The Martin O'Neill thread (with added sacking #2188)

[pauliewalnuts]

He was taking us to the level of ambition the club declared and was funding. He had me believing we'd get there. £120m on players and £70m wages is enough for a good manager to begin challenging for CL places and trophies and we were beginning to do that.

One hundred and ninety million pounds. And counting.

One hundred and ninety million pounds spent on players?

120 + 70 =?

 If the ambition is to be top four,  that's the minimum cost, it's way below average. It almost certainly couldn't be done for less.

What about the idea of reining in the wages for the short term - ie hold tight this season, then get more money further down the line?

At some point, even if we had carried on spending big, surely those players least used, but who cost decent money, would be the ones to be moved on?

We can't keep throwing players in the mix like Man City, can we? Wages in excess of turnover?

[luke95]

My favourite victories under MON:

Derby 0-6 Villa
Villa 2-0 Chavski
Villa 5-1 small heath
Everton 2-3 Villa
Arsenal 0-2 Villa
Liverpool 1-3 Villa
United 0-1 Villa

Lots of great games and memories of O'Neill - I do feel people are going a bit OTT. OK, he was annoying at times, and has left at a really bad time, but you can't say he hasn't turned us around as a team. He has taken us far and hopefully our next manager can take us that step closer to Champions League football.

He took us back to where we've been, on average, for the past twenty years. His time at Villa was like every other part of that period, just without the ups and downs.

I think he took us above our average over the last 20 years to be fair .

Fifth highest points scorers since 1992 and the fifth highest average place.

Those figures dont really tell the truth of how we finished season upon season tho do they .
9th/10th is probably a more realistic position . 

No, fifth is more realistic based on fact. Find me nine clubs who have done better than us.

How many times we finished in the top 5 the last 20 years ??

[atomicjam]

Beating Man U at their place, and Liverpool away, and Chelsea at VP, but as someone who lives in Digbeth and works in South East Brum, beating the B-lose again and again and again and so on... it is important when you work with so many of them! They have all had a laugh this week at work, my reply, even bets of £20 to five noses that we will finish above them this season. Bet we do!

[dave.woodhall]

How many times we finished in the top 5 the last 20 years ??

A couple. How many clubs have a better record than us?

[pauliewalnuts]

My favourite victories under MON:

Derby 0-6 Villa
Villa 2-0 Chavski
Villa 5-1 small heath
Everton 2-3 Villa
Arsenal 0-2 Villa
Liverpool 1-3 Villa
United 0-1 Villa

Lots of great games and memories of O'Neill - I do feel people are going a bit OTT. OK, he was annoying at times, and has left at a really bad time, but you can't say he hasn't turned us around as a team. He has taken us far and hopefully our next manager can take us that step closer to Champions League football.

He took us back to where we've been, on average, for the past twenty years. His time at Villa was like every other part of that period, just without the ups and downs.

I think he took us above our average over the last 20 years to be fair .

Fifth highest points scorers since 1992 and the fifth highest average place.

Those figures dont really tell the truth of how we finished season upon season tho do they .
9th/10th is probably a more realistic position . 

No, fifth is more realistic based on fact. Find me nine clubs who have done better than us.

How many times we finished in the top 5 the last 20 years ??

Four times.

Since 1990:

7th - 2 times
6th - 6 times
5th - 1 time
4th - 1 time
2nd - 2 times


That's half the last 20 seasons at least at sixth.

Don't get me wrong, sixth three times is not bad at all, and I don't think we "should" have broken the top four by now. But whilst sixth isn't bad, it is also by no means exceptional

if you wanted to sum Villa up over the last two decades, "sixth or thereabouts" is as good a description as any.

Look at this run, for example, from 1996 - 2002: 4th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 8th.

Take out 03 and O'Leary's two years of decline, plus O'Neill's first, and it is pretty much constant 6th or thereabouts right back 15 years.

[Villa'Zawg]

...


What about the idea of reining in the wages for the short term - ie hold tight this season, then get more money further down the line?

At some point, even if we had carried on spending big, surely those players least used, but who cost decent money, would be the ones to be moved on?

We can't keep throwing players in the mix like Man City, can we? Wages in excess of turnover?

We have a club record transfer fee of £12m, we haven't been throwing players in the mix like Man City.

It seemed to me that everyone had accepted the new sell to buy policy

What's the problem? It now appears that it is a sell to reduce wages policy rather than sell to buy, that's means something else completely.

[luke95]

How many times we finished in the top 5 the last 20 years ??

A couple. How many clubs have a better record than us?

a couple ..!
there you go , your total points averaged out over 20 years tells a different story.
its very rare we finish in the top 5 , top 6  a hand full of times, more often than not over the past 20 years weve finshed 7th or lower .

I dont doubt were 5th in the total points league. but its position in the league table every season that counts & O'neill did better than average.  IMO   

[pauliewalnuts]

...


What about the idea of reining in the wages for the short term - ie hold tight this season, then get more money further down the line?

At some point, even if we had carried on spending big, surely those players least used, but who cost decent money, would be the ones to be moved on?

We can't keep throwing players in the mix like Man City, can we? Wages in excess of turnover?

We have a club record transfer fee of £12m, we haven't been throwing players in the mix like Man City.

It seemed to me that everyone had accepted the new sell to buy policy

What's the problem? It now appears that it is a sell to reduce wages policy rather than sell to buy, that's means something else completely.

Christ. You don't half like to take things literally. I said we can not keep throwing players in the squad without losing some as well (ie as Man City do).

The club have said specifically that they wanted to look at the way the wages were going and make sure they were allocated correctly. What is wrong with that? If you can't even come to terms with that as a concept, then I'm afraid nothing but Man City style reckless abandon will be good enough for you.

Look at the comments the chairman made back at the start of the summer re sell to buy.

[pauliewalnuts]

In fact, there's a question for you, VD.

Do you acknowledge that there might be a case for looking at the way we allocate our wages bill to ensure we're getting the best value?

[Brend'Watkins]

...

For the first time, he's asked MON to do something about the wage bill. Not balance it, not make incomings match outgoings, just to work on it. ...

If there was any evidence that was the case I would agree wholeheartedly that he was a wanker.

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that he had to get rid of some squad players to reduce the wage bill and to help fund new signings.  You know, the sort of thing virtually every manager in the country has to do.  I believe this was made clear to MON in May in the season review and plan for next. 

I have no idea what sort of effort he put into this if any.  It can't be much as we've only off loaded Shorey and that at a loss.

If MON hadn't got the stomach/capability/couldn't be arsed to carry out this part of his job he should have made it be known in May after his meeting instead of composing his resignation 5 days before the season started.  That's where I have lost it with him like many other previous pro MON supporters.

To get back on topic he has a lot to be thanked for during his 4 years...

The victory at Old Trafford the pick of the lot for me.

[dave.woodhall]

there you go , your total points averaged out over 20 years tells a different story.
its very rare we finish in the top 5 , top 6  a hand full of times, more often than not over the past 20 years weve finshed 7th or lower .

We've finished in the top six more often than we've finished in the bottom half. There are four clubs who have a better average league position than us. How that equates to 9th or 10th on average is beyond me.

[Villa'Zawg]

In fact, there's a question for you, VD.

Do you acknowledge that there might be a case for looking at the way we allocate our wages bill to ensure we're getting the best value?

I absolutely agree we should look at how we allocate our wage bill. I just think we should look at it from the perspective of how it affects our chances of competing for the CL and winning trophies.

[Villa'Zawg]

...

For the first time, he's asked MON to do something about the wage bill. Not balance it, not make incomings match outgoings, just to work on it. ...

If there was any evidence that was the case I would agree wholeheartedly that he was a wanker.

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that he had to get rid of some squad players to reduce the wage bill and to help fund new signings.  You know, the sort of thing virtually every manager in the country has to do.  I believe this was made clear to MON in May in the season review and plan for next. 

I have no idea what sort of effort he put into this if any.  It can't be much as we've only off loaded Shorey and that at a loss.

If MON hadn't got the stomach/capability/couldn't be arsed to carry out this part of his job he should have made it be known in May after his meeting instead of composing his resignation 5 days before the season started.  That's where I have lost it with him like many other previous pro MON supporters.

To get back on topic he has a lot to be thanked for during his 4 years...

The victory at Old Trafford the pick of the lot for me.

I thought that Paul Faulkner was given responsibility for transfers when he was appointed CEO in May. I thought that was why O'Neill was having to refer the press to the Chairman/CEO when they asked about transfers.

Can anyone confirm or deny that?

[luke95]

there you go , your total points averaged out over 20 years tells a different story.
its very rare we finish in the top 5 , top 6  a hand full of times, more often than not over the past 20 years weve finshed 7th or lower .

We've finished in the top six more often than we've finished in the bottom half. There are four clubs who have a better average league position than us. How that equates to 9th or 10th on average is beyond me.

hate to be pedantic Dave but by your reckoning if Man utd were to win the league next season by 12 points to Chelsea , & then Chelsea were to win the following 9 titles by 1 point to Man utd  ... Man Utd would have been the better over 10 years ??

we've finished 6th or better only 8 times in 20 years, top half 13, bottom half 7 times.

Average out all our seasons final finishing place over 20 years & it'll be a lot closer to 9th/10th than 5th ....

we'll have to agree to disagree i think .

[eamonn]

MON picked the players subject to Faulkner's valuation of player and his wages? Sounds reasonable enough.