Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: sfx412 on August 16, 2010, 01:11:19 PM
-
I'm a believer in RL if not in O'Neill, but I do not feel his style of management wins many media types over to the Villa cause. He's not the most outgoing of characters, and does not promote in Faulkner a prolific media talker. When you also allow that Mon during his reign contained every word uttered within his sphere of influence, on the pain of instant dismissal, its hardly likely that the only one the media appreciate is O'Neill.
When he ran away, the following days media was full of I love Mon, and its all Randy Lerner's fault. General K addressed this somewhat with his comments concerning 4 peoples ego's and how the club should be bigger than all.
That comment in his thread has been marked out on here as 'Randy's dirty work', and some media people, especially via Sky have openly criticised his comments, possibly in the knowledge they are safe from his reply, and I wondered how many here, especially ex Mon fans agree with them.
Personally I applaud the General and wish he did more such.
I'd also prefer a Chair with higher media profile to promote Villa's cause to break away from this theory the West Midlands is the black hole of Football. We need to promote ourselves and its something the club has never been any use at, even in the heady days of the European Cup and I feel it would be nice to change that.
-
Yes. If the General had not of commented then many would believe the spin put accross in the media.
It seemed the media and the footballing world bought into this self-importance of O'Neill, yet he never really warranted the accolades at all. MON was a failure in my opinion and stuck in the past due to his inability to see the wood for the trees!
Anyhow we need to move on know and forget about the self-important fool...
-
Yes
-
Absolutely. The manager had dumped us in the shit and he was putting across the opinion of the club.
-
I do think it was a mistake on the General's part.
The media were largely backing O'Neill, but in the football world it's probably a good thing to ingore what they are saying as it's mainly driven by their own agendas. The best way to deal with their words is by our actions. Also, Martin himself has said nothing, so it looks like a one way muck racking battle for the Genral to say something like he did. Much better to remain quiet/dignified, as our ex-manager has done, and move on.
We won't win a war of words with the media, so lets concentrate on proving them wrong by our managerial appointment and transfer dealings.
-
he needed to redress the balance from the media morons and their agenda filled nonsense...
-
I think the deeper lying question is whether the General should even post on here in the first place. I am happy that he does. Once that's been accepted then he must give the Club's point of view, otherwise what's the point of having him here?
-
I don't give a monkey's about the media. Villa could do the treble and the red tops/Sky would still go on about Spurs.
As for a dignified exit from MON, do me a favour. He skulks off like a spoilt child and lets his PR machine do the talking for him. He'll have plenty to say in time, believe me. Probably with Oliver Holt as his ghost writer.
As for The General, yes I believe he has every right to put across his point of view. If the hacks want to trawl this site with their mucky fingers, so be it.
-
he needed to redress the balance from the media morons and their agenda filled nonsense...
This....
-
When you only get one side of the story, as was the case when MON left, it's only right that the other side have the right to defend themselves. The level of talking down of Aston Villa, Randy Lerner and the investment made to date was ridiculous, not to mention "sell to buy" assault had to be addressed. I think the General made some very clear points regarding what our economic policy is, why it is necessary to offload players on high wages that are never to be included in the team and most importantly how that money should be going to the players that actually deserve it.
As for the quote about MON thinking he's bigger than the Club, fair play to him, if that's how he sees it, why not call it. O'Neill has done us no favours in the way he left, not just abandoning the team 5 days before the season starts but taking with him his coaches, fitness coach, goalkeeping coach and Head Scout. It wasn't an attack on Randy Lerner, it was an attempt to destroy Aston Villa and dare I say, enhance his reputation when everything fell apart.
Finally, any potential manager reading the press over the last week would have probably thought Aston Villa were in a mess and as a few pundits pointed out, a terrible place to manage. Maybe we could have sat back and let the football do the talking but sometimes it's necessary to stand up and defend yourself when somebody tries to give you a kicking.
-
I'd also prefer a Chair with higher media profile to promote Villa's cause to break away from this theory the West Midlands is the black hole of Football. We need to promote ourselves and its something the club has never been any use at, even in the heady days of the European Cup and I feel it would be nice to change that.
couple of points.
1. in doug ellis and gold/sullivan/brady - the west midlands had the 2 of the most vocal owners in football of the last decade. only ken bates could rival them.
2. the negative image of the west midlands transcends football and why would a man from new york care as to how the west midlands is portrayed in the media? it is not his fight.
-
I have no issue with him defending the club from the unfair criticism ill informed journalists were throwing our way, but having said that:-
1. We're better showing they are wrong than telling people they are wrong.
2. With the manager himself staying quiet I thought the 'bigger than the club' bit was unnecessary, whether true or not!
-
The General was quite right in what he said.
-
When you only get one side of the story, as was the case when MON left, it's only right that the other side have the right to defend themselves. The level of talking down of Aston Villa, Randy Lerner and the investment made to date was ridiculous, not to mention "sell to buy" assault had to be addressed. I think the General made some very clear points regarding what our economic policy is, why it is necessary to offload players on high wages that are never to be included in the team and most importantly how that money should be going to the players that actually deserve it.
As for the quote about MON thinking he's bigger than the Club, fair play to him, if that's how he sees it, why not call it. O'Neill has done us no favours in the way he left, not just abandoning the team 5 days before the season starts but taking with him his coaches, fitness coach, goalkeeping coach and Head Scout. It wasn't an attack on Randy Lerner, it was an attempt to destroy Aston Villa and dare I say, enhance his reputation when everything fell apart.
Finally, any potential manager reading the press over the last week would have probably thought Aston Villa were in a mess and as a few pundits pointed out, a terrible place to manage. Maybe we could have sat back and let the football do the talking but sometimes it's necessary to stand up and defend yourself when somebody tries to give you a kicking.
Top post Mr Kelly.
To be honest, I'm glad that he took all his dross coaching staff with him anyway.
And as for is Head Scout...
-
I think we should draw a line under it now. MON has gone and we have moved on, results on the pitch and improved attendances is all that will be needed without another word having to be said on this issue.
-
The general was right to say what he said.
-
I do think it was a mistake on the General's part.
The media were largely backing O'Neill, but in the football world it's probably a good thing to ingore what they are saying as it's mainly driven by their own agendas. The best way to deal with their words is by our actions. Also, Martin himself has said nothing, so it looks like a one way muck racking battle for the Genral to say something like he did. Much better to remain quiet/dignified, as our ex-manager has done, and move on.
We won't win a war of words with the media, so lets concentrate on proving them wrong by our managerial appointment and transfer dealings.
Erm the club were not having a war of words with the media. Where the hell did you pluck that from?. Mr Krulak just told the fans the real reason for MON cutting and running to counter the lies in the media.
-
I think we should draw a line under it now. MON has gone and we have moved on, results on the pitch and improved attendances is all that will be needed without another word having to be said on this issue.
Absolutely, Bren. If Saturday is anything to go by, there's plenty to look forward to without having to waste time looking back.
-
Erm the club were not having a war of words with the media. Where the hell did you pluck that from?. Mr Krulak just told the fans the real reason for MON cutting and running to counter the lies in the media.
I did not say we were, I said we should avoid it, so try reading my posts more closely before commenting on them.
By reacting to press coverage the way he did was running the risk on getting into that situation, IMO.
-
It was vital that the "selling club" accusation was countered. But I also agree the 'bigger than the club' comment could have been left out.
-
Erm the club were not having a war of words with the media. Where the hell did you pluck that from?. Mr Krulak just told the fans the real reason for MON cutting and running to counter the lies in the media.
I did not say we were, I said we should avoid it, so try reading my posts more closely before commenting on them.
By reacting to press coverage the way he did was running the risk on getting into that situation, IMO.
In that case John, the General couldn't win. Say nothing and people would be screaming for information about what was going on.
As it is, I think he said just enough, and said it straight to the fans (although clearly it was inevitable that it would end up in the papers). I don't think he lost any dignity by defending our policies and standing up for their side of the story.
-
not3bad has perfectly summed up my view on it above.
-
He was absolutely 100% right say to what he did.
Those tearing into him would probably be the same demanding answers if he/ the club stayed silent on the issue.
For the media, lets not forget that this story emanated from a supporters website. That rankles with them, so it suits them to have a pop. In the hope that RL and co might open up more and give them good copy directly in future. The issue I have with that is you'll often hear media post questions along the lines of "do you have a message for the fans?" when it comes to football related issues. If you have a board (like ours) that speak to supporters directly it cuts out the middleman. Effectively, they serve no purpose when this occurs. And they know it. They'd much rather have the scoop than be playing catch up.
There is a certain amount of merit to the counter argument that we can't complain about negative press if we aren't open with the media. But as a general rule, if we're actually doing more often than just saying, we should be judged accordingly. I think most supporters would be OK with that. Would we want -as an extreme example- the PR/ Bullshit overdrive that Sullivan and Gold indulge in, with very little to back it up?
For the section of our own support who seem to have a problem with the General's comments most (but not all) seem to be in the group that still feel the need to defend MON -even now. This is just a convenient stick in that regard.
Both groups listed above have an agenda, and both lack credibility as far as this issue is concerned.
-
General was spot on. I think we might need to start dropping the whole MON issue soon and move on.
-
I'm 50/50 about it. I think anything that could've been considered negative towards MoN was always going to be picked up by the press and used against us. I'm therefore happy that he seemed to know that full well and gave it straight rather than something being taken out of context and argued back and forth.
The other good thing is that it has, to an extent, focused the media on those comments and the general in general (meh) rather than a spotlight on Randy who, as we all know, likes to stay out of the press.
I personally think it was a pretty shrewd and well thought out response, just enough venom to show the board are pissed at him and just enough info to give the fans an insight into the problem without putting everything out to the press.
-
General was spot on. I think we might need to start dropping the whole MON issue soon and move on.
Whos MON ;-))
-
Erm the club were not having a war of words with the media. Where the hell did you pluck that from?. Mr Krulak just told the fans the real reason for MON cutting and running to counter the lies in the media.
I did not say we were, I said we should avoid it, so try reading my posts more closely before commenting on them.
By reacting to press coverage the way he did was running the risk on getting into that situation, IMO.
The club had to counter the lies spun from MON's camp for it's own good. All MONS spin to the media was to puff him up and denigrate the club. The club needed to counteract that with the fans no one else.
-
Those tearing into him would probably be the same demanding answers if he/ the club stayed silent on the issue.
Seriously, who is 'taring into' the General on this thread?
But as a general rule, if we're actually doing more often than just saying, we should be judged accordingly.
This is exactly what I have suggested.
For the section of our own support who seem to have a problem with the General's comments most (but not all) seem to be in the group that still feel the need to defend MON -even now. This is just a convenient stick in that regard.
Ridiculous. My opinion of what the General should or should not have said is based upon it's own merits and how I feel the club should conduct itself and not any pro-MON agenda. If you want to be childish about it there could be a strong argument that those agreeing he should have said what he did are only doing so as it backs up their views of O'Neill. Works both ways, doesn't it?
-
I didn't name you personally John, as I wasn't aware of your stance on the MON issue.
It seemed like you were getting agitated with him yourself towards the end.
But you seem to have taken this personally, so I guess if the cap fits.
-
The club had to counter the lies spun from MON's camp for it's own good. All MONS spin to the media was to puff him up and denigrate the club.
Sorry, but that just sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory with O'Neill sat in aleather chair, stroking his cat and having all his journalists on video monitors giving them specific instructions on what stories to run!
-
He's smart enough to know his standing in media circles, and probably envisaged this playing out as it has.
That is, mostly good/ supportive backing for him and his image at the expense of the club.
Doesn't sound particularly ludicrous/ far fetched/ James Bond villain-esque to me.
Sounds pretty straightforward, truth be told.
-
I didn't name you personally John, as I wasn't aware of your stance on the MON issue.
It seemed like you were getting agitated with him yourself towards the end.
But you seem to have taken this personally, so I guess if the cap fits.
It may not have been addressed to me personally, but I still don't like assertation that not fully agreeing with the General's comments = MON loyalist blinded to the truth.
I wasn't getting agitated with him and still felt he was doing a good job, but I was getting less convinced that was able to add the things needed to go that extra distance to qualify for the CL. Sort of a case of thinking he was an 8/10 manager and not going to become a 9/10 manager.
-
Sort of a case of thinking he was an 8/10 manager and not going to become a 9/10 manager.
Very generous, John. I hope you pick me in the H&V Secret Santa. (winky)
-
This part is crucial, I think:
For the section of our own support who seem to have a problem with the General's comments most (but not all) seem to be in the group that still feel the need to defend MON -even now.
I'm aware that PeterW for example -who wanted MON for a while- was also less than impressed with the General's comments.
But it seems that the most vociferous critics (and I wouldn't have actually put you in that bracket John) of what was said are also the same people who are looking to justify MON's actions. Or blame the board for not being clairvoyant enough to second guess MON's walkout last Monday. Or both.
-
It was not the general who let us down five day's before our first game.
-
This part is crucial, I think:
For the section of our own support who seem to have a problem with the General's comments most (but not all) seem to be in the group that still feel the need to defend MON -even now.
I'm aware that PeterW for example -who wanted MON for a while- was also less than impressed with the General's comments.
But it seems that the most vociferous critics (and I wouldn't have actually put you in that bracket John) of what was said are also the same people who are looking to justify MON's actions. Or blame the board for not being clairvoyant enough to second guess MON's walkout last Monday. Or both.
Fair enough. It is true that there are those on here who will twist anything and everything to match their view/agenda and those who actually post what they think about each issue as it arises.
-
It was not the general who let us down five day's before our first game.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If he'd come out and given a detailed explanation of what went on and why MON fucked off then I could have understood it. He didn't though, he just made a couple of thinly veiled digs and we're non the wiser as to what really happened although that hasn't stopped a few of you from deciding that you know it anyway.
To reiterate, I'm pissed off with MON for walking in the way and at the time he did but I'm not going to be a hypocrite or party to a a rewriting of history and say that I thought he was doing a bad job before that.
-
Whatever the club said, the media reaction to O'Neill's departure would have been the same. We're not going to win over his supporters among the press so there probably is no 'right' way to go about these things.
But there is a wrong way, and sniping at him in interviews or on fans forums looks pretty childish. I can totally understand why Randy and the General feel the way they do - I feel the same way myself - but if they want to publicise the way they feel then they should do it properly, in an official statement.
-
Yes, I do think the General was wrong to say what he did for the simple reason that when the new regime came in one of the club's core values was to be integrity. Over the past four years Randy and the Board have rebuilt the club's image and made Aston Villa a club to be respected for its outlook and the way it approaches the increasingly immoral business of football.
Washing one's dirty laundry in public (no matter how justified) is an undignified and classless way to behave. It's not the way Villa should be doing things. I believe the General compromised his very high standards by saying what he said. Likewise, the quotes attributed to Randy re. Man City yesterday, and Kevin MacDonald's football style were also disappointing to read. Leave that kind of playground stuff to Sullivan, Gold and the like.
Obviously I'll put everything I've said into the context of MON walking out and leaving the club deep in the brown stuff. Clearly such behaviour and rejection would leave any person with any feelings nothing short of furious. The General's reaction was human and understandable BUT should have been kept within the walls of the boardroom at Villa Park.
-
Are we presuming we know or the Board know the real reasons behind Mon's sudden departure, then?
The day after he left I was assured by most every media outlet it was RL's fault, even now sections of it are intimating Mon suggests its because RL changed his policy in a negative way which on sudden reflection Mon said he was not compatible with and left. Yet from RL's earlier in the years statements confirmed recently they chatted and Mon decided all was well.
I thought the General's comments in keeping with his past style and an attempt to deflect the Mon bias, the RL negative bias. It worked too initially.
-
Well that Sunday Supplement thing yesterday was full of media types saying that MON had been told he could not have any of the Milner transfer fee. Which is likely to be bollocks I would suggest.
To be honest, I don't think what The General said initially was anything other than him being rather pissed off that his best buddy in the world was getting shit on unfairly in the press.
It was the post of a man who was annoyed rather than some prepared club snipe.
-
Yes, I do think the General was wrong to say what he did for the simple reason that when the new regime came in one of the club's core values was to be integrity. Over the past four years Randy and the Board have rebuilt the club's image and made Aston Villa a club to be respected for its outlook and the way it approaches the increasingly immoral business of football.
Washing one's dirty laundry in public (no matter how justified) is an undignified and classless way to behave. It's not the way Villa should be doing things. I believe the General compromised his very high standards by saying what he said. Likewise, the quotes attributed to Randy re. Man City yesterday, and Kevin MacDonald's football style were also disappointing to read. Leave that kind of playground stuff to Sullivan, Gold and the like.
Obviously I'll put everything I've said into the context of MON walking out and leaving the club deep in the brown stuff. Clearly such behaviour and rejection would leave any person with any feelings nothing short of furious. The General's reaction was human and understandable BUT should have been kept within the walls of the boardroom at Villa Park.
You people dont half talk some tosh. All Mr Krulak did was give the clubs side of the story to the fans which needed to be done.
The messiahs followers are feeling bitter and sore and are searching for anything they can for comfort. Pathetic really but it's what we've come to expect. I fully expect a few people to be ex Villa fans when MON rocks up at another club.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right.
You've just reminded me Chris.
According to SSN, McLeish is trying to sign Zat Knight from Bolton but Carson Yueng insists that he signs two Chinese trialists instead.
McLeish was quoted as saying
'Two Wongs don't make a Knight.'
-
it must be particularly galling for General Krulak and Randy to have to witness the near total support for MON in the media, and some of the absolute bullshit they've spouted about how we're "a selling club" and how he's had the rug pulled from under him.
I'm glad the General said something to redress the balance.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right.
You've just reminded me Chris.
According to SSN, McLeish is trying to sign Zat Knight from Bolton but Carson Yueng insists that he signs two Chinese trialists instead.
McLeish was quoted as saying
'Two Wongs don't make a Knight.'
Oh, the humanity.
-
Well that Sunday Supplement thing yesterday was full of media types saying that MON had been told he could not have any of the Milner transfer fee. Which is likely to be bollocks I would suggest.
To be honest, I don't think what The General said initially was anything other than him being rather pissed off that his best buddy in the world was getting shit on unfairly in the press.
It was the post of a man who was annoyed rather than some prepared club snipe.
That's how I understood it too.
-
Yes, I do think the General was wrong to say what he did for the simple reason that when the new regime came in one of the club's core values was to be integrity. Over the past four years Randy and the Board have rebuilt the club's image and made Aston Villa a club to be respected for its outlook and the way it approaches the increasingly immoral business of football.
Washing one's dirty laundry in public (no matter how justified) is an undignified and classless way to behave. It's not the way Villa should be doing things. I believe the General compromised his very high standards by saying what he said. Likewise, the quotes attributed to Randy re. Man City yesterday, and Kevin MacDonald's football style were also disappointing to read. Leave that kind of playground stuff to Sullivan, Gold and the like.
Obviously I'll put everything I've said into the context of MON walking out and leaving the club deep in the brown stuff. Clearly such behaviour and rejection would leave any person with any feelings nothing short of furious. The General's reaction was human and understandable BUT should have been kept within the walls of the boardroom at Villa Park.
You people dont half talk some tosh. All Mr Krulak did was give the clubs side of the story to the fans which needed to be done.
The messiahs followers are feeling bitter and sore and are searching for anything they can for comfort. Pathetic really but it's what we've come to expect. I fully expect a few people to be ex Villa fans when MON rocks up at another club.
Now that's pathetic.
-
Yes, I do think the General was wrong to say what he did for the simple reason that when the new regime came in one of the club's core values was to be integrity. Over the past four years Randy and the Board have rebuilt the club's image and made Aston Villa a club to be respected for its outlook and the way it approaches the increasingly immoral business of football.
Washing one's dirty laundry in public (no matter how justified) is an undignified and classless way to behave. It's not the way Villa should be doing things. I believe the General compromised his very high standards by saying what he said. Likewise, the quotes attributed to Randy re. Man City yesterday, and Kevin MacDonald's football style were also disappointing to read. Leave that kind of playground stuff to Sullivan, Gold and the like.
Obviously I'll put everything I've said into the context of MON walking out and leaving the club deep in the brown stuff. Clearly such behaviour and rejection would leave any person with any feelings nothing short of furious. The General's reaction was human and understandable BUT should have been kept within the walls of the boardroom at Villa Park.
You people dont half talk some tosh. All Mr Krulak did was give the clubs side of the story to the fans which needed to be done.
The messiahs followers are feeling bitter and sore and are searching for anything they can for comfort. Pathetic really but it's what we've come to expect. I fully expect a few people to be ex Villa fans when MON rocks up at another club.
Now that's pathetic.
Whadd'ya mean?
My Chinese joke was sadder than that.
-
I was listening to 6-0-6 on Saturday evening when they mentioned Bruce Buck's program notes.Apparently he referred to Liverpool as a 'smallish club north of the M25), no doubt joyfully received by the braying Chelsea fans but essentially disrespectful. At the time I said to my Dad that a chairman shouldn't be saying that kind of thing and I was glad that Randy would never do something like that.
Now I know that the manner of Lerner's comments are completely different, and the General's, but even taking a couple of words out of their statements would make them less snide. Its not been Randy's style so far. I accept that they have every right to set the record straight, so to speak, but I wish they'd chosen their words a bit more carefully.
-
..
You people dont half talk some tosh. All Mr Krulak did was give the clubs side of the story to the fans which needed to be done.
The messiahs followers are feeling bitter and sore and are searching for anything they can for comfort. Pathetic really but it's what we've come to expect. I fully expect a few people to be ex Villa fans when MON rocks up at another club.
Messiahs followers? Ex-Villa fans? That kind of stuff is de rigueur toward other Villa supporters on here nowadays, even for a chap with 6 posts, but Mr Krulak? Don't you know that's no way to address General Charles C. Krulak, much-decorated war hero and friend of US Presidents. Shame on you.
-
On Monday night Randy was taking a lot of stick on here and I understand that elsewhere it was even worse. Throughout the week some were saying that the atmosphere on Saturday would be poisoous, with fans fighting amongst themselves.
On Saturday the crowd was solidly behind the board, Kevin MacDonald and the club even before kick-off. Much of the reason for this was the way in which the club had handled the week's events. Max Clifford couldn't have done it better. We had something like 35,000 Villa supporters solidly behind the team for 90 minutes, and if the reason why annoyed Oliver Holt, that's just a bonus.
-
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
-
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
Yes, welcome back lads. May you be solidly behind the club forever, or until you find another excuse at least.
-
To reiterate, I'm pissed off with MON for walking in the way and at the time he did but I'm not going to be a hypocrite or party to a a rewriting of history and say that I thought he was doing a bad job before that.
This is how I feel too.
I thought PR was the General's job. So of course he was right to comment on MON. As to whether or not what he said was true only time will tell.
-
Where I sat, there where a hell of a lot of comments along the line of
'Thank fuck he's gone'
This was before our excellent display.
Why has Percy's poll thread been locked, I never had a chance to vote.
Mind you, he didn't put a 'MON is a piece of shit' option on there, so I probably would have abstained.
-
Where I sat, there where a hell of a lot of comments along the line of
'Thank fuck he's gone'
This was before our excellent display.
Why has Percy's poll thread been locked, I never had a chance to vote.
Mind you, he didn't put a 'MON is a piece of shit' option on there, so I probably would have abstained.
Not sure who you'll be supporting then?
-
Where I sat, there where a hell of a lot of comments along the line of
'Thank fuck he's gone'
This was before our excellent display.
Why has Percy's poll thread been locked, I never had a chance to vote.
Mind you, he didn't put a 'MON is a piece of shit' option on there, so I probably would have abstained.
Not sure who you'll be supporting then?
Villa, naturally.
I'm just cocking a snoot at the Villa hating madman 2.
-
Where I sat, there where a hell of a lot of comments along the line of
'Thank fuck he's gone'
This was before our excellent display.
Why has Percy's poll thread been locked, I never had a chance to vote.
Mind you, he didn't put a 'MON is a piece of shit' option on there, so I probably would have abstained.
Not sure who you'll be supporting then?
Villa, naturally.
I'm just cocking a snoot at the Villa hating madman 2.
Considering that for most of MON's tenure you thought fifth was the best Villa could possibly achieve, I'd have thought you were quite impressed with three seasons at sixth.
-
Where I sat, there where a hell of a lot of comments along the line of
'Thank fuck he's gone'
This was before our excellent display.
Why has Percy's poll thread been locked, I never had a chance to vote.
Mind you, he didn't put a 'MON is a piece of shit' option on there, so I probably would have abstained.
Not sure who you'll be supporting then?
Villa, naturally.
I'm just cocking a snoot at the Villa hating madman 2.
Considering that for most of MON's tenure you thought fifth was the best Villa could possibly achieve, I'd have thought you were quite impressed with three seasons at sixth.
Pay attention, it was a cup I was after.
I can't have fondness for a man who dropped us in the shit 4 days before the start of the season, taking all his backroom staff with him, it was clearly a big 2 fingers up to the club and supporters.
Anyway, don't have a go at me, i'm not stopping you grieving.
-
I don't have 'fondness' either. I don't know him, and all I care about are the results of Aston Villa. I won't grieve unless results get worse, and then it will be for The Villa, not some multi-millionaire ex-manager.
-
I don't have 'fondness' either. I don't know him, and all I care about are the results of Aston Villa. I won't grieve unless results get worse, and then it will be for The Villa, not some multi-millionaire ex-manager.
Absolutely.
-
This part is crucial, I think:
For the section of our own support who seem to have a problem with the General's comments most (but not all) seem to be in the group that still feel the need to defend MON -even now.
I'm aware that PeterW for example -who wanted MON for a while- was also less than impressed with the General's comments.
But it seems that the most vociferous critics (and I wouldn't have actually put you in that bracket John) of what was said are also the same people who are looking to justify MON's actions. Or blame the board for not being clairvoyant enough to second guess MON's walkout last Monday. Or both.
Not at all. I thought the General had every right to express his opinion. But what I did question was using fans sites as a vehicle for what was a statement to the press. With that in mind I'm not sure how much of it was actually an opinion. Either way I'm happy that MON has gone but I don't think the board are out of the water at all on this one. If results dip there will be not only a fan's backlash, but also a press backlash. Which serves us no good whatsoever.
-
You people dont half talk some tosh. All Mr Krulak did was give the clubs side of the story to the fans which needed to be done.
The messiahs followers are feeling bitter and sore and are searching for anything they can for comfort. Pathetic really but it's what we've come to expect. I fully expect a few people to be ex Villa fans when MON rocks up at another club.
[/quote]
I agree - however the remark about O'Neill thinking he was bigger than the club was - in my opinion - pretty out of order. It just drags the club down and makes us look fairly sad. Obviously I can understand the General's feelings but our club should be above bickering in public. I qualify all of this by stating I am a big admirer of General Krulak and all of the work that he has done at Villa - let alone elsewhere in his career.
As for "Messiah" etc. Look, I'll back any man charged with managing Villa. I support the club and will back everyone and anyone putting in a shift for it. This idea that people follow Martin O'Neill as opposed to the club is absolutely beyond my sphere of understanding.
-
I picked up a magazine being sold outside Villa Park on Saturday. I read this line "one thing the Villa do now is act with a bit of class. I doubt they will say much on the subject either." That's what I'd expected and why I'm disappointed that they didn't.
-
I picked up a magazine being sold outside Villa Park on Saturday. I read this line "one thing the Villa do now is act with a bit of class. I doubt they will say much on the subject either." That's what I'd expected and why I'm disappointed that they didn't.
They didn't say much. They said all that needed to be said.
-
I picked up a magazine being sold outside Villa Park on Saturday. I read this line "one thing the Villa do now is act with a bit of class. I doubt they will say much on the subject either." That's what I'd expected and why I'm disappointed that they didn't.
They didn't say much. They said all that needed to be said.
It didn't "need" to be said, they just wanted to say it. That's their prerogative but we're no better understanding what went on last Monday and it was a long way from acting with a bit of class.
-
That's what happens when you wrestle with pigs.
-
I picked up a magazine being sold outside Villa Park on Saturday. I read this line "one thing the Villa do now is act with a bit of class. I doubt they will say much on the subject either." That's what I'd expected and why I'm disappointed that they didn't.
They didn't say much. They said all that needed to be said.
It didn't "need" to be said, they just wanted to say it. That's their prerogative but we're no better understanding what went on last Monday and it was a long way from acting with a bit of class.
According to you. To me it was the perfect retort, and had the desired effect.
-
Have to agree with Dave here, if we'd said nothing or just gven a bland statement, even if it was full of truths the reaction would be that we weren't upset so clearly O'Neill wasn't in the wrong to leave how and when he did. By having these digs it shows that the club think he's acted like a child. It's all well and good wanting them to act with a bit of class but there's no class involved in dumping on a club 5 days before the season having led the media all summer to make yourself as the victim.
-
This part is crucial, I think:
For the section of our own support who seem to have a problem with the General's comments most (but not all) seem to be in the group that still feel the need to defend MON -even now.
I'm aware that PeterW for example -who wanted MON for a while- was also less than impressed with the General's comments.
But it seems that the most vociferous critics (and I wouldn't have actually put you in that bracket John) of what was said are also the same people who are looking to justify MON's actions. Or blame the board for not being clairvoyant enough to second guess MON's walkout last Monday. Or both.
Either way I'm happy that MON has gone but I don't think the board are out of the water at all on this one. If results dip there will be not only a fan's backlash, but also a press backlash. Which serves us no good whatsoever.
Why would there be a backlash by the fans and media?. The club has been spending well beyond it's means for the last 4 years surely people understand that cant go on indefinately?.
As a sidenote it'l be interesting to see if our next manager can match or better MON's record without lavish spending wont it?.
-
This part is crucial, I think:
For the section of our own support who seem to have a problem with the General's comments most (but not all) seem to be in the group that still feel the need to defend MON -even now.
I'm aware that PeterW for example -who wanted MON for a while- was also less than impressed with the General's comments.
But it seems that the most vociferous critics (and I wouldn't have actually put you in that bracket John) of what was said are also the same people who are looking to justify MON's actions. Or blame the board for not being clairvoyant enough to second guess MON's walkout last Monday. Or both.
Either way I'm happy that MON has gone but I don't think the board are out of the water at all on this one. If results dip there will be not only a fan's backlash, but also a press backlash. Which serves us no good whatsoever.
Why would there be a backlash by the fans and media?. The club has been spending well beyond it's means for the last 4 years surely people understand that cant go on indefinately?.
As a sidenote it'l be interesting to see if our next manager can match or better MON's record without lavish spending wont it?.
I'm surprised you're not certain of it, considering you think MON is such an incompetent buffoon. And why no lavish spending? Even under a sell-to-buy policy, the new manager could have £70m to spend if he got rid of just three of the dross-like squad MON assembled.
-
MON is such an incompetent buffoon.
Bit harsh that, Percy.
-
oh it needed to be said alright the change in the media after it was proof enough.
Yes it tarnished your idol Chris but the bias needed to be addressed as I'm sure it will again.
Mon is too vindictive for it not to be
-
I believe the General was right to post his comments on our former manager. At the time the supporters wanted information as to why he just walked out 5 days before the season started. This cataclysmic event demanded some straight answers to put supporters minds at rest. The media were having an anti-Villa field day with totally one-sided views of the situation. I believe that the Generals comments were to the supporters and he was not using the various fans sites as a stage for putting out a club statement to the wider public, knowing that the media would pick up on it. I may be being a bit naive but that is what I believe.
Somebody has already said that it sounded like a man sticking up for his best mate who had been wronged unfairly. I would agree to some extent in that the comments did sound very personal and not a cold calculated statement.
Before the General comments were posted, I myself had said that I wanted clarification on the sell-to-buy statement. I also, like many others, said that the club was bigger than any person. So the Generals comments were only answering the questions that were being put forward by the supporters and to dismiss unfounded rumours that were spreading like wild fires. The General went further and added some meat to the bones regarding MONs actions or, more to the point, non-action. Although many sensed that things were not right within the club, I like many didn't fully understand the depth of the issue.
I do not believe that this was a case of washing our dirty linen in public and do not see it as being unprofessional, just saying it as it is.
At the end of the day, the fans make the club and so, in a way, they are the most important. Without the fans, there would be no club and therefore Randy and the General have to put the fans before our former manager or the medias feelings. The club have to be honest with the fans, even if it upsets some people. Time will tell whether everything that the General said is fact and I would like to believe that it is so.
-
On Monday night Randy was taking a lot of stick on here and I understand that elsewhere it was even worse. Throughout the week some were saying that the atmosphere on Saturday would be poisoous, with fans fighting amongst themselves.
On Saturday the crowd was solidly behind the board, Kevin MacDonald and the club even before kick-off. Much of the reason for this was the way in which the club had handled the week's events. Max Clifford couldn't have done it better. We had something like 35,000 Villa supporters solidly behind the team for 90 minutes, and if the reason why annoyed Oliver Holt, that's just a bonus.
Well said.
The General (or anyone in a position of seniority at Villa) needed to come out with a statement. That statement needed to have a little bit of bite. It did just that. It wasn't over-the-top hyperbole, it wasn't massively derogatory. It was a very well measured response indeed.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right.
You've just reminded me Chris.
According to SSN, McLeish is trying to sign Zat Knight from Bolton but Carson Yueng insists that he signs two Chinese trialists instead.
McLeish was quoted as saying
'Two Wongs don't make a Knight.'
Looks like Martyn's got your login password, Fletch.
-
oh it needed to be said alright the change in the media after it was proof enough.
Yes it tarnished your idol Chris but the bias needed to be addressed as I'm sure it will again.
Mon is too vindictive for it not to be
Why can't we have a debate about this without people having to use wanky words like 'idol' and 'messiah'. It's pathetic.
-
Snide digs add nothing to the debate.
-
How is it "undignified" for the General to have a mild pop at O'Neill, yet last season when O'Neill whined on about the fans after the Wigan game like a hormonal teenager, that was fair comment and just him defending his players?
-
How is it "undignified" for the General to have a mild pop at O'Neill, yet last season when O'Neill whined on about the fans after the Wigan game like a hormonal teenager, that was fair comment and just him defending his players?
That reminds me of something a Wolves fan said to me many aeons ago. How many managers remain in a job for long after they start criticising their own supporters?
-
Snide digs add nothing to the debate.
True, but since when has it stopped people making them especially those who favoured regular criticism of those criticising Mon ?
-
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
Yes, welcome back lads. May you be solidly behind the club forever, or until you find another excuse at least.
Percy it's a bit cheap to suggest O'Neill's critics were not behind the club. Some of us can see the difference between giving unequivocal support to the club whilst reserving the right to withhold such support from individuals employed to serve the club if we feel they are not up to the job, or not acting in the best interests of the club. There really is no contradiction or disloyalty in that. In fact, how are you getting behind your club by backing a manager that wanted to ignore the signs of financial suicide? Thus it turns out that, just maybe, Mr O'Neill was not always acting in the best interests of the club. More of a "very naughty boy" than a "messiah" I'd say.
I believe the General was responding to the fans request for a statement on why O'Neill had left, not the media bullshit. He was right to provide such a comment to clarify the club's and O'Neill's stances, but I also think he could have made the case without the dig at O'Neill, which was kind of asking for trouble from Martin's media chums.
-
I believe the General was responding to the fans request for a statement on why O'Neill had left, not the media bullshit. He was right to provide such a statement to clarify the club's and O'Neill's stances,
He didn't give an explanation, though. After his post on a fans forum (not a statement) do you now what happened last Monday and why MON left?
-
First off I didn't say he made a statement , I said he responded to fans request for a statement. My point being that he was attempting to address the fans desire for information rather than responding to the media outcry.
Secondly, as I recall I thought the general said O'Neill didn't or wouldn't agree to the cuts in the wage bill that Randy, Faulkner and the General all thought were necessary before any further spending could take place. With the implication that O'Neill left because of that disagreemnt. Sounds like an explanation of sorts to me.
-
Thought it was incredibly naive to think the General's comment wouldn't end up in the media.
He's said it now.
-
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
Yes, welcome back lads. May you be solidly behind the club forever, or until you find another excuse at least.
Percy it's a bit cheap to suggest O'Neill's critics were not behind the club. Some of us can see the difference between giving unequivocal support to the club whilst reserving the right to withhold such support from individuals employed to serve the club if we feel they are not up to the job, or not acting in the best interests of the club.
If only you could think of a catchy tune to fit the words "The only reason we are booing, or not joining in with the vocal support of the team from other fans is because we believe that certain individuals are not up to the job, and indeed, not acting in the best interest of the club", then perhaps the players would understand and be suitably encouraged by your 'support'.
-
First off I didn't say he made a statement , I said he responded to fans request for a statement. My point being that he was attempting to address the fans desire for information rather than responding to the media outcry.
Secondly, as I recall I thought the general said O'Neill didn't or wouldn't agree to the cuts in the wage bill that Randy, Faulkner and the General all thought were necessary before any further spending could take place. With the implication that O'Neill left because of that disagreemnt. Sounds like an explanation of sorts to me.
No he didn't, he said that some of the rumours were untrue and that MON quit, but he didn't tell us why. You even use the word 'implication' yourself, people have read into it what they want to see but that's all it is.
-
How is it "undignified" for the General to have a mild pop at O'Neill, yet last season when O'Neill whined on about the fans after the Wigan game like a hormonal teenager, that was fair comment and just him defending his players?
With the booing think I think it genuinely hurt him and he thought it was unfair. Given the season we then had he may have had a point. However, it did drag on too long to the point where we're now talking about it a year later and after he's left.
As for the General's comments, I suppose he was 'shooting from the hip' and may not have fully thought things through. In the uncertain and emotionally charged position we were in so soon after MON's departure, I think that can be understood. However, I do not think it was the right way to go about things. Had Martin made a similar statement in a similar forum, how would we be viewing that?
-
First off I didn't say he made a statement , I said he responded to fans request for a statement. My point being that he was attempting to address the fans desire for information rather than responding to the media outcry.
Secondly, as I recall I thought the general said O'Neill didn't or wouldn't agree to the cuts in the wage bill that Randy, Faulkner and the General all thought were necessary before any further spending could take place. With the implication that O'Neill left because of that disagreemnt. Sounds like an explanation of sorts to me.
No he didn't, he said that some of the rumours were untrue and that MON quit, but he didn't tell us why. You even use the word 'implication' yourself, people have read into it what they want to see but that's all it is.
Fair enough, the fact that the General said O'Neill didn't agree with the requirement to cut the wage bill, and that he
seemed to think that his requirements were more important than those of the financial stability of the club, clearly had no bearing at all on O'Neill's decision to resign.
-
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
Yes, welcome back lads. May you be solidly behind the club forever, or until you find another excuse at least.
Percy it's a bit cheap to suggest O'Neill's critics were not behind the club. Some of us can see the difference between giving unequivocal support to the club whilst reserving the right to withhold such support from individuals employed to serve the club if we feel they are not up to the job, or not acting in the best interests of the club.
If only you could think of a catchy tune to fit the words "The only reason we are booing, or not joining in with the vocal support of the team from other fans is because we believe that certain individuals are not up to the job, and indeed, not acting in the best interest of the club", then perhaps the players would understand and be suitably encouraged by your 'support'.
Doesn't need a catchy tune Percy, it's blatantly obvious to most people. Butthen they live in a world where expressing disapproval
of the Manager's tactics and team selection or a particular team/player performance does not = "I hate Aston Vill F.C."
-
First off I didn't say he made a statement , I said he responded to fans request for a statement. My point being that he was attempting to address the fans desire for information rather than responding to the media outcry.
Secondly, as I recall I thought the general said O'Neill didn't or wouldn't agree to the cuts in the wage bill that Randy, Faulkner and the General all thought were necessary before any further spending could take place. With the implication that O'Neill left because of that disagreemnt. Sounds like an explanation of sorts to me.
No he didn't, he said that some of the rumours were untrue and that MON quit, but he didn't tell us why. You even use the word 'implication' yourself, people have read into it what they want to see but that's all it is.
Fair enough, the fact that the General said O'Neill didn't agree with the requirement to cut the wage bill, and that he
seemed to think that his requirements were more important than those of the financial stability of the club, clearly had no bearing at all on O'Neill's decision to resign.
I've paid close attention to the General's posts. He has told us the things he wants us to believe, which is fair enough when considering his role as a director and his duty to the owners/shareholders. He hasn't explained anything though.
-
I've paid close attention to the General's posts. He has told us the things he wants us to believe, which is fair enough when considering his role as a director and his duty to the owners/shareholders. He hasn't explained anything though.
When has that been any different, though?
I guess we all have to decide how cynical we're going to be on the stuff the General says, but there seem to be quite a few people currently opting not to believe a word he says, who, prior to last week, seemed to believe everything he said and were pretty quick to put anyone who was cynical about him in their place.
He's in an awkward place, really.
If he says nothing, then he gets stick from people on here saying "why didn't you say something?"
If he says something which is perceived as a slight on the manager, he gets "who is this Colonel Sanders person?" from that prick at the Mirror, plus complaints from the more positively disposed to MON on here, suggesting that he shouldn't have said anything, as it is rolling with a pig in mud etc etc.
He's also not going to come out and say "yes, actually, we fucked around with Martin and moved the goalposts at the last moment", even if that were the case.
He's in a lose-lose situation - whatever he says, he's going to cop flack, and lots of it, from some quarters. I suspect what he did say, last week, and there wasn't much said, was mostly an emotional response to seeing the club and its leadership so roundly slated in the media. Bar Cascarino and Gray, it has all been extremely one-way.
-
I suspect what he did say, last week, and there wasn't much said, was as close to the truth as we're going to get. For that reason alone, I welcomed his comments.
-
Whatever he said, and whyever he said it, worked.
-
If he says something which is perceived as a slight on the manager, he gets "who is this Colonel Sanders person?"
Sorry, but his bit about being bigger than the club was a clear dig - there's nothing 'percieved' about it.
I would have preferred a statement that said something like "It was Martin's decision to go. We thank him for his contribution over the last 4 years, but what we are trying to achieve with the club is bigger than any one man, so we will begin the process to finding the right manager to move the club forward. You will understand that I'm not at liberty to disclose the inner financial workings of the club, but I can assure you that the media reports of becoming a 'selling club' are way wide of the mark and Randy's commitment to the cause is even stronger now that when he bought the club 4 years ago. Judge us on what we have done so far and what we will do in the future and not people's ill informed perception of us."
-
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
Yes, welcome back lads. May you be solidly behind the club forever, or until you find another excuse at least.
Percy it's a bit cheap to suggest O'Neill's critics were not behind the club. Some of us can see the difference between giving unequivocal support to the club whilst reserving the right to withhold such support from individuals employed to serve the club if we feel they are not up to the job, or not acting in the best interests of the club.
If only you could think of a catchy tune to fit the words "The only reason we are booing, or not joining in with the vocal support of the team from other fans is because we believe that certain individuals are not up to the job, and indeed, not acting in the best interest of the club", then perhaps the players would understand and be suitably encouraged by your 'support'.
Doesn't need a catchy tune Percy, it's blatantly obvious to most people. Butthen they live in a world where expressing disapproval
of the Manager's tactics and team selection or a particular team/player performance does not = "I hate Aston Vill F.C."
You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?[/]quote]
-
If he says something which is perceived as a slight on the manager, he gets "who is this Colonel Sanders person?"
Sorry, but his bit about being bigger than the club was a clear dig - there's nothing 'percieved' about it.
I would have preferred a statement that said something like "It was Martin's decision to go. We thank him for his contribution over the last 4 years, but what we are trying to achieve with the club is bigger than any one man, so we will begin the process to finding the right manager to move the club forward. You will understand that I'm not at liberty to disclose the inner financial workings of the club, but I can assure you that the media reports of becoming a 'selling club' are way wide of the mark and Randy's commitment to the cause is even stronger now that when he bought the club 4 years ago. Judge us on what we have done so far and what we will do in the future and not people's ill informed perception of us."
Well, that's the point isn't it.
Whatever he says, there will always be people who wished he'd said something different.
-
You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?
Not everyone who disliked MON's football booed the team, mind.
And what's more
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
I find it hard to believe that anyone wasn't behind the team because they didn't like the manager. Suggesting otherwise strikes me as either incredibly "holier than thou" or just naive.
Personally, as mentioned before, I found our home football turgid and borderline unwatchable on an extremely regular basis for two years.
I still wanted us to win every single match, though.
-
You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?
When did the two become exclusive, Percy?
-
Sorry, but his bit about being bigger than the club was a clear dig - there's nothing 'percieved' about it.
I didn't see that as a dig - merely a statement of the truth. The club is bigger than the chairman, directors, manager, chief executive etc.
-
I was talking specifically about booing and witholding vocal encouragement at the match.
-
Sorry, but his bit about being bigger than the club was a clear dig - there's nothing 'percieved' about it.
I didn't see that as a dig - merely a statement of the truth. The club is bigger than the chairman, directors, manager, chief executive etc.
Yes it is and I would have no issue with anyone stating that basic fact. But when you then go on to say that one person didn't think that, then it is a dig.
-
Well if one person didn't think that, it's deserved.
-
Nobody is arguing whether what the General said was true or not, Maz, just whether he should have said it or not, both in terms of where he said it and the fact it's not in keeping with the dignified way they've run the club thus far.
-
I've paid close attention to the General's posts. He has told us the things he wants us to believe, which is fair enough when considering his role as a director and his duty to the owners/shareholders. He hasn't explained anything though.
When has that been any different, though?
I guess we all have to decide how cynical we're going to be on the stuff the General says, but there seem to be quite a few people currently opting not to believe a word he says, who, prior to last week, seemed to believe everything he said and were pretty quick to put anyone who was cynical about him in their place.
He's in an awkward place, really.
If he says nothing, then he gets stick from people on here saying "why didn't you say something?"
If he says something which is perceived as a slight on the manager, he gets "who is this Colonel Sanders person?" from that prick at the Mirror, plus complaints from the more positively disposed to MON on here, suggesting that he shouldn't have said anything, as it is rolling with a pig in mud etc etc.
He's also not going to come out and say "yes, actually, we fucked around with Martin and moved the goalposts at the last moment", even if that were the case.
He's in a lose-lose situation - whatever he says, he's going to cop flack, and lots of it, from some quarters. I suspect what he did say, last week, and there wasn't much said, was mostly an emotional response to seeing the club and its leadership so roundly slated in the media. Bar Cascarino and Gray, it has all been extremely one-way.
I mostly agree with that. In fact if you placed my quote after yours as a response it wouldn't look out of place.
One thing though, I wouldn't wish to be classified in that group you define as "prior to last week, seemed to believe everything he said and were pretty quick to put anyone who was cynical about him in their place."
The issues I have stem from the extraordinary posts he and his son issued on the first day of pre-season training. That was the first inkling I had that the club was going to reverse the investment strategy that we had been asked to support for 4 years.
-
You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?
Not everyone who disliked MON's football booed the team, mind.
And what's more
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
I find it hard to believe that anyone wasn't behind the team because they didn't like the manager. Suggesting otherwise strikes me as either incredibly "holier than thou" or just naive.
Personally, as mentioned before, I found our home football turgid and borderline unwatchable on an extremely regular basis for two years.
I still wanted us to win every single match, though.
There appeared to be a "better" level of support at the West Ham game on Saturday, even in the pubs and outside the ground before the match. Is that in question?
If so, what might have caused the difference if it wasn't the absence of ill-feeling toward the manager?
-
I can never understand why not going to the match because of the chairman is a noble, justified, protest and not going because of the manager is an act of disloyalty.
-
They amount to the same don't they?
-
Wouldn't holding back your support for the team because you don't like the manager equate to believing the manager is bigger than the Club?
O'Neill enjoyed the longest honeymoon from the fans in Villa management history. I put it down to fans wanting to believe rather than believing. I really don't think he'll be missed by anybody.
-
You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?
Not everyone who disliked MON's football booed the team, mind.
And what's more
I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.
I find it hard to believe that anyone wasn't behind the team because they didn't like the manager. Suggesting otherwise strikes me as either incredibly "holier than thou" or just naive.
Personally, as mentioned before, I found our home football turgid and borderline unwatchable on an extremely regular basis for two years.
I still wanted us to win every single match, though.
There appeared to be a "better" level of support at the West Ham game on Saturday, even in the pubs and outside the ground before the match. Is that in question?
If so, what might have caused the difference if it wasn't the absence of ill-feeling toward the manager?
"A better level of support" is one thing, but you seemed to be implying that some people "would not support" the club if they didn't like the manager. That's a different thing.
I went to the first game of last season, and to the game on Saturday.
I didn't like the manager's brand of football 12 months ago, but I didn't boo, I supported the team and hoped we won.
On Saturday, I did the same thing, but I was happier - ie of a better mood - as there was not a season of predictable football ahead of us any longer.
The support I gave wasn't any better or worse, i was just in a better mood.
-
...
"A better level of support" is one thing, but you seemed to be implying that some people "would not support" the club if they didn't like the manager. That's a different thing.
I went to the first game of last season, and to the game on Saturday.
I didn't like the manager's brand of football 12 months ago, but I didn't boo, I supported the team and hoped we won.
On Saturday, I did the same thing, but I was happier - ie of a better mood - as there was not a season of predictable football ahead of us any longer.
The support I gave wasn't any better or worse, i was just in a better mood.
The atmosphere and support level was better on Saturday imo. If it wasn't down to you or I, it must have been something or someone else.
I suggested it was the minority (that's an important word in my sentence) who had found it difficult to get behind the manager and team due to their antipathy towards the previous manager. Maybe there was something else, I don't know.
-
I was happier on Saturday because there was a feeling of all in it together against the world and that any show of less than 100% total support would be seized on for the Crisis Club stories.
-
I think it was to do with the manner in which MON left rather than his style or his teams. Time to put aside petty differences and get behind the team and all that. Of course the fact that the team put on a good show helped quite a lot.
-
Not only was the General right to comment but it is his prerogative as a Non Exec Director of the club.
He may not pull many punches, but he has become the one the press look to for 'interesting' comments.
-
I don't have a problem with The General's intervention, he had to unfuck a clusterfuck, and he did it well.
I do not however, subscribe to the simplistic view that the wages issue is only a problem because MoN bought players which he did not then play. I agree with Villadawg that there was a policy change between statements covering three months that is yet to be fully explained. You did not need to be Nostradamus to predict that it would be difficult to ship players out in the current transfer market.
-
The explanation may be that most transfers take place in the last week of the window.
-
You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?[/]quote]
Well Percy, I'd guess at least some of the players realise they are in the entertainement and winning business, and that the paying customers are likely to get a little disgruntled if they are "earning" their multi million pound salaries by serving up a shower of shite. Or that maybe some of the disaffection is aimed at the manager rather than them. I'd be surprised if they are thinking, "oh the fans appear to be withholding their vocal support today, perhaps I won;t try quite as hard as my efforts won't be appreicated". I'd be more surprised if they are thinking "man these Villa fans really hate their club."
-
...
"A better level of support" is one thing, but you seemed to be implying that some people "would not support" the club if they didn't like the manager. That's a different thing.
I went to the first game of last season, and to the game on Saturday.
I didn't like the manager's brand of football 12 months ago, but I didn't boo, I supported the team and hoped we won.
On Saturday, I did the same thing, but I was happier - ie of a better mood - as there was not a season of predictable football ahead of us any longer.
The support I gave wasn't any better or worse, i was just in a better mood.
The atmosphere and support level was better on Saturday imo. If it wasn't down to you or I, it must have been something or someone else.
I suggested it was the minority (that's an important word in my sentence) who had found it difficult to get behind the manager and team due to their antipathy towards the previous manager. Maybe there was something else, I don't know.
I couldn't stand O'Neill and found it increasingly difficult to get behind the team with any enthusiam because of O'Neill's selections, tactics, and style of play, which meant I really didnt enjoy watching us. I wasn't alone in that. However I was still behind the team, still wanted us to win and bat Man City and Spurs for 4th even though it would have meant O'Neill still being here. I think what you witnessed on Saturday was partially a return of enthusiasm of those who were not looking forward to more turgid football, plus a big "screw you for walking out on us" to O'Neill.
-
I don't have a problem with The General's intervention, he had to unfuck a clusterfuck, and he did it well.
I do not however, subscribe to the simplistic view that the wages issue is only a problem because MoN bought players which he did not then play. I agree with Villadawg that there was a policy change between statements covering three months that is yet to be fully explained. You did not need to be Nostradamus to predict that it would be difficult to ship players out in the current transfer market.
I wonder if there was a policy change though? Or if O'Neill was told all along he could have x amount for transfers as long as he kept the wages within , say, 65% or 70% of turnover. That would make business sense. It would have been an odd financial strategy from a successful businessman not to have some kind of limit on spending, so I somehow doubt the policy in the first 4 years was spend spend spend and fuck the wage bill. If Martin had backed himself into a corner by overpaying his signings, passing the wages/turnover limit, and suddenly finding he couldnt shift the players he wasnt using in order to buy new ones, that's his fault.
But agreed, perhaps it is something the club ought to clarify.
-
Wouldn't holding back your support for the team because you don't like the manager equate to believing the manager is bigger than the Club?
O'Neill enjoyed the longest honeymoon from the fans in Villa management history. I put it down to fans wanting to believe rather than believing. I really don't think he'll be missed by anybody.
This man speaks sense.
Not very often, mind.
-
C*nt.
-
Ban him!
-
You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?[/]quote]
Well Percy, I'd guess at least some of the players realise they are in the entertainement and winning business, and that the paying customers are likely to get a little disgruntled if they are "earning" their multi million pound salaries by serving up a shower of shite. Or that maybe some of the disaffection is aimed at the manager rather than them. I'd be surprised if they are thinking, "oh the fans appear to be withholding their vocal support today, perhaps I won;t try quite as hard as my efforts won't be appreicated". I'd be more surprised if they are thinking "man these Villa fans really hate their club."
Is it that complicated though? To me, if the crowd can influence the mood of the players at all, it is just through either good vibes or bad vibes.
-
I don't have a problem with The General's intervention, he had to unfuck a clusterfuck, and he did it well.
I do not however, subscribe to the simplistic view that the wages issue is only a problem because MoN bought players which he did not then play. I agree with Villadawg that there was a policy change between statements covering three months that is yet to be fully explained. You did not need to be Nostradamus to predict that it would be difficult to ship players out in the current transfer market.
I wonder if there was a policy change though? Or if O'Neill was told all along he could have x amount for transfers as long as he kept the wages within , say, 65% or 70% of turnover. That would make business sense. It would have been an odd financial strategy from a successful businessman not to have some kind of limit on spending, so I somehow doubt the policy in the first 4 years was spend spend spend and fuck the wage bill. If Martin had backed himself into a corner by overpaying his signings, passing the wages/turnover limit, and suddenly finding he couldnt shift the players he wasnt using in order to buy new ones, that's his fault.
But agreed, perhaps it is something the club ought to clarify.
Personally, I don't think there was a policy change, at least not over the summer. There was that interview towards the end of the season in which MON spoke about different ways of competing, bringing through the youth, maybe selling a 'big' player etc. This suggests that the wages issue had been discussed and MON had accepted it, so maybe it was him who had a change of heart.
-
Maybe Martin had forced the board to change their minds before (maybe by threatening to resign), thought he could do it again, wasn't able to and backed himself into a corner.
-
Maybe Martin had forced the board to change their minds before (maybe by threatening to resign), thought he could do it again, wasn't able to and backed himself into a corner.
If that's the case Dave, MON clearly thought he was bigger than the club and deserved to go.
-
Maybe Martin had forced the board to change their minds before (maybe by threatening to resign), thought he could do it again, wasn't able to and backed himself into a corner.
That is a quite plausible hypothesis, all right.
I am still of the opinion that something changed; probably to do with the state of football finance in general.
-
I think Randy had lost faith in MON in any case and didn't trust him with any more money. MON hung around just long enough to make sure Mark Hughes was employed so Villa didn't have a ready made replacement.
-
I think Randy had lost faith in MON in any case and didn't trust him with any more money. MON hung around just long enough to make sure Mark Hughes was employed so Villa didn't have a ready made replacement.
I heard that Saturday from somebody who said Luke Young told them.
-
I think Randy had lost faith in MON in any case and didn't trust him with any more money. MON hung around just long enough to make sure Mark Hughes was employed so Villa didn't have a ready made replacement.
So at least we have something to thank him for!
-
What a load of crap that throy is :-[
No the general was completly wrong, because it was just a uneccssery cheap shot which did no one any favours.
There is a difference between getting the clubs side of the story over, and slating a man who did so much for us. It was cyical and it was nasty. Yes I too was let down by how Martin left us in it, but nothing should change the fantastic job he did at the club.
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
-
What a load of crap that throy is :-[
Well, when you couple it with the rumours of Lerner talking to Hughes' agent months ago...
-
Perhaps he enjoys playing the martyr Gregory's Boy?
What's a throy? :P
-
Perhaps he enjoys playing the martyr Gregory's Boy?
What's a throy? :P
A typing error.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
He hasn't needed to when he has so many media friends. And several managers have done a fantastic job at Villa but he isn't one of them.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
As we all know, action speaks louder than words.
-
Yes but in Martin's statement when leaving he made it clear what a great club he thought it was. His problem seems to be with the people running the club, not the fans, yet he hasn't even slaged them off, which makes MR HIGH OR MIGHTY'S remarks totally uncalled for.
And Dave please explain how MON did not do a fantastic. The season before he took over we finished 16, was playing dire football, were a mess on and off the pitch, and would have been prime candiates for relegation if O'Leary and Ellis had of stayed. From that we finished a very respectable eleveth in Martin's first season, followed by three top six finish's, during which we improved our points total and pushed hard for fourth. Not to mention last season getting to the semi-final of one cup and the final of another and all this with a very small squad. And as Holt rightly pointed out on Sunday he made the likes of Milner and Youngs stars who will make the club a big profit in the long run. NOW ON WHAT PLANET IS THAT NOT DOING A GOOD JOB!!!
Did the guy make mistakes yes, was there a case for saying he had taken us as far as he could, maybe. But the fact is we had a good thing going under him, and may struggle to get someone who can match that. Yes the guy walked out, but that should not change what he did while her.
-
Yes but in Martin's statement when leaving he made it clear what a great club he thought it was. His problem seems to be with the people running the club, not the fans, yet he hasn't even slaged them off, which makes MR HIGH OR MIGHTY'S remarks totally uncalled for.
And who might you be referring to?
-
Maybe Martin had forced the board to change their minds before (maybe by threatening to resign), thought he could do it again, wasn't able to and backed himself into a corner.
Maybe it'll come out that MON has threatened to resign loads of times before but this time the board actually called his bluff.
Now who else has that happened to! ;)
-
Maybe Martin had forced the board to change their minds before (maybe by threatening to resign), thought he could do it again, wasn't able to and backed himself into a corner.
Maybe it'll come out that MON has threatened to resign loads of times before but this time the board actually called his bluff.
Now who else has that happened to! ;)
That thought struck me as well.
-
Yes but in Martin's statement when leaving he made it clear what a great club he thought it was.
He was hardly going to say he'd spent the last 4 years managing a crap club. He's Martin O'Neill, one of the best managers in the game.
-
Thats not the point, the point is he has done nothing to deserve the attack from the club. Don't forget plenty of managers would have had a swipe in the press.
-
I would rather have the General posting his comments direct on this site or on others rather than issuing a statement or giving interviews to the press. At least we get all of his comments rather than the press omitting some words to make it sound completely different. The press are very good at carving up interviews and carefully selecting a few quotes to make an article with some sensational headline.
-
The season before he took over we finished 16, was playing dire football, were a mess on and off the pitch, and would have been prime candiates for relegation if O'Leary and Ellis had of stayed. From that we finished a very respectable eleveth in Martin's first season, followed by three top six finish's, during which we improved our points total and pushed hard for fourth. Not to mention last season getting to the semi-final of one cup and the final of another and all this with a very small squad. And as Holt rightly pointed out on Sunday he made the likes of Milner and Youngs stars who will make the club a big profit in the long run. NOW ON WHAT PLANET IS THAT NOT DOING A GOOD JOB!!!
It might be a good/ decent job -and that's been generous. Delivering parity with the JG years (are you JG's sprog by any chance? that would explain a lot) would be about par I'd say, or slightly under with the level of investment and backing given.
But a fantastic job? No. And you revised that yourself in your later post, so you must have known you were on shaky ground with that one.
Also: Small squad? Well, yeah I guess if you do ostracise a fair chunk of them the numbers start to dwindle.
For you to even use that lame O'Dreary era excuse four years after MON rocked up and with countless millions spent says it all really.
-
After four years of O'Neill a not-too-bright reporter said to me last week, "How can you hope to get Martin Jol when Fulham couldn't?" It may or may not be relevant.
-
Thats not the point, the point is he has done nothing to deserve the attack from the club. Don't forget plenty of managers would have had a swipe in the press.
Martin got his punches in first. As I said earlier, action speaks louder than words.
-
Thats not the point, the point is he has done nothing to deserve the attack from the club. Don't forget plenty of managers would have had a swipe in the press.
What else could MON have said that the press hadn't already presented as his side of the events. At least with the comments being from the media rather than his own quotes, he can always distance himself from them in the future. I suppose he could always have come out and said essentially what the General said but he wouldn't do that, would he.
The results that he achieved as manager are on record and nobody can deny that. If the facts that the General outlined in his comments are true, I would hardly call that an attack on the manager. An attack on MON would have been far stronger than what was said.
Hiding the truth, if that was what was said by the General, either for what MON had achieved previously or for the so called dignity of the club would not have been fair on the supporters. Bottom line is, supporters want to see what goes on on the pitch and know what goes on behind the scenes so that they can make up their own minds on the rights and wrongs. the club has to try and satisfy the fans as without the support of the fans, there would be no club.
-
Thats not fair, how can someone saying nothing be classed as an attack. Have you ever considered that this idea of Martin thinking he was bigger than the club is just rubbish made up by the club to defend itself.
As for the other point, its not like O'Neill was thinking the job was done. I am not saying we should settle for top six forever, but I don't get how anyone can see three sixth places, plus a semi-final final and final of a cup, and a ever improving team in four seasons as not being good going. Four years isn't a long time you know. The guy had a long term vision, which included the Champions League, but unless you have the sort of money City have [and even then its not for certain] then you have to except that these things take time.
You can't really compear this with the Gregory era, it was much easily to compete with the big four back then.
-
Thats not fair, how can someone saying nothing be classed as an attack.
Third time..action speaks louder than words. Martin may have kept quiet and I don't blame him, leaving a club in limbo five days before the season kicks off and taking the 5 most important backroom staff with him is, in my book, an attack. A dirty one at that.
-
The messiahs followers are still at it.
-
Thats not fair, how can someone saying nothing be classed as an attack.
Third time..action speaks louder than words. Martin may have kept quiet and I don't blame him, leaving a club in limbo five days before the season kicks off and taking the 5 most important backroom staff with him is, in my book, an attack. A dirty one at that.
The timing stank. And whilst I pleased he's gone, he could have done it earlier in the close season. Surely nothing changed that dramatically at the club in the last 2 months? It struck me as spite.
Not wanting to take away anything from his achievement of qualifying 4 the Europa Cup 3 times he has had the backing of the best chairman in the league.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
As we all know, action speaks louder than words.
If only the General had remembered that.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
As we all know, action speaks louder than words.
If only the General had remembered that.
Yeah, he could have given him a good kickin'.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
He hasn't said anything - yet - but let's not forget, in terms of damage he walked out on the club five days before the start of the season and took his entire backroom staff with him.
Nothing he could say could cause as much trouble and turmoil as that, and nothing he could say could put into context how little he gave a shit for the club than that.
To listen to you, you'd think he'd been sacked and was the wronged party.
-
As we all know, action speaks louder than words.
I agree.
And I think the other thing we can all agree on is that the reason he left, whether you take his side or the board's, was money.
Therefore, should we not wait to see what the club's actions are to decide whether he was justified or not? If we don't spend the Milner money and sell a few more, then maybe he was right in trying to get Randy to change the stratergy and give him a fighting chance of bettering 6th. But if we do spend decently between now and 31/8, or indeed in January should time beat us, he was probably wrong to resign.
Time, and actions, will tell.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
He hasn't said anything - yet - but let's not forget, in terms of damage he walked out on the club five days before the start of the season and took his entire backroom staff with him.
Nothing he could say could cause as much trouble and turmoil as that, and nothing he could say could put into context how little he gave a shit for the club than that.
To listen to you, you'd think he'd been sacked and was the wronged party.
What about Ron Saunders walking out in January in the middle of a European Cup run. Does that show how little he gave a shit for the club?
MON dropped us in it and should get no sympathy for that but I do think one or two are getting a little carried away with it all.
I don't include you in this Paulie but there are people on this site professing anger at MON walking out who if they had been offered the prospect 24 hours earlier would have been delighted.
-
I would have been delighted if he'd walked out 24 days earlier, but just before kick off was designed to cause as much damage as possible. The good news is any self-respecting club will have taken note of his actions and scrubbed him off any potential managerial short-list - he's finished as far as getting a top job.
-
I would have been delighted if he'd walked out 24 days earlier, but just before kick off was designed to cause as much damage as possible. The good news is any self-respecting club will have taken note of his actions and scrubbed him off any potential managerial short-list - he's finished as far as getting a top job.
I think you're deluding yourself, greg. If you'd been offered the chance for him to go on the morning he walked you'd have taken it.
-
Sorry but when we were discussing this in April/May on here i conceded he deserved a little longer. Once i got wind of all his double dealing with Liverpool behind our backs that viewpoint changed.
-
I still don't accept the timing to have been a deliberate act of spite on his part. Was there a building and mounting frustration, which should have been identified and addressed earlier by both parties, that then boiled over last Monday? Yes, that I can believe. That after Blackburn at home last season he decided to go, but waited to make sure we sign no players and sabotage our pre-season before timing his resignation after Hughes went to Fulham? Sorry, just sounds too far fetched and 'evil genius' like for me!
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
He hasn't said anything - yet - but let's not forget, in terms of damage he walked out on the club five days before the start of the season and took his entire backroom staff with him.
Nothing he could say could cause as much trouble and turmoil as that, and nothing he could say could put into context how little he gave a shit for the club than that.
To listen to you, you'd think he'd been sacked and was the wronged party.
What about Ron Saunders walking out in January in the middle of a European Cup run. Does that show how little he gave a shit for the club?
Maybe it does, but what direct relevance does that have to MON doing it?
I don't include you in this Paulie but there are people on this site professing anger at MON walking out who if they had been offered the prospect 24 hours earlier would have been delighted.
You're probably right, I am sure there are those who dislike him enough to be like that, but I imagine there are far, far more who are genuinely annoyed at the timing.
I never thought he'd done enough to get sacked, that was always a ludicrous suggestion, but at the same time wanted him to put right what I saw as the deficiencies, and was prepared to have another season with him having a go.
I thought, prior to his leaving, that if i woke up one morning and heard he'd gone, I'd be pretty ambivalent about it, not really bothered too much either way.
Since last week, I've actually become glad he's gone, but I'm aware that this is partly because we played so well on Saturday (and, I know you and I disagree on the quality of football thing, but you must admit, I've at least been consistent with that complaint for ages now), partly because of the way he did it, and partly because of the stuff which has emerged / happened since.
I do think, however, that once the euphoria of Saturday has entirely worn off, we're going to realise how serious losing a manager so close to the start of a new season can be, and that's the point at which the true shittiness of when he bailed on us will be appreciated.
-
The messiahs followers are still at it.
There are only 3 or 4 people on here who call MON the Messiah, and they are all maniacs who actually believe he is the anti-Christ.
-
The messiahs followers are still at it.
And you're still a moron. I hope there is no Pong O' Shat 3.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
He hasn't said anything - yet - but let's not forget, in terms of damage he walked out on the club five days before the start of the season and took his entire backroom staff with him.
Nothing he could say could cause as much trouble and turmoil as that, and nothing he could say could put into context how little he gave a shit for the club than that.
To listen to you, you'd think he'd been sacked and was the wronged party.
What about Ron Saunders walking out in January in the middle of a European Cup run. Does that show how little he gave a shit for the club?
MON dropped us in it and should get no sympathy for that but I do think one or two are getting a little carried away with it all.
Ron Saunders position was untenable, and he walked, leaving behind his number 2 who took his team on to win the European Cup.
Comparing those two to that runaway shit you seem to want to defend is pathetic even for you.
-
Ron Saunders position was untenable, and he walked, leaving behind his number 2 who took his team on to win the European Cup.
Comparing those two to that runaway shit you seem to want to defend is pathetic even for you.
That's all VERY subjective. Who's to say that MON did not genuinely feel his position was also untenable? And he left behind a very competent coach in Kevin MacDonald.
If you start a thread like this it's because you want other people's views, so you might want to try treating those views with a little more respect.
-
Talking to someone after the game on saturday, they told me someone they had been talking to at the ground said MON going was like a cloud had been lifted from the club.
General-
I know you have said the screen at the North Stand wont be going back up due to future renovations.
Is there any chance the small scoreboard could be programmed to give a bit more info, ie line ups, half time scores etc.
where i was sat at the back of the Lower Holte, i couldnt see the big screen there nor could i make out what the tannoy was saying as it wasnt very clear.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
As we all know, action speaks louder than words.
If only the General had remembered that.
One comment on here, and you're accusing him of being unprofessional, yet when O'Neill continually harped on and on and on about the fans booing the shit performance against Wigan, you were one of the people who defended him, saying he was only sticking up for his players.
O'Neill is the one in the wrong, walking out as he did, and there was no justifaction whatsoever for that.
-
Ron Saunders position was untenable, and he walked, leaving behind his number 2 who took his team on to win the European Cup.
Comparing those two to that runaway shit you seem to want to defend is pathetic even for you.
Why was it untenable? He fell out over a contract and walked, he didn't have to he chose to.
It's not about defending him (although I'm not surprised that your addled brain is unable to grasp the subtleties) it's about offering a counterpoint to the assumed line that walking out can only mean he didn't give a shit.
I'd have thought for a man with such a one-eyed hatred of O'Neill that would have been a cause for celebration but that, I suppose, would have meant you displaying a measure of sincerity seemingly beyond you.
-
Also the fact remains that MON has said nothing bad about the club in his absence, so maybe they should take note of that.
As we all know, action speaks louder than words.
If only the General had remembered that.
One comment on here, and you're accusing him of being unprofessional, yet when O'Neill continually harped on and on and on about the fans booing the shit performance against Wigan, you were one of the people who defended him, saying he was only sticking up for his players.
O'Neill is the one in the wrong, walking out as he did, and there was no justifaction whatsoever for that.
As I've said before, two wrongs don't make a right.
I haven't accused him of being unprofessional, I've suggested that it would have been better displaying the dignity that has characterised their tenure to date rather than indulging in what appeared to me to be a point scoring exercise.
It's done now and just because I disagreed with that it doesn't mean that I've turned against the board, far from it in fact, it just means that on that one occassion I wasn't particularly happy with the line they took.
-
As I've said before, two wrongs don't make a right.
I haven't accused him of being unprofessional, I've suggested that it would have been better displaying the dignity that has characterised their tenure to date rather than indulging in what appeared to me to be a point scoring exercise.
It's done now and just because I disagreed with that it doesn't mean that I've turned against the board, far from it in fact, it just means that on that one occassion I wasn't particularly happy with the line they took.
At least you've admitted that O'Neill was wrong afterall. Shame you couldn't have done that while he was still here.
-
Ron Saunders position was untenable, and he walked, leaving behind his number 2 who took his team on to win the European Cup.
Comparing those two to that runaway shit you seem to want to defend is pathetic even for you.
That's all VERY subjective. Who's to say that MON did not genuinely feel his position was also untenable? And he left behind a very competent coach in Kevin MacDonald.
I think if he'd had a chance to take KM he would have done. Fortunately Kevin MacDonald and Tony MacAndrew are both loyal to the club, having been here before MON. We should be grateful they weren't Martin's men or we'd have the General coaching the team (he'd probably make a good fitness coach) and Randy managing the team and doing 'a Fergie' by refusing to speak to the BBC.. and every other media.
You are right though, Kevin MacDonald is a very good coach, at least appears to be on what I've seen of the Reserves matches, not forgeting Saturday. MON has gone, it's time to move on.
-
As I've said before, two wrongs don't make a right.
I haven't accused him of being unprofessional, I've suggested that it would have been better displaying the dignity that has characterised their tenure to date rather than indulging in what appeared to me to be a point scoring exercise.
It's done now and just because I disagreed with that it doesn't mean that I've turned against the board, far from it in fact, it just means that on that one occassion I wasn't particularly happy with the line they took.
At least you've admitted that O'Neill was wrong afterall. Shame you couldn't have done that while he was still here.
Baby steps, Risso. Baby steps..
-
As I've said before, two wrongs don't make a right.
I haven't accused him of being unprofessional, I've suggested that it would have been better displaying the dignity that has characterised their tenure to date rather than indulging in what appeared to me to be a point scoring exercise.
It's done now and just because I disagreed with that it doesn't mean that I've turned against the board, far from it in fact, it just means that on that one occassion I wasn't particularly happy with the line they took.
At least you've admitted that O'Neill was wrong afterall. Shame you couldn't have done that while he was still here.
Eh? Have you borrowed Everall's brain?
How could I 'admit' he was wrong for the timing of his walk out while he was still here?
-
As I've said before, two wrongs don't make a right.
I haven't accused him of being unprofessional, I've suggested that it would have been better displaying the dignity that has characterised their tenure to date rather than indulging in what appeared to me to be a point scoring exercise.
It's done now and just because I disagreed with that it doesn't mean that I've turned against the board, far from it in fact, it just means that on that one occassion I wasn't particularly happy with the line they took.
At least you've admitted that O'Neill was wrong afterall. Shame you couldn't have done that while he was still here.
Eh? Have you borrowed Everall's brain?
How could I 'admit' he was wrong for the timing of his walk out while he was still here?
Nope, I am fully in control of my faculties thanks.
The "wrong" in this case was O'Neill slagging off the fans.