Quote from: Risso on August 11, 2010, 11:42:10 AMQuote from: Chris Smith on August 11, 2010, 11:33:43 AMA net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.That's misleading though.We still had players of the class of Barry, Mellberg, Gabby, Laursen, Bouma etc. That team should never have been 16th in the first place.As much as I share your admiration for some of the players O'Neill inherited, the only reason we have a relatively high net spend is that the entire squad has brought in only £40m cash on the transfer market. Of course, that low market value was fully reflected in the extremely low purchase price for the club of £64m. We still have Gabby, Carew and Petrov.
Quote from: Chris Smith on August 11, 2010, 11:33:43 AMA net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.That's misleading though.We still had players of the class of Barry, Mellberg, Gabby, Laursen, Bouma etc. That team should never have been 16th in the first place.
A net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.
Quote from: Villadawg on August 11, 2010, 08:17:30 PMQuote from: Risso on August 11, 2010, 11:42:10 AMQuote from: Chris Smith on August 11, 2010, 11:33:43 AMA net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.That's misleading though.We still had players of the class of Barry, Mellberg, Gabby, Laursen, Bouma etc. That team should never have been 16th in the first place.As much as I share your admiration for some of the players O'Neill inherited, the only reason we have a relatively high net spend is that the entire squad has brought in only £40m cash on the transfer market. Of course, that low market value was fully reflected in the extremely low purchase price for the club of £64m. We still have Gabby, Carew and Petrov. Carew and Petrov were bought after the sale to Lerner???
Quote from: Villadawg on August 11, 2010, 08:17:30 PMQuote from: Risso on August 11, 2010, 11:42:10 AMQuote from: Chris Smith on August 11, 2010, 11:33:43 AMA net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.That's misleading though.We still had players of the class of Barry, Mellberg, Gabby, Laursen, Bouma etc. That team should never have been 16th in the first place.As much as I share your admiration for some of the players O'Neill inherited, the only reason we have a relatively high net spend is that the entire squad has brought in only £40m cash on the transfer market. Of course, that low market value was fully reflected in the extremely low purchase price for the club of £64m. We still have Gabby, Carew and Petrov. Two of the players he mentioned had to retire through injury, one left with a year to go on his contract (and we still got 12m for him), one ran his contract down, and the other is still playing for us.How much more would he have had to spend, had he not had those players to start with?
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on August 11, 2010, 08:22:38 PMQuote from: Villadawg on August 11, 2010, 08:17:30 PMQuote from: Risso on August 11, 2010, 11:42:10 AMQuote from: Chris Smith on August 11, 2010, 11:33:43 AMA net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.That's misleading though.We still had players of the class of Barry, Mellberg, Gabby, Laursen, Bouma etc. That team should never have been 16th in the first place.As much as I share your admiration for some of the players O'Neill inherited, the only reason we have a relatively high net spend is that the entire squad has brought in only £40m cash on the transfer market. Of course, that low market value was fully reflected in the extremely low purchase price for the club of £64m. We still have Gabby, Carew and Petrov. Two of the players he mentioned had to retire through injury, one left with a year to go on his contract (and we still got 12m for him), one ran his contract down, and the other is still playing for us.How much more would he have had to spend, had he not had those players to start with?Are we talking at cross purposes?
Quote from: Dave Cooper on August 11, 2010, 07:45:10 PMQuote from: Percy on August 11, 2010, 07:13:29 PM3 of them left for nothing and only me and O'Neill thought Gabby was any good at the time. With all due respect Percy, that really is bollocks. I personally wasn't sure about him but I was in a very small minority amongst the masses that thought Gabby was going to be the next Gary Lineker.To be fair Dave, that wasn't the case when I said he'd better than Lennon when DOL was manager. Some said I was jumping the gun, and nearly everybody else took the piss. It was only after MON started picking him all the time that 'some' other posters saw sense. Except you of course. *wink*
Quote from: Percy on August 11, 2010, 07:13:29 PM3 of them left for nothing and only me and O'Neill thought Gabby was any good at the time. With all due respect Percy, that really is bollocks. I personally wasn't sure about him but I was in a very small minority amongst the masses that thought Gabby was going to be the next Gary Lineker.
3 of them left for nothing and only me and O'Neill thought Gabby was any good at the time.
Two of the players he mentioned had to retire through injury, one left with a year to go on his contract (and we still got 12m for him), one ran his contract down, and the other is still playing for us.How much more would he have had to spend, had he not had those players to start with?
What also has to be considered is that MON took over from a very unpopular manager in an era of great optimism at the end of the Ellis soap opera years. Any competent manager would have found it almost impossible not to get into the top half dozenMartin O'Neill's persona as the reincarnation of Brian Clough is a media myth spun for the consumption of armchair football watchers. If he is the incarnation of anybody he is the incarnation of Kevin Keegan - always provided that incarnation means the embodiment of somebody not yet dead.
Regardless of what your views on MON, i would say the 4 years he had here was one of the best periods of supporting Villa in the last 30 years. For me only the Saunders/Barton period, and BFRs first 2 years were better. What i would say about MON is that he has left us in a good state.A yardstick of a manager for me is how much would he get for the players he has bought, and i think MONs buys would if necessary leave us in positive territory. Its over now, hes gone, who was right or wrong i don't really care, its time to move on, and know that we have a good basis for a very good young team, and the next appointment will hopefully carry us on.