.
From which you can not deduce that MON in anyway "won" his case, because we don't know any of the details.
I never said he "won", you did.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
I blame Randy for lots of things, and MON for others. Some things, I find them both guilty for.
It really isn't that complicated. The two parties settled.
As two legal people have pointed out here, you can not deduce from that that MON won his case, or that Randy won it either. It means they've settled the dispute between themselves. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand?
What we do know is that MON walked out on us five days before the start of the season.
MON walked, Randy settled. MON got a payout.
From which you can not deduce that MON in anyway "won" his case, because we don't know any of the details.
I never said he "won", you did.
It is quite clearly what you are implying.
If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?
This nonsense again?
Really?
Well he did recieve a payout. This would imply he was wronged in some way
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
No he was not forced out. For the first time he was being asked to do the job without a completely free hand in everything from transfer budget to appointing the club's administrative staff. In other words he was being asked to do the same as every other manager in the league, and every other Villa manager in history. Rather than carry on doing the job for which he was very well paid, and in which he had been given almost total support by everyone from owner to supporters, he walked out. And he didn't just walk out; he walked out at a time purposely designed to cause maximum inconvenience and, almost uniquely, took his backroom staff with him.
..and how do you know that?
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
That seems to implicate that you don't think Randy should have changed the parameters - and should have carried on giving O'Neill carte blanche to spend what he wanted?
Are there any managers who have a completely unlimited budget? If not, why should O'Neill have been different?
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
No he was not forced out. For the first time he was being asked to do the job without a completely free hand in everything from transfer budget to appointing the club's administrative staff. In other words he was being asked to do the same as every other manager in the league, and every other Villa manager in history. Rather than carry on doing the job for which he was very well paid, and in which he had been given almost total support by everyone from owner to supporters, he walked out. And he didn't just walk out; he walked out at a time purposely designed to cause maximum inconvenience and, almost uniquely, took his backroom staff with him.
..and how do you know that?
As Tom Ross put it, "Everything was done for the benefit of Team O'Neill." Others put it slightly more bluntly.
-
Go do your LLB or your GDL if you already have a degree, then your LPC, get a Training Contract, work at it for 2 years (unless you have time to count) then all will become clear.
Alternatively, just take it on face value that the lawyer master race knows more than you.
So you don't know, fair enough, why didn't you just say so.
Lulz.
Go read a few pages back, it will save history repeating itself.
-
I don't think there is a great deal of merit in speculating about something whereby we don't know any of the facts.
-
He left us in the lurch five days before the start of the season and took almost the entire backroom staff.
-
I just miss winning games.
-
He's a pube-headed spiteful judas twat. That's a fact.
-
He's a pube-headed spiteful judas twat. That's a fact.
That aswell.
-
I don't think there is a great deal of merit in speculating about something whereby we don't know any of the facts.
Internet.
-
Another MON thread, we wouldnt miss him by any chance?
To be honest, we probably got MON at a good time in his career. His efforts at Sunderland were pitiful and he is showing no signs that he is anything but a busted flush in the Irish job currently.
He gave it a good go but his limitations were apparent by the end. He isnt responsible for the utter farce since though.
MON made many mistakes in the transfer market but he wasnt responsible for the likes of Nzogbia, Makoun and Ireland. Three of the biggest impostors to have ever represented the club.
Five years of fighting relegation, 25k crowd this evening against second in the league. its time to point the finger somewhere else lads.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
No he was not forced out. For the first time he was being asked to do the job without a completely free hand in everything from transfer budget to appointing the club's administrative staff. In other words he was being asked to do the same as every other manager in the league, and every other Villa manager in history. Rather than carry on doing the job for which he was very well paid, and in which he had been given almost total support by everyone from owner to supporters, he walked out. And he didn't just walk out; he walked out at a time purposely designed to cause maximum inconvenience and, almost uniquely, took his backroom staff with him.
He also left the same time Lerner decided to reign in the spending (which started the decline of Aston Villa), let's not forget that, Dave.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
No he was not forced out. For the first time he was being asked to do the job without a completely free hand in everything from transfer budget to appointing the club's administrative staff. In other words he was being asked to do the same as every other manager in the league, and every other Villa manager in history. Rather than carry on doing the job for which he was very well paid, and in which he had been given almost total support by everyone from owner to supporters, he walked out. And he didn't just walk out; he walked out at a time purposely designed to cause maximum inconvenience and, almost uniquely, took his backroom staff with him.
He also left the same time Lerner decided to reign in the spending (which started the decline of Aston Villa), let's not forget that, Dave.
Yes, I did say that. It's one of the things that makes him such a wanker.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
No he was not forced out. For the first time he was being asked to do the job without a completely free hand in everything from transfer budget to appointing the club's administrative staff. In other words he was being asked to do the same as every other manager in the league, and every other Villa manager in history. Rather than carry on doing the job for which he was very well paid, and in which he had been given almost total support by everyone from owner to supporters, he walked out. And he didn't just walk out; he walked out at a time purposely designed to cause maximum inconvenience and, almost uniquely, took his backroom staff with him.
He also left the same time Lerner decided to reign in the spending (which started the decline of Aston Villa), let's not forget that, Dave.
Bent, Makoun and Ireland were signed within 6 months of MON leaving. That was 40m or so spent.
I'm not sure where the decline began, probably even before MON left. Letting him bring the likes in of Heskey, Dunne, Warnock, Collins all in the space of a few months was probably it for me. Houllier was a disaster. McLeish and Lambert arent up to it but they havent been supported by Lerner really either with decent cash.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
No he was not forced out. For the first time he was being asked to do the job without a completely free hand in everything from transfer budget to appointing the club's administrative staff. In other words he was being asked to do the same as every other manager in the league, and every other Villa manager in history. Rather than carry on doing the job for which he was very well paid, and in which he had been given almost total support by everyone from owner to supporters, he walked out. And he didn't just walk out; he walked out at a time purposely designed to cause maximum inconvenience and, almost uniquely, took his backroom staff with him.
He also left the same time Lerner decided to reign in the spending (which started the decline of Aston Villa), let's not forget that, Dave.
Yes, I did say that. It's one of the things that makes him such a wanker.
He was a wanker for walking out, but Lerner is a bigger wanker for what he's done since. O'Neill obviously had the rug pulled out from under his feet by the chairman who must have told him of his plan to strip the squad of its better players and replace them with crap from the lower leagues. Now look at us.
Well done, Randy.
-
He was a wanker for walking out, but Lerner is a bigger wanker for what he's done since. O'Neill obviously had the rug pulled out from under his feet by the chairman who must have told him of his plan to strip the squad of its better players and replace them with crap from the lower leagues. Now look at us.
Well done, Randy.
Obviously.
-
He was a wanker for walking out, but Lerner is a bigger wanker for what he's done since. O'Neill obviously had the rug pulled out from under his feet by the chairman who must have told him of his plan to strip the squad of its better players and replace them with crap from the lower leagues. Now look at us.
Well done, Randy.
Obviously.
Indeed.
-
So the people who blame MON, prefer to believe he didn't get a pay out, but agreed a settlement.
The people who blame Randy, believe MON got a pay out.
I wonder how much his settlement was worth?
How in God's name can you blame anyone but O'Neill for the way and in particular the timing of when he walked out?
He was forced out by Randy changing the parameters, ergo constructive dismissal.
No he was not forced out. For the first time he was being asked to do the job without a completely free hand in everything from transfer budget to appointing the club's administrative staff. In other words he was being asked to do the same as every other manager in the league, and every other Villa manager in history. Rather than carry on doing the job for which he was very well paid, and in which he had been given almost total support by everyone from owner to supporters, he walked out. And he didn't just walk out; he walked out at a time purposely designed to cause maximum inconvenience and, almost uniquely, took his backroom staff with him.
He also left the same time Lerner decided to reign in the spending (which started the decline of Aston Villa), let's not forget that, Dave.
We were still spending a decent amount a full year after he left, Bent came in for 24m and then N'zogbia plus a few others so 40m was spent pretty quickly after he left even if a lot of it was from the Milner sale.
My backing for Randy continued until that fateful day he sanctioned the appointment of Alex McLeish.
-
We all know when MON left but still no clearer as to the why. My feeling is we shall probably never know the truth, unless he publishes an autobiography at the end of his career.
I am in a minority on here as I genuinely don't know if it was a calculated plan by MON to cause maximum damage or rather if there had been a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back moment that week.
I met some lawyers who represent Randy a couple of months ago ( have known them 2 years but didn't realise they represented Randy). Their colleagues managed the case v MON in 2010 but they were revealing nothing to me. All they would divulge was that they also represent Abramovic and that Randy's wealth is equivalent to Abramovis's weekly expenditure on Hobnobs.
-
Apparently it's been 10 years since he walked out on us. How time flies.
-
Villa Memories for this? I like arguing, as you know, but CBA discussing this bellend again.
-
I'd rather not be reminded of the shit-storm the pube-headed Judas created.
-
Villa Memories for this? I like arguing, as you know, but CBA discussing this bellend again.
Something we agree on!
-
He can fuck off that Stoke game alone - and fuck you Glenn Whelan if you’re reading. ( BTW thanks for the Preston penalty)
-
Villa Memories for this? I like arguing, as you know, but CBA discussing this bellend again.
Something we agree on!
😁
-
He can fuck off that Stoke game alone - and fuck you Glenn Whelan if you’re reading. ( BTW thanks for the Preston penalty)
I've said before that Villa's decline started with Glenn Whelan scoring that goal for Stoke and effectively ended with the penalty miss v Preston.
-
That is a great shout!