Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: sali,salifou on June 25, 2011, 05:49:09 PM
-
At the risk of self-publicity (Which I'm totally good with) I interview Oliver Holt recently for European Football Weekends. And I obviously brought up Villa. Thought his views on O'Neil etc... were quite interesting, baring in mind how he's percieved.
http://europeanfootballweekends.blogspot.com/2011/06/oliver-holt-interview.html
He's a decent bloke to be fair.
-
At the risk of self-publicity (Which I'm totally good with) I interview Oliver Holt recently for European Football Weekends. And I obviously brought up Villa. Thought his views on O'Neil etc... were quite interesting, baring in mind how he's percieved.
http://europeanfootballweekends.blogspot.com/2011/06/oliver-holt-interview.html
He's a decent bloke to be fair.
my god he could be one of the MONettes on here.."yes he wasted a lot of money and you haven't got a pot to piss in now but you finished 6th"
whoopy do...
-
I'm surprised he could say much, inbetween gargling O'Neill's spunk.
-
Comfortably the finest bellend in print. And I include me and Dave in that.
-
Comfortably the finest bellend in print. And I include me and Dave in that.
Which begs the question of how you know how fine Holt's bellend is in comparison to Dave's.
-
Cheers for that, a good read. Holt comes across better than he does in print or on the telly but I guess that's to be expected - no doubt he feels obliged to be more opinionated and controversial in his work. To be fair, he does acknowledge there's another side to the O'Neill argument, which he admits he's not as well-informed on as Villa fans are.
-
Well, Holt's is stringy and has the brevity of Emily Bishop's specs. Dave doesn't have one. Its just a small, dangly, black country, scratching, kept in a bag of toffees.
-
Holt bought me a drink.
I'll let you make the comparision to Dave.
-
I'm surprised he could say much, inbetween gargling O'Neill's spunk.
Take a bow sir,bravo.
-
Cheers for that, a good read. Holt comes across better than he does in print or on the telly but I guess that's to be expected - no doubt he feels obliged to be more opinionated and controversial in his work. To be fair, he does acknowledge there's another side to the O'Neill argument, which he admits he's not as well-informed on as Villa fans are.
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
-
And in such scathing, emphatic terms. Tosspot.
-
The 1st 3 or 4 questions he kept bringing it back to Ferdinand, its as if he took delight in it...
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
He'd have to go a long way to be as unbalanced on the subject as you are.
-
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
I'm afraid looking for balance from a tabloid journalist is a fool's errand.
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
He'd have to go a long way to be as unbalanced on the subject as you are.
Looks like Ironic Post of the Century has been won already.
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
He'd have to go a long way to be as unbalanced on the subject as you are.
Looks like Ironic Post of the Century has been won already.
I don't know, I'd wait till all the postal votes have been counted.
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
He'd have to go a long way to be as unbalanced on the subject as you are.
Looks like Ironic Post of the Century has been won already.
My opinions are balanced by the facts that the support them. Where's the balance in yours?
-
larf!
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
He'd have to go a long way to be as unbalanced on the subject as you are.
Looks like Ironic Post of the Century has been won already.
My opinions are balanced by the facts that the support them. Where's the balance in yours?
Facts you create or lift from sketchy blogs don't count.
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
He'd have to go a long way to be as unbalanced on the subject as you are.
Looks like Ironic Post of the Century has been won already.
My opinions are balanced by the facts that the support them. Where's the balance in yours?
You're trying to beat your personal best, I'll say that.
O'Neill damaged the club I support. I don't need balance.
-
If he admits he's not too well-read on the subject, why write about it?
Not much use having a chief football writer at a daily paper who's only allowed to cover Stockport County. He's in the instant opinions business; that's why he writes for a tabloid. Besides, there are still some on here who reckon O'Neill was hard done by.
It wouldn't have been too difficult to find out about it. Or to have been more balanced.
He'd have to go a long way to be as unbalanced on the subject as you are.
Looks like Ironic Post of the Century has been won already.
My opinions are balanced by the facts that the support them. Where's the balance in yours?
Facts you create or lift from sketchy blogs don't count.
He is at least open about his sources, allowing you to judge for yourself.
You may prefer innuendo, but you'd be mistaken if you thought everyone else the same as you.
-
My opinions are balanced by the facts that the support them. Where's the balance in yours?
Your opinions are backed by your interpretation of the facts as you see them, same as everybody else on here.
-
He is at least open about his sources, allowing you to judge for yourself.
You may prefer innuendo, but you'd be mistaken if you thought everyone else the same as you.
The nightclub in Evesham? That's a bit presumptuous, as I've never been.
Blathering on about facts and then regularly citing half arsed economics from such esteemed websites as Swiss Butter Mountain or whatever it was might raise questions about ones credibility just a tad, wouldn't you agree?
-
He is at least open about his sources, allowing you to judge for yourself.
You may prefer innuendo, but you'd be mistaken if you thought everyone else the same as you.
The nightclub in Evesham? That's a bit presumptuous, as I've never been.
Blathering on about facts and then regularly citing half arsed economics from such esteemed websites as Swiss Butter Mountain or whatever it was might raise questions about ones credibility just a tad, wouldn't you agree?
As I said, he lets you know where his information's from. You choose to deigrate it, which is up to you.
There are several millions of pounds in unspoken settlements that indicate that he may be nearer the mark than you, Mr W. and gregnash when it comes to what's happened over the last year or so.
As the above looks a bit too much like the innuendo I complained of earlier, let me just confirm that anything I have written is nothing more than conjecture, based on a personal hunch.
I can't be bothered to read obscure blogs, or to pretend that I know or knew the mind of any of our departed managers.
-
He is at least open about his sources, allowing you to judge for yourself.
You may prefer innuendo, but you'd be mistaken if you thought everyone else the same as you.
The nightclub in Evesham? That's a bit presumptuous, as I've never been.
Blathering on about facts and then regularly citing half arsed economics from such esteemed websites as Swiss Butter Mountain or whatever it was might raise questions about ones credibility just a tad, wouldn't you agree?
As I said, he lets you know where his information's from. You choose to deigrate it, which is up to you.
There are several millions of pounds in unspoken settlements that indicate that he may be nearer the mark than you, Mr W. and gregnash when it comes to what's happened over the last year or so.
As the above looks a bit too much like the innuendo I complained of earlier, let me just confirm that anything I have written is nothing more than conjecture, based on a personal hunch.
I can't be bothered to read obscure blogs, or to pretend that I know or knew the mind of any of our departed managers.
He could have been awarded one penny or one billion pounds, it makes no difference. The fact is that he walked out at the most difficult time possible. Everything he had done, or will do, has to be judged against that.
-
Facts don't do what I want them to.
-
My opinions are balanced by the facts that the support them. Where's the balance in yours?
Your opinions are backed by your interpretation of the facts as you see them, same as everybody else on here.
My opinions are based on an acceptance of the facts. That isn't the same as everybody else on here.
-
What a load of cock. MON sues people all the time, and most of them for imagined slights that normal people would shrug off.. A guy who sued a website and won for printing a letter from a villa fan criticising him ffs - any normal manager would live with it. He left us in the lurch and then decided to milk the club for a bit more money as his ego was hurt.. If he was that interested in showing everyone how hard done by he was, rather than just pocketing the money, he would have took the Villa case to court and let all the details into the public - the fact he decided to go down the route he did tells you all you need to know
-
*looks up*
I love this site. It doesn't half make me laugh.
-
He is at least open about his sources, allowing you to judge for yourself.
You may prefer innuendo, but you'd be mistaken if you thought everyone else the same as you.
The nightclub in Evesham? That's a bit presumptuous, as I've never been.
Blathering on about facts and then regularly citing half arsed economics from such esteemed websites as Swiss Butter Mountain or whatever it was might raise questions about ones credibility just a tad, wouldn't you agree?
As I said, he lets you know where his information's from. You choose to deigrate it, which is up to you.
There are several millions of pounds in unspoken settlements that indicate that he may be nearer the mark than you, Mr W. and gregnash when it comes to what's happened over the last year or so.
As the above looks a bit too much like the innuendo I complained of earlier, let me just confirm that anything I have written is nothing more than conjecture, based on a personal hunch.
I can't be bothered to read obscure blogs, or to pretend that I know or knew the mind of any of our departed managers.
Everything he had done, or will do, has to be judged against that.
I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).
Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?
-
I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).
Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?
If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?
-
I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).
Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?
If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?
I would imagine that a court of law probably wouldn't care whether or not a manager has ever lost a tribunal. This wasn't a court of law, why cave so quickly if he didn't have a case?
I'd rather buy McGeady than Michael Mansfield.
-
I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).
Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?
If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?
And, incidentally, 'he did a very convincing impression' is innuendo.
Why don't you just say what you know?
-
He is at least open about his sources, allowing you to judge for yourself.
You may prefer innuendo, but you'd be mistaken if you thought everyone else the same as you.
The nightclub in Evesham? That's a bit presumptuous, as I've never been.
Blathering on about facts and then regularly citing half arsed economics from such esteemed websites as Swiss Butter Mountain or whatever it was might raise questions about ones credibility just a tad, wouldn't you agree?
As I said, he lets you know where his information's from. You choose to deigrate it, which is up to you.
There are several millions of pounds in unspoken settlements that indicate that he may be nearer the mark than you, Mr W. and gregnash when it comes to what's happened over the last year or so.
As the above looks a bit too much like the innuendo I complained of earlier, let me just confirm that anything I have written is nothing more than conjecture, based on a personal hunch.
I can't be bothered to read obscure blogs, or to pretend that I know or knew the mind of any of our departed managers.
Everything he had done, or will do, has to be judged against that.
I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).
Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?
why did he not go down the route of the villa historian then if he was so badly treated? All have been out in the open and we'd all make up our own mind. Or mebbe he was worried it wouldn't paint him in a very good light?
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
-
My opinions are balanced by the facts that the support them. Where's the balance in yours?
Your opinions are backed by your interpretation of the facts as you see them, same as everybody else on here.
My opinions are based on an acceptance of the facts. That isn't the same as everybody else on here.
No, your interpretation of the facts as you see them.
There is also the question of where you get the facts that you use to put over your viewpoint from, after all one paper (or website)'s fact is another paper (or website)'s load of made up bollocks.
-
I don't really care too much what was said in the tribunal, the thing I will remember is the casual abandon with which the egotistical gobshite shat on us as supporters and the impact it had on producing a year (and counting) of utter bollocks.
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
-
I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).
Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?
If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?
And, incidentally, 'he did a very convincing impression' is innuendo.
Why don't you just say what you know?
I know he left five days before the season started, taking his entire backroom staff with him. What I don't know is why some people seem to bend over backwards to take his side against that of the team they support.
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.
-
The board agreed with him? I doubt it, somehow.
Parties enter into LMA tribunals with a commitment to abide by the findings. To suggest the board agreed because they paid up us to misunderstand the way the tribunals work.
-
I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).
Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?
If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?
And, incidentally, 'he did a very convincing impression' is innuendo.
Why don't you just say what you know?
I know he left five days before the season started, taking his entire backroom staff with him. What I don't know is why some people seem to bend over backwards to take his side against that of the team they support.
In the absence of any evidence or indication of the background to the incident, what I don't know is why seemingly rational people seem to bend over backwards to see a conspiracy and/or malice in a decision that could have happened for innumerable reasons - morally good, bad or irrelevant.
-
The board agreed with him? I doubt it, somehow.
Parties enter into LMA tribunals with a commitment to abide by the findings. To suggest the board agreed because they paid up us to misunderstand the way the tribunals work.
Apologies, you're right. It seems the board didn't have enough confidence that their refutal would hold up in a court of law.
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.
look, this is a guy who protects his reputation and has no qualms about taking people to court if they upset him and letting the public see what he's unhappy about. Now all of a sudden he goes all shy on us and instead of taking us to a proper employment tribunal he opts for the kangeroo court route. Odd that.
Anyway i don't think he's ever denied walking out on us, just that he had his "reasons" that he refuses to expand on. Like someone claiming diminished responsibility after they shoot someone.
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.
look, this is a guy who protects his reputation and has no qualms about taking people to court if they upset him and letting the public see what he's unhappy about. Now all of a sudden he goes all shy on us and instead of taking us to a proper employment tribunal he opts for the kangeroo court route. Odd that.
Anyway i don't think he's ever denied walking out on us, just that he had his "reasons" that he refuses to expand on. Like some claiming diminished responsibility after they shoot someone.
Ok, so why would Randy et al allow him to do that, given how wronged they were? Surely a day in court would work for everyone?
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.
look, this is a guy who protects his reputation and has no qualms about taking people to court if they upset him and letting the public see what he's unhappy about. Now all of a sudden he goes all shy on us and instead of taking us to a proper employment tribunal he opts for the kangeroo court route. Odd that.
Anyway i don't think he's ever denied walking out on us, just that he had his "reasons" that he refuses to expand on. Like some claiming diminished responsibility after they shoot someone.
Ok, so why would Randy et al allow him to do that, given how wronged they were? Surely a day in court would work for everyone?
the cost?
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.
look, this is a guy who protects his reputation and has no qualms about taking people to court if they upset him and letting the public see what he's unhappy about. Now all of a sudden he goes all shy on us and instead of taking us to a proper employment tribunal he opts for the kangeroo court route. Odd that.
Anyway i don't think he's ever denied walking out on us, just that he had his "reasons" that he refuses to expand on. Like some claiming diminished responsibility after they shoot someone.
Ok, so why would Randy et al allow him to do that, given how wronged they were? Surely a day in court would work for everyone?
the cost?
The costs, added to the remainder of the contract if the court found in MON's favour? Yep, I take your point.
-
the cost full stop. the only reason that option exists is to stop it going to a court
-
Isn't the tribunal something all clubs agree to go to rather than a proper court?
-
Isn't the tribunal something all clubs agree to go to rather than a proper court?
Yeah, but if they don't reach agreement then surely the next step is a real court/arbitration?
-
I don't think you're forced to use it. Its just cheaper for all involved and as we've seen secret.
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.
look, this is a guy who protects his reputation and has no qualms about taking people to court if they upset him and letting the public see what he's unhappy about. Now all of a sudden he goes all shy on us and instead of taking us to a proper employment tribunal he opts for the kangeroo court route. Odd that.
Anyway i don't think he's ever denied walking out on us, just that he had his "reasons" that he refuses to expand on. Like some claiming diminished responsibility after they shoot someone.
Ok, so why would Randy et al allow him to do that, given how wronged they were? Surely a day in court would work for everyone?
the cost?
The costs, added to the remainder of the contract if the court found in MON's favour? Yep, I take your point.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire but the PL rules insist that every PL manager has a clause in their contract that forces them to go through a process of LMA mediation followed by a tribunal. Neither he nor the club had any choice about it.
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.
look, this is a guy who protects his reputation and has no qualms about taking people to court if they upset him and letting the public see what he's unhappy about. Now all of a sudden he goes all shy on us and instead of taking us to a proper employment tribunal he opts for the kangeroo court route. Odd that.
Anyway i don't think he's ever denied walking out on us, just that he had his "reasons" that he refuses to expand on. Like some claiming diminished responsibility after they shoot someone.
Ok, so why would Randy et al allow him to do that, given how wronged they were? Surely a day in court would work for everyone?
the cost?
The costs, added to the remainder of the contract if the court found in MON's favour? Yep, I take your point.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire but the PL rules insist that every PL manager has a clause in their contract that forces them to go through a process of LMA mediation followed by a tribunal. Neither he nor the club had any choice about it.
You keep your piss to yourself. what happens when mediation fails? Curbishley, Keegan etc..?
-
precisely. its just a way of stopping every sacked manager or those claiming constructive dismissal from taking it to a proper court, and lets face it 99% of managers could cobble together a case
-
precisely. its just a way of stopping every sacked manager or those claiming constructive dismissal from taking it to a proper court, and lets face it 99% of managers could cobble together a case
Sorry, do you know what constructive dismissal means?
-
He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.
oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.
No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.
look, this is a guy who protects his reputation and has no qualms about taking people to court if they upset him and letting the public see what he's unhappy about. Now all of a sudden he goes all shy on us and instead of taking us to a proper employment tribunal he opts for the kangeroo court route. Odd that.
Anyway i don't think he's ever denied walking out on us, just that he had his "reasons" that he refuses to expand on. Like some claiming diminished responsibility after they shoot someone.
Ok, so why would Randy et al allow him to do that, given how wronged they were? Surely a day in court would work for everyone?
the cost?
The costs, added to the remainder of the contract if the court found in MON's favour? Yep, I take your point.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire but the PL rules insist that every PL manager has a clause in their contract that forces them to go through a process of LMA mediation followed by a tribunal. Neither he nor the club had any choice about it.
You keep your piss to yourself. what happens when mediation fails? Curbishley, Keegan etc..?
Oh dear, I misquotedly aimed my piss at the wrong bonfire
If mediation fails, the tribunal makes a ruling. I don't think anyone has challenged a tribunal finding so far but they could if they felt they had a case.
-
You're going to need to aim your last droplets at the right fire because I'm not sure whether I need to respond?
-
I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly
-
I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly
But they don't, though, do they?
DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.
And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.
Go on...
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
Thank you, I appreciate your yellow, steamy candour.
-
I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly
But they don't, though, do they?
DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.
And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.
Go on...
but they're not a litigious ****** are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them
-
I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly
But they don't, though, do they?
DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.
And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.
Go on...
but they're not a litigious c***s are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them
Doesn't that indicate that he is usually right?
-
I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly
But they don't, though, do they?
DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.
And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.
Go on...
but they're not a litigious c***s are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them
Really? DO'L, Souness, Jewell...the only thing keeping them from millions of unearned pounds is their inherent decency (as opposed to that tyrant O'Neill)?
Ok, Greg. Ok.
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
-
I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly
But they don't, though, do they?
DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.
And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.
Go on...
but they're not a litigious c***s are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them
Doesn't that indicate that he is usually right?
he's right in the same way as anyone who gets insulted on here could probably take someone to court. But you'd be a complete shit if you did. Hell you'd probably be a multi-millionaire
-
I might have missed it with all the other shenanigans going on, but did MON claim constructive dismissal? I'm aware there was a payout and settlement, but that doesn't necessarily amount to the same thing.
This is what occurred when Alan Curbishley went that route and the tribunal found in his favour (and here's a link just for you villainous, you old sweetie pie you) : clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/17/alan-curbishley-tribunal-west-ham)
We can confirm that Alan Curbishley and West Ham have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club. The Managers' arbitration tribunal of the FA Premier League previously had unanimously upheld Alan Curbishley's claim of wrongful dismissal against West Ham United Football Club.
"He resigned at the beginning of the 2008-09 season after the club sold Anton Ferdinand and subsequently George McCartney to Sunderland against his wishes.
"The tribunal upheld Alan Curbishley's right to have ultimate sole authority in relation to the sale and purchase of players, found that the conduct of the club amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and that Alan Curbishley was therefore entitled to resign."
Different cases different outcomes of course. The findings in Curbisley's case neither disprove or validate MON's one.
But the theory put around by Villadawg and others at the time was that MON was effectively having Milner sold from under him and Ireland forced upon him. Naturally there was no evidence (or facts) forthcoming to substantiate this theory. It is a fact that the General came on here and elsewhere and said it was purely a wage bill issue. MON was asked to abide by it, agreed in May but just before the start of the season changed his mind. The General also confirmed that Ireland was MON's choice. As Ireland himself did later in the season when he wasn't getting a game under GH.
At any time, MON could have refuted that if he genuinely thought the clubs response wasn't an accurate surmation of events. He certainly had the chance when it came to the tribunual, to put his side of events out there as a matter of public record. Yet compare and contrast with Curbishley's statement:
The League Managers Association (LMA) is able to confirm that Martin O’Neill OBE and Aston Villa have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club in August 2010.
The matter was placed before the FA Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal, but was resolved during the course of the hearing.
Premier League managers' contracts contain a clause requiring the parties to mediate their differences in the event of a dispute, and, if the dispute cannot be resolved at mediation, that the case moves forward to the Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal.
The Tribunal is ideally placed to resolve disputes of this nature, combining the skills and experience of prominent individuals from football and the law.
Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:
"It has taken a long time to deal with this matter but I am pleased that all issues have now been amicably finalised. I am very proud to have managed Aston Villa and I wish the club all the best for the future. I would also like to thank the LMA and my outstanding legal team, led by Paul Gilroy QC, and Geldards, solicitors, for their support and hard work in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion. I am now looking forward to the future and getting back into football management."
No mention there of players sold against his will, the club being in breach of contract when it came to transfers or anything else. If the argument is that he'd been paid off and kept the juicy stuff under his hat, then how does that tally with the notion of a man of such integrity that we were lucky to even breathe the same air as him for four years. If he'd resigned on a point of principle, why not make the principle known?
It seems that the rumours (or conjecture, if you will) suggesting MON was getting itchy feet as far back as March might not have been so wide of the mark after all. The links to Liverpool increased in frequency from that point onwards, both here and in the media. To the point that even playing staff commented on it post MON walkout.
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
You're confusing yourself, you poor love.
If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.
Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.
-
I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly
But they don't, though, do they?
DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.
And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.
Go on...
but they're not a litigious c***s are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them
Really? DO'L, Souness, Jewell...the only thing keeping them from millions of unearned pounds is their inherent decency (as opposed to that tyrant O'Neill)?
Ok, Greg. Ok.
well thats where we disagree. I never remember DOL sueing any villa fans for slagging him off.
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
You're confusing yourself, you poor love.
If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.
Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.
He walked out. How in God's name does that make him anything other than guilty?
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
You're confusing yourself, you poor love.
If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.
Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.
who said his contract was breached?? we don't know that... you're just making this up as you go along.
-
I might have missed it with all the other shenanigans going on, but did MON claim constructive dismissal? I'm aware there was a payout and settlement, but that doesn't necessarily amount to the same thing.
This is what occurred when Alan Curbishley went that route and the tribunal found in his favour (and here's a link just for you villainous, you old sweetie pie you) : clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/17/alan-curbishley-tribunal-west-ham)
We can confirm that Alan Curbishley and West Ham have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club. The Managers' arbitration tribunal of the FA Premier League previously had unanimously upheld Alan Curbishley's claim of wrongful dismissal against West Ham United Football Club.
"He resigned at the beginning of the 2008-09 season after the club sold Anton Ferdinand and subsequently George McCartney to Sunderland against his wishes.
"The tribunal upheld Alan Curbishley's right to have ultimate sole authority in relation to the sale and purchase of players, found that the conduct of the club amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and that Alan Curbishley was therefore entitled to resign."
Different cases different outcomes of course. The findings in Curbisley's case neither disprove or validate MON's one.
But the theory put around by Villadawg and others at the time was that MON was effectively having Milner sold from under him and Ireland forced upon him. Naturally there was no evidence (or facts) forthcoming to substantiate this theory. It is a fact that the General came on here and elsewhere and said it was purely a wage bill issue. MON was asked to abide by it, agreed in May but just before the start of the season changed his mind. The General also confirmed that Ireland was MON's choice. As Ireland himself did later in the season when he wasn't getting a game under GH.
At any time, MON could have refuted that if he genuinely thought the clubs response wasn't an accurate surmation of events. He certainly had the chance when it came to the tribunual, to put his side of events out there as a matter of public record. Yet compare and contrast with Curbishley's statement:
The League Managers Association (LMA) is able to confirm that Martin O’Neill OBE and Aston Villa have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club in August 2010.
The matter was placed before the FA Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal, but was resolved during the course of the hearing.
Premier League managers' contracts contain a clause requiring the parties to mediate their differences in the event of a dispute, and, if the dispute cannot be resolved at mediation, that the case moves forward to the Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal.
The Tribunal is ideally placed to resolve disputes of this nature, combining the skills and experience of prominent individuals from football and the law.
Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:
"It has taken a long time to deal with this matter but I am pleased that all issues have now been amicably finalised. I am very proud to have managed Aston Villa and I wish the club all the best for the future. I would also like to thank the LMA and my outstanding legal team, led by Paul Gilroy QC, and Geldards, solicitors, for their support and hard work in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion. I am now looking forward to the future and getting back into football management."
No mention there of players sold against his will, the club being in breach of contract when it came to transfers or anything else. If the argument is that he'd been paid off and kept the juicy stuff under his hat, then how does that tally with the notion of a man of such integrity that we were lucky to even breathe the same air as him for four years. If he'd resigned on a point of principle, why not make the principle known?
It seems that the rumours (or conjecture, if you will) suggesting MON was getting itchy feet as far back as March might not have been so wide of the mark after all. The links to Liverpool increased in frequency from that point onwards, both here and in the media. To the point that even playing staff commented on it post MON walkout.
I've already come clean - I don't know what happened.
My point is that you and greg and D.W know as much as I do - nothing.
I'm happy to be corrected on that if I'm wrong (please do share what you know in that case). Otherwise, just admit that you don't know.
There's no shame in ignorance, only in lies.
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
You're confusing yourself, you poor love.
If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.
Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.
He walked out. How in God's name does that make him anything other than guilty?
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
-
Okay. we'll all agree that he was still a complete shit to leave us when he did and no-one with any professionalism whatever the provocation would do that. That is at least fact.
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
You're confusing yourself, you poor love.
If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.
Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.
who said his contract was breached?? we don't know that... you're just making this up as you go along.
I think you need to acquaint yourself with the word 'if'.
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
Maybe his motives aren't the same as you interpret them to be and perhaps he got exactly what he wanted when he embarked on the legal arguments?
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
Maybe his motives aren't the same as you interpret them to be and perhaps he got exactly what he wanted when he embarked on the legal arguments?
yep money. because he certainly didn't get his grievances aired beyond the tribunal. Thats the only reasons there are - money or getting the facts known
-
Those defending MON's argument might be a bit stronger were it not for the fact that it wasn't the first time that he shat on a club from a great height. Quitting Norwich the morning of a game due to a disagreement with the chairman over a transfer is high up there on the list of things that shouldn't be done by apparently decent and honourable managers. How this can be discounted by some when looking at his exit from villa is beyond me.
-
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible.
-
Those defending MON's argument might be a bit stronger were it not for the fact that it wasn't the first time that he shat on a club from a great height. Quitting Norwich the morning of a game due to a disagreement with the chairman over a transfer is high up there on the list of things that shouldn't be done by apparently decent and honourable managers. How this can be discounted by some when looking at his exit from villa is beyond me.
I lived in Norwich for six years, quite recently; if you can find more than 3 Norwich fans who agree with your appraisal of that time I'll be very impressed.
-
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible.
How do you know?
-
I lived in Norwich for six years, quite recently; if you can find more than 3 Norwich fans who agree with your appraisal of that time I'll be very impressed.
What part of it is incorrect then?
-
Those defending MON's argument might be a bit stronger were it not for the fact that it wasn't the first time that he shat on a club from a great height. Quitting Norwich the morning of a game due to a disagreement with the chairman over a transfer is high up there on the list of things that shouldn't be done by apparently decent and honourable managers. How this can be discounted by some when looking at his exit from villa is beyond me.
yep, he's got massive form for this sort of shennigans. Sooner or later you have to say he's either been massively unlucky with the boards he's worked with and regularly feels the need to threaten to leave or leave. or perhaps he's a ******. Occam's razzor. again.
-
I lived in Norwich for six years, quite recently; if you can find more than 3 Norwich fans who agree with your appraisal of that time I'll be very impressed.
What part of it is incorrect then?
Well, it all depends on the type of people you're happy to work for.
Robert Chase was one of the worst type of small-fry ****** that was enamoured with football betwee the Old & Sky eras.
Go on, tell me what MON did wrong there and I'll be delighted to be educated, and to pass on your wisdom to the NCFC faithful.
I'm sure they'd be enourmously grateful to hear your well-informed thoughts from that West of Ireland Canaries' hotbed.
Hurry up though, I'm tired.
-
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible.
How do you know?
There was no mass exodus of players. None of his backroom staff lost their jobs. Working conditions at Bodymoor were as good as he'd always enjoyed. I'm sure we'd have heard if large-scale economies had been made which would have had an adverse effect on his ability to do the job.
-
There's no shame in ignorance
As you've demonstrated more than once on this thread.
We know he walked out. We know that there were rumblings of discontent as far back as March -when MON wouldn't confirm he'd remain at the club beyond the end of the season at a press conference. We know there were links to Liverpool from about the time Kenny Dalglish went back there as club ambassador. We know that Bannan went public in the media and said he didn't seem the same in pre season, and attributed this to him not getting the Liverpool job.
If we also have:
1. The clubs take on events post August
2. MON not contradicting that at anytime since
3. The tribunual report not mentioning anything about the club being in breach of contract, or that their actions somehow made MON's job untenable
Then why would anyone still persist in trying to get milage out of the notion that the club were in any way to blame for his act of petulance?
-
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible.
How do you know?
There was no mass exodus of players. None of his backroom staff lost their jobs. Working conditions at Bodymoor were as good as he'd always enjoyed. I'm sure we'd have heard if large-scale economies had been made which would have had an adverse effect on his ability to do the job.
Again, you're being mildly sarcastic when hard evidence is what's required.
Still though, as long as you still feel important.
-
There's no shame in ignorance
As you've demonstrated more than once on this thread.
We know he walked out. We know that there were rumblings of discontent as far back as March -when MON wouldn't confirm he'd remain at the club beyond the end of the season at a press conference. We know there were links to Liverpool from about the time Kenny Dalglish went back there as club ambassador. We know that Bannan went public in the media and said he didn't seem the same in pre season, and attributed this to him not getting the Liverpool job.
If we also have:
1. The clubs take on events post August
2. MON not contradicting that at anytime since
3. The tribunual report not mentioning anything about the club being in breach of contract, or that their actions somehow made MON's job untenable
Then why would anyone still persist in trying to get milage out of the notion that the club were in any way to blame for his act of petulance?
It's not a quest to gain mileage, it's just that some people think you're wrong.
Let's see where we are in a few months, this (and I recognise my complicity) is fucking pointless and actually quite depressing.
-
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible.
How do you know?
There was no mass exodus of players. None of his backroom staff lost their jobs. Working conditions at Bodymoor were as good as he'd always enjoyed. I'm sure we'd have heard if large-scale economies had been made which would have had an adverse effect on his ability to do the job.
Again, you're being mildly sarcastic when hard evidence is what's required.
Still though, as long as you still feel important.
It's not sarcasm, it's evidence. Fact, if you prefer.
That second sentence; not big and not clever.
-
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible.
How do you know?
There was no mass exodus of players. None of his backroom staff lost their jobs. Working conditions at Bodymoor were as good as he'd always enjoyed. I'm sure we'd have heard if large-scale economies had been made which would have had an adverse effect on his ability to do the job.
I heard we were going to focus on reducing wages and I've seen that happen since. What's that if it isn't large-scale economies?
-
Well, it all depends on the type of people you're happy to work for.
Robert Chase was one of the worst type of small-fry c*** that was enamoured with football betwee the Old & Sky eras.
Go on, tell me what MON did wrong there and I'll be delighted to be educated, and to pass on your wisdom to the NCFC faithful.
I'm sure they'd be enourmously grateful to hear your well-informed thoughts from that West of Ireland Canaries' hotbed.
Hurry up though, I'm tired.
Chase may well have been a prick, but don't try and tell me that quitting the morning of a game was done for any other reason than to cause the greatest amount of damage possible to the club (and Chase by extension).
And wonderful quips there, you should be proud.
-
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible.
How do you know?
There was no mass exodus of players. None of his backroom staff lost their jobs. Working conditions at Bodymoor were as good as he'd always enjoyed. I'm sure we'd have heard if large-scale economies had been made which would have had an adverse effect on his ability to do the job.
I heard we were going to focus on reducing wages and I've seen that happen since. What's that if it isn't large-scale economies?
So? 500k a week on players that never play.... is that being unreasonable not to want to pay for pointless players who he bought presumably to play but never bothered with. Would you class the club wanting to get rid of them constructive dismissal or just common sense?
-
I heard we were going to focus on reducing wages and I've seen that happen since. What's that if it isn't large-scale economies?
Remind me how many players we sold after O'Neill walked out.
-
Depressing when you get yourself tied in knots and can't back your theories up with anything even vaguely substantial?
I'm quite prepared to park it too (though I am curious as to what exactly is going to happen in a few months. Will the loveable imp reveal all about his love/ hate relationship with RL in a kiss and tell expose?). I have a sudden urge to creosote next doors fence. Either that or spoon my own eyeballs out and eat them, rather than read anything about Martin O'Neill ever again.
-
Well, it all depends on the type of people you're happy to work for.
Robert Chase was one of the worst type of small-fry c*** that was enamoured with football betwee the Old & Sky eras.
Go on, tell me what MON did wrong there and I'll be delighted to be educated, and to pass on your wisdom to the NCFC faithful.
I'm sure they'd be enourmously grateful to hear your well-informed thoughts from that West of Ireland Canaries' hotbed.
Hurry up though, I'm tired.
Chase may well have been a prick, but don't try and tell me that quitting the morning of a game was done for any other reason than to cause the greatest amount of damage possible to the club (and Chase by extension).
And wonderful quips there, you should be proud.
Like I said, find me the Norwich fans who harbour a grudge.
There's nothing to be proud of here.
-
Depressing when you get yourself tied in knots and can't back your theories up with anything even vaguely substantial?
I'm quite prepared to park it too (though I am curious as to what exactly is going to happen in a few months. Will the loveable imp reveal all about his love/ hate relationship with RL in a kiss and tell expose?). I have a sudden urge to creosote next doors fence. Either that or spoon my own eyeballs out and eat them, rather than read anything about Martin O'Neill ever again.
I haven't got any theories. I don't know.
You have - and you can't back them up, but good for you.
-
That hasn't got much to do with the point I was making though. The majority of norwich fans may not hold a grudge against MON, but that doesn't mean that his actions weren't intended to cause as much disruption as possible, does it?
-
I heard we were going to focus on reducing wages and I've seen that happen since. What's that if it isn't large-scale economies?
Remind me how many players we sold after O'Neill walked out.
Milner, Young, Carew, Davies, Reo-Coker, Sidwell, Osbourne, Friedel.
-
The Milner deal was pretty much done before he left (and didn't he approve of Ireland coming in?), Young left to join the champions and champions league finalists, Carew was released after an ineffectual (I'm feeling generous tonight) season, Davies joined the blues in January after having a nightmare couple of years (and he's hardly pulled up any trees since leaving), Reo-Coker rejected a contract offer (but it sounds possible that he'll return), Sidwell falls into the same bracket as Davies, Friedel left because Spurs offered him 2 years, and Osbourne was, well, Osbourne. I really fail to see how any of those players leaving the club acts as proof that his job was being made impossible by the board.
-
Villadawg and VillainousVillain should wed with MON as witness.
-
I heard we were going to focus on reducing wages and I've seen that happen since. What's that if it isn't large-scale economies?
"I heard" isn't fact, it's gossip.
I haven't seen a significant reduction in the wage bill beyond getting rid of players who hardly played, those on free transfers and Ashley Young who we had no chance of keeping once Man Utd came calling. As we do not yet know their replacements you cannot say we are making "large-scale economies, that is just your own spin on limited evidence.
Besides, we needed to make some savings as, by figures you yourself have provided, we were spending an untenable percentage of our income on wages.
Fact - O'Neill walked out five days before the season started.
That's it, no other facts, the rest is conjecture.
-
Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law.
The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."
hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.
You're confusing yourself, you poor love.
If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.
Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.
He walked out. How in God's name does that make him anything other than guilty?
Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?
I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.
If he was forced to resign because he was not going to be allowed to bankrupt the club, and was to be denied the outstanding services of Keane and McGeady, then I'm glad he's a man of principle.
The ******.
-
I heard we were going to focus on reducing wages and I've seen that happen since. What's that if it isn't large-scale economies?
Remind me how many players we sold after O'Neill walked out.
Milner, Young, Carew, Davies, Reo-Coker, Sidwell, Osbourne, Friedel.
Four of those contracts ended.
-
I heard we were going to focus on reducing wages and I've seen that happen since. What's that if it isn't large-scale economies?
"I heard" isn't fact, it's gossip.
I haven't seen a significant reduction in the wage bill beyond getting rid of players who hardly played, those on free transfers and Ashley Young who we had no chance of keeping once Man Utd came calling. As we do not yet know their replacements you cannot say we are making "large-scale economies, that is just your own spin on limited evidence.
Besides, we needed to make some savings as, by figures you yourself have provided, we were spending an untenable percentage of our income on wages.
Fact - O'Neill walked out five days before the season started.
That's it, no other facts, the rest is conjecture.
I "heard" it from the General and then I witnessed those players I listed leaving the club, bringing in £40-£50m in transfers fees and taking maybe £15m per year off the wage bill. I'd categorise that as significant and in comparison to investing an average of £20m per year as was done in the first 4 years, I'd categorise that as large-scale economies.
The figures I have posted show that our wage bill was at the bottom of the scale for a top six PL team and that the part of the business that was under performing and out of kilter with comparable clubs was not our wage bill but our revenue, in particular our commercial revenue.
I agree with you that the only thing we know about O'Neill leaving is that it happened, which is why I find it ridiculous that people insist that they know it was an act of petulance and there were no extenuating circumstances.
-
Those players left over the course of 3 transfer windows. You make it sound as if they all left within a week of each other, and we didn't make an effort to keep any of them, or that no other players came in in the meantime. Also, only 3 of them could be classed as first team regulars. All 3 of which wanted to leave, and were not pushed.
-
During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.
-
He is at least open about his sources, allowing you to judge for yourself.
You may prefer innuendo, but you'd be mistaken if you thought everyone else the same as you.
The nightclub in Evesham? That's a bit presumptuous, as I've never been.
Blathering on about facts and then regularly citing half arse economics from such esteemed websites as Swiss Butter Mountain or whatever it was might raise questions about ones credibility just a tad, wouldn't you agree?
Its not innuendo anymore its marylins, mazza's if your cool 8)
Thing is none of us really know what's happened, the only fact as Dave said, he walked out 5 days before the season started, if that wasn't to cause maximum disruption then I don't know what it was for. His position was hardly untenable, the money was clearly there, the Ireland deal proves that, the Bannan comments also show something else was going on
-
During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.
Villadawg omitting a fact that totally skewers his arguement you say? Never!
-
During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.
That seems a bit disingenuous seeing as I was answering your direct question as to which players had left since O'Neill. Feel free to make your own case that there hasn't been any large-scale economies from the regime where they were investing an average of £20m per season.
-
but with those names you list as leaving since last summer, with the arrival of Ireland, Makoun and Bent its hardly a massive cut back is it? Half the ones that left were deadwood or coming to the end of their careers anyway
-
During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.
That seems a bit disingenuous seeing as I was answering your direct question as to which players had left since O'Neill. Feel free to make your own case that there hasn't been any large-scale economies from the regime where they were investing an average of £20m per season.
I asked which players had been sold. Four of the eight you mentioned came to the end of their contracts and at least one of those has been offered new terms. That leaves another four, of which two asked to move and another two were fringe first team players at best.
All you're doing is emphasising the belief that Martin O'Neill walked out because he couldn't get his own way anymore.
-
I can see that there was a realisation that we had to be more prudent, particularly in respect of salaries, but I really don't see what was so unreasonable or intolerable that O'Neill felt the only course of action left open to him was to walk out five days before the new season taking all his staff with him and leaving the club in the lurch at a critical time. Not to mention his seeming lack of respect for the club staff and players with whom he had worked over the past four years, or the supporters.
If there was something completely unreasonable or intolerable which made him do that, I've yet to hear any suggestion of what it might have been.
-
During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.
That seems a bit disingenuous seeing as I was answering your direct question as to which players had left since O'Neill. Feel free to make your own case that there hasn't been any large-scale economies from the regime where they were investing an average of £20m per season.
I asked which players had been sold. Four of the eight you mentioned came to the end of their contracts and at least one of those has been offered new terms. That leaves another four, of which two asked to move and another two were fringe first team players at best.
All you're doing is emphasising the belief that Martin O'Neill walked out because he couldn't get his own way anymore.
I don't know why he left and unlike you, I don't pretend to know why he left
It was you that wanted to talk about whether or not there have been large-scale economies. I think the facts based on players in/out suggest there have been, in terms of both transfer spending and wages.
If I'm wrong, McLeish has a huge transfer pot and I'll happily admit I was wrong come the end of the transfer window.
-
I'm struggling to work out how any of the departures would cause MON to leave even if most of them going wouldn't have been an issue at the time he left.
Milner - agreed to flog him, it was quite clear in his media utterances that MON wasn't demanding he stay
Davies - he never played him, why would he be upset?
NRC - ditto
Sidwell - never more than a sub
Carew - regularly dropped or mysteriously 'injured' At best entering veteran stage.
Osbourne - !!????
Friedel - he wasn't exactly young when he joined. He's gone out to pasture now as at best a stop-gap, at worse a reserve.
I just can't see the loss of any of them would force MON to walk out. Anyone?
-
I don't know why he left and unlike you, I don't pretend to know why he left
It was you that wanted to talk about whether or not there have been large-scale economies. I think the facts based on players in/out suggest there have been, in terms of both transfer spending and wages.
If I'm wrong, McLeish has a huge transfer pot and I'll happily admit I was wrong come the end of the transfer window.
For someone who goes on so much about how "facts are sacred" you don't half stretch them. I've never said I know why he left. I know he did so at a time that could appear to have been inspired by malice, behaving in a way that caused maximum inconvenience. Why he did so is something I have no idea about. I've left it to others to infer that he did so because his working conditions had been made intolerable.
The "facts" you use in evidence are, indeed, compelling. Unfortunately for you, they undermine your case. When you're having to bring up the likes of Osbourne, Davies and Sidwell as evidence of the sort of economies that would make O'Neill's job impossible, you really are on dodgy ground. You missed out Salifou and a handful of reserves as well so I'll add them for you. Now let's look at the other side, namely Darren Bent. I would hardly say that such a purchase is the act of a club whose manager had been told he had to make so many economies he couldn't do his job properly.
-
Mere guesswork, no facts: MON spelt the whole summer sulking with pre-season preparations suffering massively as a result. Before the season he realised that he wasn't up for it, and that his reputation could take a hit if he went into the season with a half-arsed attitude. So he quit, not because the timing would cause maximum inconvenience for the club, but because it took him so much time to realise that he wasn't interested in doing the job anymore.
-
I don't know why he left and unlike you, I don't pretend to know why he left
It was you that wanted to talk about whether or not there have been large-scale economies. I think the facts based on players in/out suggest there have been, in terms of both transfer spending and wages.
If I'm wrong, McLeish has a huge transfer pot and I'll happily admit I was wrong come the end of the transfer window.
For someone who goes on so much about how "facts are sacred" you don't half stretch them. I've never said I know why he left. I know he did so at a time that could appear to have been inspired by malice, behaving in a way that caused maximum inconvenience. Why he did so is something I have no idea about. I've left it to others to infer that he did so because his working conditions had been made intolerable.
The "facts" you use in evidence are, indeed, compelling. Unfortunately for you, they undermine your case. When you're having to bring up the likes of Osbourne, Davies and Sidwell as evidence of the sort of economies that would make O'Neill's job impossible, you really are on dodgy ground. You missed out Salifou and a handful of reserves as well so I'll add them for you. Now let's look at the other side, namely Darren Bent. I would hardly say that such a purchase is the act of a club whose manager had been told he had to make so many economies he couldn't do his job properly.
Hold on a moment.
I've never argued that he left because of economies, you brought that up. I just pointed out that there does appear to have been a step change in the level of investment. Regardless of your opinion as to the quality of the players who have left, the economics remain the same.
Again, I think you're being disingenuous in suggesting you haven't implied that the fault lies absolutely and solely with O'Neill, of course you have.
For my part, I don't have any difficulty in imaging that Paul Faulkner misjudged something and made O'Neill's position untenable. On that basis, until I learn more about what happened, I'm willing to give O'Neill the benefit of the doubt.
-
For my part, I don't have any difficulty in imaging that Paul Faulkner misjudged something and made O'Neill's position untenable.
That won't explain why MON reportedly sulked all summer. The little we know suggest that the relationship between MON and the board steadily deteriorated, not that there was a single incident that made his position untenable.
-
How can you divorce the qualities of the players who have left from the economics?
What kind of economic impact do you think losing the likes of Osbourne or Salifou would have had?
I see you also threw Ashley Young in as one if the players sold in this spree which is evidence of MON having had reason to leave. He has gone to the champions and one if th biggest clubs in the world. If we'd sold him to the likes of Spurs you might have some basis for this, but he didn't. With one year on his contract, how were we meant to stop him joining Man United?
I can't see how anyone would want to give O'Neill the benefit of the doubt when his departure did the club such damage.
Meanwhile, he's getting your continued adulation, and we are still stuck with some of the shit, ageing utter dross he got in on absurd contracts because he couldn't be arsed to try to get value for the money he spent when he could just grab another handful of notes from the money tree.
As soon as the flow of money became anything other than endless, he downed tools and was out of here like a rat up a drainpipe, regardless of the effect on the club, lest it damage brand O'Neill. Whatever you think of his achievements here, it is mind boggling that some Villa fans manage to see beyond the height from which he shat on the club and continue to deify him.
-
I've never argued that he left because of economies, you brought that up. I just pointed out that there does appear to have been a step change in the level of investment. Regardless of your opinion as to the quality of the players who have left, the economics remain the same.
1. It seems that's exactly what you where saying
2. Are you seriously telling me that you'd want to fork out the wages of Sidwell et al that are going to sit on the bench? Sidwell was on a reported 40k a week right?
For my part, I don't have any difficulty in imaging that Paul Faulkner misjudged something and made O'Neill's position untenable. On that basis, until I learn more about what happened, I'm willing to give O'Neill the benefit of the doubt.
But your willing to imply Faulkner had something to do with it even though there's no basis to this argument merely a hunch?
-
I see you also threw Ashley Young in as one if the players sold in this spree which is evidence of MON having had reason to leave. He has gone to the champions and one if th biggest clubs in the world. If we'd sold him to the likes of Spurs you might have some basis for this, but he didn't. With one year on his contract, how were we meant to stop him joining Man United?
Not to mention the fact that we were more than willing to offer him a new contract, but he refused.
-
For my part, I don't have any difficulty in imaging that Paul Faulkner misjudged something and made O'Neill's position untenable. On that basis, until I learn more about what happened, I'm willing to give O'Neill the benefit of the doubt.
So you imagine that it's all down to Paul Faulkner? Is that it? If so, then it's exactly as easy to 'imagine' that he was doing a very good job of getting to grips with the finance of things, and O'Neill didn't like it and so threw his toys out of the pram, isn't it? Why is one imagining any more valid than another? Seems a very strange argument to me.
-
Ah. Forgot to cancel the italics there, sorry.
Edit: Also forgot I was able to edit here!
-
The only certainty to my mind is that there was fault on both sides, and that both are happy for the facts to remain hidden.
I dislike MON for leaving when he did, but I don't trust the club because, you would assume, they would have nothing to fear from any tribunal. But they clearly did.
Villainous is right - we don't know any more than this. At least I don't.
-
Clearly there was a problem between MON and the board, and the club seemed unable or unwilling to solve it, or, worse, unaware that it existed.
The board could not possibly have predicted MON's petulant walk-out, but it seems fair to say that they didn't have their eye on the ball at the time.
-
One thing I really don't get is the reasoning that MON would walk out when he did in order to preserve 'brand O'Neill'.
Something that everyone (non Villa) who has talked to me about it has mentioned is what a crappy thing to do it was, they thought he was an honourable man etc.
I know he's still got his admirers, but his reputation still suffered. He must have known this.
-
One thing I really don't get is the reasoning that MON would walk out when he did in order to preserve 'brand O'Neill'.
Maybe the alternative was worse: carrying on in a job he wasn't interested in doing anymore, with his best player last season gone, a real nutter as his replacement, virtually no pre-season preparations, Dunne completely unfit for PL action, half the squad in the doghouse -- it's fanthomable that MON wasn't confident that the team would perform in a manner that would preserve his reputation as a top manager.
-
I can see that, but surely he would have read all that writing on the wall much earlier.
For me, the timing didn't seem bitter or cynical, but a bit desperate. Like he'd gambled on something important and lost, or massively misjudged something.
-
Before the summer he said that the club now had a sell-to-buy policy and it wasn't ideal. He also said that he wasn't the kind of person to "down tools". He gave the impression of not being happy but that he would try to get on with it.
Five days before the season he changed his mind. Either because he spent the summer realising that he wasn't interested anymore (eg after witnessing his lack of participation in pre-season), or because something happened that tipped him over the edge. My guess is the former.
-
I can see that, but surely he would have read all that writing on the wall much earlier.
For me, the timing didn't seem bitter or cynical, but a bit desperate. Like he'd gambled on something important and lost, or massively misjudged something.
What I've heard is this. MON was unhappy at the end of the season and was going to call it a day. After a meeting with Paul Faulkner he was made certain promises which made him decide to remain. Five days before the start of the season another meeting with Paul Faulkner resulted in him being told that the promises made previously were either not going to be honoured or were unable to be honoured.
As the club had reneged on the promises that had stopped him from leaving earlier, MON walked.
This is only what I've been led to believe happened. Ultimately I have no more proof than those that claim it was just vindictiveness or spite.
It does make more sense to me than the 'spiteful MON dropped us in the shit on purpose' arguments.
-
If it wasn't for the club settling I'd agree. The fact they did makes me think the latter is more likely, or at least he could credibly argue it enough to worry the club.
He's a rich man. If it was just a case of walking away why not just do it? To pursue the club for money makes me think he at least believed he had been wronged. The fact he 'won', at least to some degree, must suggest he had a point?
-
If it wasn't for the club settling I'd agree. The fact they did makes me think the latter is more likely, or at least he could credibly argue it enough to worry the club.
He's a rich man. If it was just a case of walking away why not just do it? To pursue the club for money makes me think he at least believed he had been wronged. The fact he 'won', at least to some degree, must suggest he had a point?
Sorry, this in response to Eigentor - lazy with the quoting.
-
One thing I really don't get is the reasoning that MON would walk out when he did in order to preserve 'brand O'Neill'.
Something that everyone (non Villa) who has talked to me about it has mentioned is what a crappy thing to do it was, they thought he was an honourable man etc.
I know he's still got his admirers, but his reputation still suffered. He must have known this.
Look at the general attitude of the press to him over the last (near) year. I am struggling to think of a single journalist who saw it as reflecting badly on O'Neill.
I do think that where he got it wrong was in the way other clubs have reacted to it. If he'd have left Villa at the end of the season before, he might have had a chance of a better job. Leaving when he did, he just made himself look a chequebook manager prone to petulant strops.
He'll never get a better job than Villa. In the past you might have thought maybe the England job, but that now seems nailed on to be Redknapp's, so that is out of the question.
-
It does make more sense to me than the 'spiteful MON dropped us in the shit on purpose' arguments.
To me too, but I guess it depends on whether you were still an admirer of MON prior to his big flounce.
-
I do think that where he got it wrong was in the way other clubs have reacted to it. If he'd have left Villa at the end of the season before, he might have had a chance of a better job. Leaving when he did, he just made himself look a chequebook manager prone to petulant strops.
Maybe, but wouldn't he have known this? Walking out on your club just before the season starts, short of massively mitigating circumstances, isn't going to look good to anyone. Not even his sycophants in the press could convincingly spin it.
He's not an idiot, he surely could see how it would play out.
I agree though, I can't see him at a club as big as Villa again. Rightly or wrongly his ship's sailed.
-
I agree though, I can't see him at a club as big as Villa again. Rightly or wrongly his ship's sailed.
I wonder if he'll go down the O'Leary route, bleating to his press mates about how he's worthy of a job at a top Premier club.
Still think he could end up at Newcastle if they lose patience with Pardew.
-
Still think he could end up at Newcastle if they lose patience with Pardew.
I don't know. I don't think Ashley wants a big-spending manager up there.
-
I think word has got around about him. A manager who finished top6 3 times who can't get a job almost a year after resigning? Back to scotland is my bet, and the big fish in a small pond philosophy he thrives on - best he can hope for here is a mid-table job with an unfashionable club and i don't think he wants to do that again.
-
For those that still say we don't know why he walked out (and I notice a few on either side of the debate are of that opinion) we've had the General say it was a wage bill issue right from the get go. Now at the time you could maybe take a 'well he would say that, wouldn't he' approach.
But with plenty of opportunity since to contradict that (via the media, via sympathetic Fleet Street pals and finally via a tribunal) MON hasn't. So are posters on here now putting themselves in a position to defend actions even he -serious litigator that he is- wouldn't?
I must say I find that a bit odd.
For my part, I don't have any difficulty in imaging that Paul Faulkner misjudged something and made O'Neill's position untenable. On that basis, until I learn more about what happened, I'm willing to give O'Neill the benefit of the doubt.
Priceless. Facts are sacred. Unless you feel it in your water. I assume the 'until I learn more about what happened,' is code for 'until I hear something that gives my argument even a vague slither of credibility.' You could be waiting a while. But then that suits you, in a weird way. By that criteria, it's open ended enough to continue forever.
You've already demonstrated that you'll ignore facts when it suits, the General's quotes don't count apparently. Nor MON's. Nor Stephen Ireland's (the signing that was the straw which broke the camels back -only it turns out MON was more than OK with it). Or Bannan's. What you have -and which is odd for someone with your tagline- actually sounds like faith, bordering on religious zeal. And no amount of facts can help you with that.
Just a shame this faith is in an individual who has long since left the club, rather than the club itself.
-
The wage bill was/is the issue. It was getting out of control, and that meant that we had to get someone off the wage bill before we could get someone new on it. In other words, sell before we could buy. So sell-to-buy didn't necessarily mean that we had to generate our transfer budget from player sales. If my understanding is correct, that is.
-
The wage bill was/is the issue. It was getting out of control, and that meant that we had to get someone off the wage bill before we could get someone new on it. In other words, sell before we could buy. So sell-to-buy didn't necessarily mean that we had to generate our transfer budget from player sales. If my understanding is correct, that is.
However, in practice that is pretty much what we have been doing.
-
For someone who goes on so much about how "facts are sacred" you don't half stretch them. I've never said I know why he left. I know he did so at a time that could appear to have been inspired by malice, behaving in a way that caused maximum inconvenience. Why he did so is something I have no idea about. I've left it to others to infer that he did so because his working conditions had been made intolerable.
The "facts" you use in evidence are, indeed, compelling. Unfortunately for you, they undermine your case. When you're having to bring up the likes of Osbourne, Davies and Sidwell as evidence of the sort of economies that would make O'Neill's job impossible, you really are on dodgy ground. You missed out Salifou and a handful of reserves as well so I'll add them for you. Now let's look at the other side, namely Darren Bent. I would hardly say that such a purchase is the act of a club whose manager had been told he had to make so many economies he couldn't do his job properly.
With regard to the Darren Bent purchase, I wonder how much of that was due to the fact that we were well on course for relegation as we simply weren't scoring enough goals? Therefore, the situation was different to last Summer and they HAD to gamble.
-
MoN was a vainglorious egomaniac who thought he could call the bluff of Randy about the wage bill issue and that failed. And the way he left makes him a goatmilker in the same mould as that ferrous crankshaft Hodge. Nothing would satisfy me more than to shove a pineapple up his duplex flange. If he never got a job again I would find it splendiferous. As far as I'm concerned he is about as much use as a Tugboat in Dry Dock.
Oh, and have I mentioned I think he is a ******?
-
For someone who goes on so much about how "facts are sacred" you don't half stretch them. I've never said I know why he left. I know he did so at a time that could appear to have been inspired by malice, behaving in a way that caused maximum inconvenience. Why he did so is something I have no idea about. I've left it to others to infer that he did so because his working conditions had been made intolerable.
The "facts" you use in evidence are, indeed, compelling. Unfortunately for you, they undermine your case. When you're having to bring up the likes of Osbourne, Davies and Sidwell as evidence of the sort of economies that would make O'Neill's job impossible, you really are on dodgy ground. You missed out Salifou and a handful of reserves as well so I'll add them for you. Now let's look at the other side, namely Darren Bent. I would hardly say that such a purchase is the act of a club whose manager had been told he had to make so many economies he couldn't do his job properly.
With regard to the Darren Bent purchase, I wonder how much of that was due to the fact that we were well on course for relegation as we simply weren't scoring enough goals? Therefore, the situation was different to last Summer and they HAD to gamble.
Absolutely! If not exactly panic it was "oh shit we have to do something or we will be in deeper shit"!
-
MoN was a vainglorious egomaniac who thought he could call the bluff of Randy about the wage bill issue and that failed. And the way he left makes him a goatmilker in the same mould as that ferrous crankshaft Hodge. Nothing would satisfy me more than to shove a pineapple up his duplex flange. If he never got a job again I would find it splendiferous. As far as I'm concerned he is about as much use as a Tugboat in Dry Dock.
Oh, and have I mentioned I think he is a c***?
So do you or do you not like him? :P
-
In the rush to call him names people have not stopped to think what might have been behind MON walking out. Everyone wants to think the worst so that they can have a pantomime villain but don't appear curious as to what prompted it and why the LMA tribunal sided with him.
We're a club that sells our best player every year, maybe even 2 this summer, and have just resorted to tapping up the manager from a relegated side. Doesn't that get you thinking?
-
I'm not ruling out the possibility that MON could have a legitimate reason to be unhappy with the board. But I struggle to think that said reason would justify the decision to walk out on us at the worst possible time.
-
I'm not ruling out the possibility that MON could have a legitimate reason to be unhappy with the board. But I struggle to think that said reason would justify the decision to walk out on us at the worst possible time.
It doesn't justify it but by concentrating on the timing we're not looking to see if there is a bigger issue.
-
What I've heard is this. MON was unhappy at the end of the season and was going to call it a day. After a meeting with Paul Faulkner he was made certain promises which made him decide to remain. Five days before the start of the season another meeting with Paul Faulkner resulted in him being told that the promises made previously were either not going to be honoured or were unable to be honoured.
As the club had reneged on the promises that had stopped him from leaving earlier, MON walked.
FWIW, I think that this is a plausible explanation. From what I recall, the signing of Warnock was sanctioned by the board only on the premise that we sold someone in the coming January transfer window. In January we sold Gardner, but MON wanted new signings as he believed that would enable us to have a proper go at a top four finish. His request was rejected, and MON wasn't too happy about that.
-
In the rush to call him names people have not stopped to think what might have been behind MON walking out. Everyone wants to think the worst so that they can have a pantomime villain but don't appear curious as to what prompted it and why the LMA tribunal sided with him.
We're a club that sells our best player every year, maybe even 2 this summer, and have just resorted to tapping up the manager from a relegated side. Doesn't that get you thinking?
For all the aggro his leaving caused I'm reluctant to put the boot in too much (believe it or not) as he was one of our better post war managers. In time (maybe 10-15 years) he will probably be viewed more favourably, when the sting at the nature of his departure has subsided. Similar to Ron Saunders in that regard - though that will be one of the few things he'll have in common with a manager who has a genuine claim to greatness. In terms of achievement, he's closer to JG rather than Saunders, Little, Taylor, BFR etc.
The period of 2006-up to 2010 was one of the better chapters in the clubs history and MON played a big part in that. It was largely positive and we felt we were 'on the move' for the majority of that time.
As to the nature of the LMA ruling, seeing as there was no mention of constructive dismissal, breach of contract, broken promises re transfers or anything else I'd say the balance of probability lies with it being a technicality, a personal financial issue concerning his own contract.
-
I think the problem here is some of us have this idea (myth/image?) that he's an easy going honourable person so there must be a shocking reason why he left, but when you look at his real character and his actions elswhere you realise the only surprise is he lasted here so long. He's a hardnosed ambitious careerist prone to hissy fits who's walked out on 2 clubs and has threatened the same to most of the others. there's no 'smoking gun' to find imo, just loads of conspiracy theorists desperate to rehabilitate his image.
-
I think the problem here is some of us have this idea (myth/image?) that he's an easy going honourable person so there must be a shocking reason why he left, but when you look at his real character and his actions elswhere you realise the only surprise is he lasted here so long. He's a hardnosed ambitious careerist prone to hissy fits who's walked out on 2 clubs and has threatened the same to most of the others. there's no 'smoking gun' to find imo, just loads of conspiracy theorists desperate to rehabilitate his image.
Other than us, he's only walked out on Norwich. And that was really after only a few months so there isn't the body of work to compare it to what happened with us. I don't disagree with a lot of what you'd said there greg, but his departures from Wycombe and Leicester were career related, and Celtic may never have happened had his wife not taken ill. He's a strong willed person which has got him far in the game. That's not in any way to excuse him for his actions. By the time of his departure, even for some of his most ardent supporters, the camel's back was under heavy strain. It didn't take much more to break it.
-
he stayed at celtic because they rolled over and gave into his demands everytime he threatened to leave them. He was literally bigger than the club and in complete control. No doubt he fancied the same here only they called his bluff
-
he stayed at celtic because they rolled over and gave into his demands everytime he threatened to leave them. He was literally bigger than the club and in complete control. No doubt he fancied the same here only they called his bluff
he also did very well up there. That helps a lot if your being difficult to deal with. I'm sure he'd have got his way last summer with us, had the previous season we'd won a trophy or two.
-
he stayed at celtic because they rolled over and gave into his demands everytime he threatened to leave them. He was literally bigger than the club and in complete control. No doubt he fancied the same here only they called his bluff
I don't have a problem with him wanting control, in fact I think a manager should fight for as much as possible.
What I do have a problem with is his wilfull neglect of housekeeping, and fucking off when the issue needed to be addressed.
-
I think the problem here is some of us have this idea (myth/image?) that he's an easy going honourable person so there must be a shocking reason why he left, but when you look at his real character and his actions elswhere you realise the only surprise is he lasted here so long. He's a hardnosed ambitious careerist prone to hissy fits who's walked out on 2 clubs and has threatened the same to most of the others. there's no 'smoking gun' to find imo, just loads of conspiracy theorists desperate to rehabilitate his image.
Not conspiracy theories but a curiosity about what happened and how it is related to events since, which has seen the club seemingly change direction. I accept it's not a debate you want to happen but I think it's more interesting than your name calling and rehashing of jokes you've found elsewhere on the Internet.
-
By the time of his departure, even for some of his most ardent supporters, the camel's back was under heavy strain.
Some of his most ardent supporters but not all.
-
I think the problem here is some of us have this idea (myth/image?) that he's an easy going honourable person so there must be a shocking reason why he left, but when you look at his real character and his actions elswhere you realise the only surprise is he lasted here so long. He's a hardnosed ambitious careerist prone to hissy fits who's walked out on 2 clubs and has threatened the same to most of the others. there's no 'smoking gun' to find imo, just loads of conspiracy theorists desperate to rehabilitate his image.
Not conspiracy theories but a curiosity about what happened and how it is related to events since, which has seen the club seemingly change direction. I accept it's not a debate you want to happen but I think it's more interesting than your name calling and rehashing of jokes you've found elsewhere on the Internet.
name calling? rehashing of old jokes?
!!!
-
he stayed at celtic because they rolled over and gave into his demands everytime he threatened to leave them. He was literally bigger than the club and in complete control. No doubt he fancied the same here only they called his bluff
he also did very well up there. That helps a lot if your being difficult to deal with. I'm sure he'd have got his way last summer with us, had the previous season we'd won a trophy or two.
yeah but as we all know, if you're up north at the old firm you have to be pretty bad not to win something. Down here its a bit different
-
he stayed at celtic because they rolled over and gave into his demands everytime he threatened to leave them. He was literally bigger than the club and in complete control. No doubt he fancied the same here only they called his bluff
I don't have a problem with him wanting control, in fact I think a manager should fight for as much as possible.
What I do have a problem with is his wilfull neglect of housekeeping, and fucking off when the issue needed to be addressed.
yep. you only have to look at the state of Dunne to see he wasn't doing his job. Mind you, the board obviously took their eye of the ball as well or trusted him so much they just ignored their eyes.
-
I think the problem here is some of us have this idea (myth/image?) that he's an easy going honourable person so there must be a shocking reason why he left, but when you look at his real character and his actions elswhere you realise the only surprise is he lasted here so long. He's a hardnosed ambitious careerist prone to hissy fits who's walked out on 2 clubs and has threatened the same to most of the others. there's no 'smoking gun' to find imo, just loads of conspiracy theorists desperate to rehabilitate his image.
No, I have no illusions about MON being anything other than a self-serving careerist. Also, I believe he as manager had severe limitations and that he had taken us as far as he could. I shed no tears about his departure.
That view doesn't rule out that he had a legitimate beef with the board (though I struggle to think that it could be anything grave enough justifying the timing and manner of the departure). Whether it was about the wage bill or something else, I don't know, but all the pieces known don't add up.
-
I wonder if Harry will walk out on Spurs now he has to trim the wage bill and shift some players out?
I would laugh if he did mind, especially if it was early August and we had just swapped Ireland for Moderic with a couple million thrown in.
-
he stayed at celtic because they rolled over and gave into his demands everytime he threatened to leave them. He was literally bigger than the club and in complete control. No doubt he fancied the same here only they called his bluff
he also did very well up there. That helps a lot if your being difficult to deal with. I'm sure he'd have got his way last summer with us, had the previous season we'd won a trophy or two.
yeah but as we all know, if you're up north at the old firm you have to be pretty bad not to win something. Down here its a bit different
that's immaterial. Aside from having some influential allies at the club, he ultimately got his way because of his success. If the success had dried up, so would the patience of the board if he was being over demanding. It would have been no different with us. You bite your lip and put up with a lot of things if you're successful. I'm sure Ferguson was a cock at Man U as he asserted himself at Man U. Now he pretty much runs everything. Up there the board would never dare bite the hand that feeds, and make no mistake he has been feeding them for 20 years. If MON got us into the CL, or won the FA Cup last season and had walked out there would be far more vitriol being thrown at the board, and far less at him than we see today.
-
to be fair i think villadawg is probably near the truth with the budget theory, just massively over-estimating what was asked of him. Any reasonable manager probably wouldn't worry too much about the board asking him to sell non-playing squad members like Davies, NRC etc.. to get the wage bill down but MON probably considered it a threat to his control
-
to be fair i think villadawg is probably near the truth with the budget theory, just massively over-estimating what was asked of him. Any reasonable manager probably wouldn't worry too much about the board asking him to sell non-playing squad members like Davies, NRC etc.. to get the wage bill down but MON probably considered it a threat to his control
Also I don't think he is the sort of fella to admit he had made expensive mistakes on Davies, Sidwell and co.
-
We shall get a much better idea of the true value of Martin O'Neill when he gets another job. A clearer fix on the regard in which he is held by his peers and his contemporaries will be provided by which club employs him and what he does with that club.
In the meantime the lack of clubs rushing for his services gives a clue to his situation and his current reputation.
-
My best guess is that is was about timing once again: Unable to shift the deadwood, he once again wanted to sign players before selling. The board were unimpressed by his efforts to get rid of the likes of Beye and Sidwell and said no/delayed the issue. As the season came nearer, and the likelihood of another end of transfer window splurge diminished, MON decided to quit (possibly because the board had finally confirmed that he wouldn't be allowed to sign anyone before he had sold some of the deadwood).
Pure speculation, but there you go.
-
My best guess is that is was about timing once again: Unable to shift the deadwood, he once again wanted to sign players before selling. The board were unimpressed by his efforts to get rid of the likes of Beye and Sidwell and said no/delayed the issue. As the season came nearer, and the likelihood of another end of transfer window splurge diminished, MON decided to quit (possibly because the board had finally confirmed that he wouldn't be allowed to sign anyone before he had sold some of the deadwood).
Pure speculation, but there you go.
I think thats a fair guess. I could imagine him forcing the issue if he was desperate to bring in a player especially when he could point to most of the milner money being there. We weren't exactly beating clubs off with a stick to buy his mistakes so i'd imagine he probably realised he wouldn't get his targets before the window closed.
-
to be fair i think villadawg is probably near the truth with the budget theory, just massively over-estimating what was asked of him. Any reasonable manager probably wouldn't worry too much about the board asking him to sell non-playing squad members like Davies, NRC etc.. to get the wage bill down but MON probably considered it a threat to his control
I pointed out there does appear to have been budget constraints, I didn't and don't argue that it was the reason he left.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement between the board and O'Neill that Curtis Davies, Luke Young, Nigel Reo-Coker, Steve Sidwell, Nicky Shorey and Habib Beye could leave last summer. I think it was made made public that they were for sale.
My understanding is that the the new CEO had taken over responsibility for conducting transfer business but wasn't able to get any business done.
-
My understanding is that the the new CEO had taken over responsibility for conducting transfer business but wasn't able to get any business done.
"My understanding".
I thought you were all about the facts? You're no better than the rest of us.
-
to be fair i think villadawg is probably near the truth with the budget theory, just massively over-estimating what was asked of him. Any reasonable manager probably wouldn't worry too much about the board asking him to sell non-playing squad members like Davies, NRC etc.. to get the wage bill down but MON probably considered it a threat to his control
I pointed out there does appear to have been budget constraints, I didn't and don't argue that it was the reason he left.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement between the board and O'Neill that Curtis Davies, Luke Young, Nigel Reo-Coker, Steve Sidwell, Nicky Shorey and Habib Beye could leave last summer. I think it was made made public that they were for sale.
My understanding is that the the new CEO had taken over responsibility for conducting transfer business but wasn't able to get any business done.
hmmm. early august is hardly late by MON standards to conclude your transfer business so i'm not sure he'd be that worried
EDIT: and they'd obviously got Ireland done before he left bar dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's
-
My understanding is that the the new CEO had taken over responsibility for conducting transfer business but wasn't able to get any business done.
I'm not sure if Faulkner was the source of inertia, as we were far more effective in flogging off our rejects under Houllier.
-
My understanding is that the the new CEO had taken over responsibility for conducting transfer business but wasn't able to get any business done.
"My understanding".
I thought you were all about the facts? You're no better than the rest of us.
and I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky kids.
-
I think the problem here is some of us have this idea (myth/image?) that he's an easy going honourable person so there must be a shocking reason why he left, but when you look at his real character and his actions elswhere you realise the only surprise is he lasted here so long. He's a hardnosed ambitious careerist prone to hissy fits who's walked out on 2 clubs and has threatened the same to most of the others. there's no 'smoking gun' to find imo, just loads of conspiracy theorists desperate to rehabilitate his image.
No, I have no illusions about MON being anything other than a self-serving careerist. Also, I believe he as manager had severe limitations and that he had taken us as far as he could. I shed no tears about his departure.
That view doesn't rule out that he had a legitimate beef with the board (though I struggle to think that it could be anything grave enough justifying the timing and manner of the departure). Whether it was about the wage bill or something else, I don't know, but all the pieces known don't add up.
I think you may have been closer with your earlier theory, a gradual erosion in interest and motivation for job, rather than a 'breaking point' issue.
There were a few digs at supporters around the time of the Wolves and Sunderland games at home as far back as March, before the wheels well and truly came off at Chelsea away. His attitude was generally dismissive, with a few 'you've never had it so good' type quips thrown in for good measure.
Then the links with Liverpool started, with talk that Kenny Dalglish was due to be approached by Hicks and Gillete to act as club ambassador, with a remit to also recommend potential replacements for Rafa. MON was believed to be his choice. Dalglish got the post in July, but the board opted for the less fractious Hodgson.
Perhaps MON was able to motor on and not rock the boat between April/July as he thought he'd soon be gone anyway. How could he fail with King Kenny in his corner? When he didn't actually get the gig and the realisation hit home that he might have to actually face the next season with us that's when the wage bill constraints and all the rest of it actually became real.
Soon after, he tried deals for McGeady and Keane. But with no outgoing movement except for Milner, the Sidwell deal to Fulham breaking down and NRC and Luke Young refusing moves, the wage bill issue loomed large.
Having to make do with players that he didn't really want around anymore (and who he had made that pretty clear to) and being expected to get something out of them, plus the condition of Dunne made a tough situation even more unappealing. Factor in the spending of Man Citeh and the general increase in competition across the league, and he perhaps felt a likely season of stagnation (or even regression) wouldn't be good for his image and future career prospects.
-
Don't care what anyone says. I had it on good authority that dalglish wanted him and had talked to him, and then he was railroaded by the yanks and MON got left out in the cold. The comments of bannon seems to hold that up and i very much doubt it hadn't come to the attention of Lerner and caused maybe a a re-appraisal of the sort of control they gave MON.
-
I still think that his waning interest and motivation for the job is the bigger picture. And that probably stemmed from no longer being allowed to do exactly what he wanted. I think your (KevinGage's) summary is quite close to the truth, but I'm not ruling out the possibility that MON was trying to circumvent the board's demands of lowering the wage bill (eg by arguing that he had to buy before he could sell for sporting reasons), and that the board was dodging these issues, adding to MON's frustration and perhaps delaying the inevitable outcome.
-
It's possible, certainly.
Perhaps he'd done similar the year previous (when we went over budget) and felt when push came to shove he'd get his own way again.
Only difference being that the previous year the board may have still been of the opinion he was a genius, we were lucky to have him and whatever he required (outside of Man Citeh style requests, obv) they would endeavour to deliver. Even if they privately questioned the individual merits of lucrative deals for 31 year old reserve right backs and so forth.
FF 12 months and -whilst they may have still believed him to be the right man for the job- maybe they were more willing to face him down on deals that looked suspect, or bloated an already concerning wage bill.
-
the worse thing about this thread is oliver holt could pop in and think we've been discussing him for 12 pages. the best thing is him finding out he barely got past page 1.
-
Don't care what anyone says. I had it on good authority that dalglish wanted him and had talked to him, and then he was railroaded by the yanks and MON got left out in the cold. The comments of bannon seems to hold that up and i very much doubt it hadn't come to the attention of Lerner and caused maybe a a re-appraisal of the sort of control they gave MON.
You should offer your services to the Daily Mirror. O'Neill is suing them for libel following their claim he had talks with Liverpool. You and your good authority could be the Daily Mirror's last-minute star witness and get O'Neill jailed for perjury.
-
You should offer your services to the Daily Mirror. O'Neill is suing them for libel following their claim he had talks with Liverpool. You and your good authority could be the Daily Mirror's last-minute star witness and get O'Neill jailed for perjury.
Maybe Bannan should be called as a witness as well, considering he gave quotes seemingly backing up this theory?
-
I find it hard to reconcile the fact that O'Neill is extremely litigious in defence of his reputation with the fact that he treated the club, staff, players and fans with such disrespect in quitting when he did.
-
You should offer your services to the Daily Mirror. O'Neill is suing them for libel following their claim he had talks with Liverpool. You and your good authority could be the Daily Mirror's last-minute star witness and get O'Neill jailed for perjury.
Maybe Bannan should be called as a witness as well, considering he gave quotes seemingly backing up this theory?
Indeed. Strange that he would sue the mirror but not bannan for saying he was close to joining Liverpool. And still no law suit against the myriad of papers who accused him of plotting behind Grant's back - surely as bad a deal as the Liverpool rumours. Its almost as if he somehow knows the likes of Dalglish won't confirm they were tapping up another premiership manager *scratches chin*
-
You should offer your services to the Daily Mirror. O'Neill is suing them for libel following their claim he had talks with Liverpool. You and your good authority could be the Daily Mirror's last-minute star witness and get O'Neill jailed for perjury.
Maybe Bannan should be called as a witness as well, considering he gave quotes seemingly backing up this theory?
Indeed. Strange that he would sue the mirror but not bannan for saying he was close to joining Liverpool. And still no law suit against the myriad of papers who accused him of plotting behind Grant's back - surely as bad a deal as the Liverpool rumours. Its almost as if he somehow knows the likes of Dalglish won't confirm they were tapping up another premiership manager *scratches chin*
You honestly believe that he is suing the Daily Mirror on the basis that he is confident that Dalglish is going to perjure himself?
For someone who takes such an interest in courtroom shenanigans, you don't seem to have much idea about how these things work. He is suing the Mirror because he believes they libelled him but he isn't suing Bannan or you for that matter because all you are doing is repeating the Mirror's libellous story.
As I said, you could settle this by offering your "good authority" to the Daily Mirror couldn't you? *scatches bollocks*
-
Can we have these Bannan quotes? They must have passed me by. Seems strange for him to get involved in something like this.
-
Can we have these Bannan quotes? They must have passed me by. Seems strange for him to get involved in something like this.
Hi Monty. Try here (http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/english-football/scotland-youngster-barry-bannan-is-shedding-few-tears-over-martin-o-neill-s-aston-villa-exit-1.1047987)
“I was on the touchline watching the under-21 boys train when I started getting lots of text messages through on my phone. I was shocked in a way but, looking back, in our pre-season games he wasn’t as hands-on as normal. He was sitting back and hardly got out of his seat to say anything to the players.
“If you add that all up, he was acting a bit differently. He wasn’t the Martin O’Neill that we knew, but we still didn’t think he would walk out like that. He was close to going at the end of last season to Liverpool and either it fell through or he sorted out his differences [with the Villa board] so we thought he was going to stay.”
-
Cheers RR62. Oops, wee Barry, big oops.
-
Doesn't sound like it was Bannan just repeating a mirror story, it seems to me to be something that the whole squad were clued in on, and they would be a lot closer to the action than any of us.
-
You should offer your services to the Daily Mirror. O'Neill is suing them for libel following their claim he had talks with Liverpool. You and your good authority could be the Daily Mirror's last-minute star witness and get O'Neill jailed for perjury.
Maybe Bannan should be called as a witness as well, considering he gave quotes seemingly backing up this theory?
Indeed. Strange that he would sue the mirror but not bannan for saying he was close to joining Liverpool. And still no law suit against the myriad of papers who accused him of plotting behind Grant's back - surely as bad a deal as the Liverpool rumours. Its almost as if he somehow knows the likes of Dalglish won't confirm they were tapping up another premiership manager *scratches chin*
When Bannan said what he did, my take on it was that he had read about the O'Neill-Liverpool link in the papers and was simply commenting on it from that perspective. I don't believe he had any inside scoop or knowledge.
EDIT: I've just Read Rocket Reducer's post. Hmmm. I remember reading those quotes at the time of O'Neill's departure and my initial reaction to them was that Bannan was simply speculating from what he had read in the press. On reading them again I can see how they could be interpreted differently.
-
There were plenty of staff at other clubs who knew he was touting himself for the Liverpool job too. It wasn't exactly a secret.
-
You and your good authority could be the Daily Mirror's last-minute star witness and get O'Neill jailed for perjury.
Is Greg's "Good authority" not as good as your "I heard" and "My understanding" then?
-
Given that the Mail and the E & S are both saying that McLeish will not get the Young money it appears that bringing down the wage bill was only part of the issue and that Lerner is also cutting back on what he makes available for transfers.
Why?
Clearly it's his money and he can do what he likes but it flies in the face of their stated ambitions and it seems that we have given up any pretence of trying to compete with the top 6.
-
Given that the mail and the E & S are both saying that McLeish will not get the Young money it appeasr that bringing down the wage bill was only part of the issue and that Lerner is cutting back on what he makes available for transfers.
Why?
Clearly it's his money and he can do what he likes but it flies in the face of their stated ambitions and it seems that we have given up any pretence of trying to compete with the top 6.
If that's true then it really is worrying. I suppose we'll be more certain one way or the other by the start of September.
-
We'll see how it plays out -and how much we pay in transfer fees total before the end of the summer. McLeish did say at the supporters get together that his quotes re the Young money were as much to do with not wanting to show his hand to other clubs as much as anything else.
-
Given that the Mail and the E & S are both saying that McLeish will not get the Young money it appears that bringing down the wage bill was only part of the issue and that Lerner is also cutting back on what he makes available for transfers.
Why?
Clearly it's his money and he can do what he likes but it flies in the face of their stated ambitions and it seems that we have given up any pretence of trying to compete with the top 6.
Exactly what puzzles me.
What was the point in all the massive in roads we made in the first 4 seasons, just to chuck it away now?
-
Perhaps it's just part of a different strategy.
I don't accept (yet) that he's given up the ghost. But if spending an extra £50-75 million of the Lerner family trust in one season isn't going to have a significant impact on league placings for us (securing top 4, in other words) you can understand to a degree why he might be reticent to chase big losses with even more losses.
He talked about sustainable growth from the outset. It's not as if he promised Abramovich style 'whatever it takes' and then pulled back on that. When it looked like it was attainable in the short-term (2007-2010) he went as big as he could. His manager at the time didn't deliver and now we face different sporting and financial challenges in a league which has at least 10 billionaire owners and only 4 CL spots up for grabs.
-
Perhaps it's just part of a different strategy.
I don't accept (yet) that he's given up the ghost. But if spending an extra £50-75 million of the Lerner family trust in one season isn't going to have a significant impact on league placings for us (securing top 4, in other words) you can understand to a degree why he might be reticent to chase big losses with even more losses.
He talked about sustainable growth from the outset. It's not as if he promised Abramovich style 'whatever it takes' and then pulled back on that. When it looked like it was attainable in the short-term (2007-2010) he went as big as he could. His manager at the time didn't deliver and now we face different sporting and financial challenges in a league which has at least 10 billionaire owners and only 4 CL spots up for grabs.
Yep, spot on.
-
Doesn't sound like it was Bannan just repeating a mirror story, it seems to me to be something that the whole squad were clued in on, and they would be a lot closer to the action than any of us.
Precisely but somehow Villadawg think Dalglish would walk into a courtroom and say "yes i tapped up MON and now who do i write the million pound compensation to? Lerner, or the PL for breaking every rule in the book? Did i mention its coming out of my pocket as well as i was only in a consultancy position with Liverpool and of course they had no idea what i was doing?"
IF ITS TRUE THAT IS.
The fact that MON and Dalglish are the only ones who can prove it one way or another and one of them is likely to make some money if he denies it, while the other one has to deny it seems to have passed Villadawg by. Actually is Dalglish sueing the Mirror? If not why not?
-
Given that the Mail and the E & S are both saying that McLeish will not get the Young money it appears that bringing down the wage bill was only part of the issue and that Lerner is also cutting back on what he makes available for transfers.
Why?
Clearly it's his money and he can do what he likes but it flies in the face of their stated ambitions and it seems that we have given up any pretence of trying to compete with the top 6.
Exactly what puzzles me.
What was the point in all the massive in roads we made in the first 4 seasons, just to chuck it away now?
So on the basis that two local rags are saying we're not spending loads we've "given up"? The transfer window will be open for another two months. We'd be pretty stupid to spend the intervening period boasting about how much money we've got to spend, thus ensuring that every team puts their prices up.
-
Given that the Mail and the E & S are both saying that McLeish will not get the Young money it appears that bringing down the wage bill was only part of the issue and that Lerner is also cutting back on what he makes available for transfers.
Why?
Clearly it's his money and he can do what he likes but it flies in the face of their stated ambitions and it seems that we have given up any pretence of trying to compete with the top 6.
Exactly what puzzles me.
What was the point in all the massive in roads we made in the first 4 seasons, just to chuck it away now?
So on the basis that two local rags are saying we're not spending loads we've "given up"? The transfer window will be open for another two months. We'd be pretty stupid to spend the intervening period boasting about how much money we've got to spend, thus ensuring that every team puts their prices up.
Because every other club are stupid and will be taken in by Villa's Baldryck like cunning plan of pretending they have no money.
-
I didn't say that, did I? I just don't assume we're skint because we aren't having diamonds attached to all the stands. We'll see.
I used to get fed up with O'Neill's last minute dithering, in the case of a new manager though it's understandable. McLeish might want to talk to people like Ireland, Warnock and Downing before assessing how best to invest. As these players are likely to be on their holidays or attending multiple grandmothers' funerals we might have to wait until pre-season training starts before we find out whether the club has "given up" or not.
-
When asked about the Young money McLeish said to Dave W and anyone else who attended the supporter's forum that it wouldn't be the smartest bit of business to tell the press how much he had to spend.
Perhaps the folly of Carson Yeung's comments on completion of the B-lose takeover still resonate with him.
If by the end of August all of our business has been bargain basement deals and loans I'll join you in the bunker as we dig in and brace ourselves for a relegation dogfight.
-
Because every other club are stupid and will be taken in by Villa's Baldryck like cunning plan of pretending they have no money.
You seemingly believe it, so why shouldn't other clubs?
I really don't know what to believe to be honest, it could be a smokescreen, or it could be the truth. We won't know one way or the other for a few months yet.
-
Because every other club are stupid and will be taken in by Villa's Baldryck like cunning plan of pretending they have no money.
You seemingly believe it, so why shouldn't other clubs?
I really don't know what to believe to be honest, it could be a smokescreen, or it could be the truth. We won't know one way or the other for a few months yet.
You're right we don't know but what isn't in doubt is that the talk of playing in the CL has now stopped and McLeish's press conference was about doing well in the cups. I think we've retrenched, hope I'm wrong.
-
I think the fact we've stopped talking about the CL might be as it just makes us look stupid. Maybe if we can finish sixth or seventh next year we can target the top four the season after? That might be a bit more realistic. I quite like the idea of taking the cups seriously anyway.
-
To be honest, I think that our best chance of CL football was 2 years ago. Can't see it happening without a fairly drastic change in circumstances at other clubs. Whether that means that Randy is pulling the plug financially is a different matter though. And I don't think anyone will mind if we win something next year (barring, obviously, if the season also ended in relegation)
-
Everything points to retrenchment. Nothing has been said or happened to make me change my view that the manager selection criteria laid down by Randy Lerner were 1. Does he work cheap? 2. Is he healthy? 3. Does he do as he is told?
The only reason I can see for this abandonment of ambition is that the club will be sold two or three years down the line. A secure mid table outfit with balanced books would be more attractive to an asian billionaire than a club with unsustainable wage bills and equally unsustainable CL pretensions.
-
Maybe Randy has realised that to stand any chance of breaking the top 4/5 we would need the financial bottomless pit similar to the arabs at Man City. I wonder if Randy has realigned his sights on 6-8 place finish and go for it in the domestic cups instead as these will be he better option of silverware.
We had a crack at it a couple of seasons ago but the manager at the time made some crucial errors and the chance passed us by. I think it will be a while until we get another opportunity.