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

[Mister E]

c) I tend to think that telling a manager that he has to make massive cuts but he can't tell the fans, is selfish. Houllier, McLeish were willing to tell that lie to the fans and both paid the price.

Don't get the point you're trying to make here at all.

At no point did the club ever prepare the fans for the extent of the cuts. It started off being all about complying with the FFP rules. It has just been one player at a time until the fans reached their own conclusions, which is now presented as if it was always understood.

The last three managers have all colluded in that dirty little trick. Houllier came under a huge amount of pressure due to the consequences of that plan and so did McLeish.

These guys might be richer as a result but the experience did not exactly enhance their reputations.

I still don't get the point you're making.
It seems clear - with hindsight - that in 2010 RL had started to question the acquisition by his manager of several overpaid / underplayed players. And the tipping point came with Milner's sale to MCFC (instigated - if some are to be believed - by MON). After the purchase-price + wages aggregation had been made, it's not that surprising that RL decided to close the wallet.

I'm not aware that Lerner has ever particualrly shared hiis game-plan with the fans (other than through the 'unofficial' auspices of the erstwhile General), so to say that the Chairman should have prepared the fans for cuts seems like a non sequitur to me. And anyway, PF has signalled a change in investment policy several times since his appointment.

"dirty little trick" is your phrase: I don't recognise it in the context of RL, GHou or TSM.

I think, VD, that you need to immerse yourself in another Bourne movie or some other conspiracy plot 'cos you ain't enlightened me one jot tonight.

[pauliewalnuts]

it's hard to suggest that Houllier colluded in the cuts, when a few months into his reign, we were spending £24m on a single player.

I don't need any persuading to believe that there has been an ongoing sequence of financial belt tightening. I'm not that happy about it myself. I'm suspicious of the fact that buying in lots of young lower league players and hoping it works marries quite nicely with reducing the wage bill significantly.

What I don't buy is the suggestion that MON left because he was presented with the need for enormous cuts. He was asked to do what every single manager in the league (bar maybe Mancini or whoever is Chelsea manager this week) has to do - wheel and deal, work on his squad, move some players on.

He realised that he wasn't going to be able to do that and finish sixth again, and left, at a truly dreadful time to do so. He basically worked out that it was either risk damaging brand O'Neill (by actually managing his squad) or flounce off, and he took the latter option.

Personally, I think Lerner and Faulkner are both woefully out of their depth, and the last year or two have seen a general running down of the club to the point that we now seem to spend a lot of time floating around the arse end of the table.

To suggest, though, that O'Neill left two and a half years ago because he had some apocalyptic vision of horrific cuts is bonkers. He realised he was taking a risk staying and wasn't prepared to do it, and off he went - not giving a flying fuck for those like Villadroid or other posters on here who still defend him today.

[Drummond]

The Villa had a manager called MON,
Fans hoped a league winner like Ron,
But when it came to the crunch,
He was all out to lunch,
And his legend was just a big con.

[bones.]

We believed when our billionaire buyer
said 'Martin is the Messiah'
when he'd spent all the dosh
the Messiah fucked off
with his halo, his wings, and his choir.

[Mister E]

We believed when our billionaire buyer
said 'Martin is the Messiah'
when he'd spent all the dosh
the Messiah fucked off
with his halo, his wings, and his choir.

... and the winner is ...

Very good.

[dave shelley]

Agreed.

[Yossarian]

He brought 99% from the UK market and yet the one player he brought cheaply and from abroad Guzan could turn out to be his best pound for pound signing.

John Carew?

[Concrete John]

it's hard to suggest that Houllier colluded in the cuts, when a few months into his reign, we were spending £24m on a single player.

I don't need any persuading to believe that there has been an ongoing sequence of financial belt tightening. I'm not that happy about it myself. I'm suspicious of the fact that buying in lots of young lower league players and hoping it works marries quite nicely with reducing the wage bill significantly.

What I don't buy is the suggestion that MON left because he was presented with the need for enormous cuts. He was asked to do what every single manager in the league (bar maybe Mancini or whoever is Chelsea manager this week) has to do - wheel and deal, work on his squad, move some players on.

He realised that he wasn't going to be able to do that and finish sixth again, and left, at a truly dreadful time to do so. He basically worked out that it was either risk damaging brand O'Neill (by actually managing his squad) or flounce off, and he took the latter option.

Personally, I think Lerner and Faulkner are both woefully out of their depth, and the last year or two have seen a general running down of the club to the point that we now seem to spend a lot of time floating around the arse end of the table.

To suggest, though, that O'Neill left two and a half years ago because he had some apocalyptic vision of horrific cuts is bonkers. He realised he was taking a risk staying and wasn't prepared to do it, and off he went - not giving a flying fuck for those like Villadroid or other posters on here who still defend him today.

Hard to disagree with most of that.

Wages is, and has been, our issue for a while now.

I think MON was prepared to sell on a few in summer 2010 (NRC, Davies, Shorey, etc.), but couldn't due to the ridiculous wages he put them on.  It was when Randy stood firm on not backing him anyway, despite the expected exits not happening, that the issue started.

And then wages have been the key financial issue ever since.

I imagine the plan when they first bought the club was spend big and create a valuable squad.  The natural player movement would then see that money recycled through the club and leave the transfer kitty needing a smaller 'topping up' in later years.  Basically, spend £40m a year for the first few years, then £20m thereafter with the anticipation that players from those £40m years move on, be it for a profit or a loss, and that is then added to the £20m, which is squad maintenance, rather than squad building.  Chelsea aren't a bad example as after the huge splurges in the early Roman years, then started spending more rationally (until recently, that is!).

Our players weren't moving on as nobody would match their wages, so we haven't been able to re-use their transfer value.       

[pauliewalnuts]

I imagine the plan when they first bought the club was spend big and create a valuable squad.  The natural player movement would then see that money recycled through the club and leave the transfer kitty needing a smaller 'topping up' in later years.  Basically, spend £40m a year for the first few years, then £20m thereafter with the anticipation that players from those £40m years move on, be it for a profit or a loss, and that is then added to the £20m, which is squad maintenance, rather than squad building.  Chelsea aren't a bad example as after the huge splurges in the early Roman years, then started spending more rationally (until recently, that is!).

Our players weren't moving on as nobody would match their wages, so we haven't been able to re-use their transfer value.       

I think that's absolutely spot on, John. Another good example of that is Tottenham.

Whilst we hid get decent money from Young, Downing and Milner, the really big issue was the problem of players who were never going to have much resale value on big money deals that we then couldn't move on.

Plus the length of the deals given to the likes of Heskey and Beye .... that was absolutely nuts.

It was all a bit like renting an expensive house for a few years and enjoying the luxuries while you had it, rather than buying one, and thinking of the future.

[Villadroid]

I suppose the question remains as to whether the fact that Abramovich has spent £2bn is a measure of how bad his managers have been, or something else.

[Concrete John]

The Young/Milner/Downing money was good, as was what we got for Barry, but couldn't be recycled due to wages still being too high.  It also came as we dipped in form, so rather than be a natural recycling of players, it became an exodus as we lost momentum on the pitch, thereby creating a snowball effect.

Things like selling Barry and then getting Delph and Downing are better examples of what I think was the original intention.

[pauliewalnuts]

I suppose the question remains as to whether the fact that Abramovich has spent £2bn is a measure of how bad his managers have been, or something else.

I'd say the thing it reflects most is how much money he's got, and how much he is prepared to put into Chelsea.

[Villadroid]

The legend of MON is based upon his ability to win a cup at Leicester, punch above their weight in the league, and even get 11 games and 5 goals out of Collymore, when Villa had written him off.

Reversing the dominance of Rangers in the Old Firm contest added further to his reputation.

Villa fans knew what they were getting and welcomed him with open arms because they had good reason to believe that he could bridge the huge financial gap between Villa and the big boys with some investment from the ambitious new owner.

The idea being to build a team good enough to qualify for the Champions League and then once plugged into the European cash-cow build Villa's turnover and their glamour, as they signed better players and took themselves to the next level.

Sadly, three sixth-place finishes weren't enough and by the time Villa notched up their first away win at Old Trafford for an age and were having a measure of success in reaching a cup final and a semi-final in the same season, things had already turned sour between O'Neill and Lerner and the gig was up.

A significant fall in the owner's wealth, due to the banking crisis; divorce and family troubles, all became distractions for the owner and a restructuring of the club's management took place, as Paul Faulkner was appointed Chief Executive in 2010.

MON decided he didn't like the changes to the conditions of his employment and decided to leave. Whether it was precipitated by the sale of James Milner or the changes to management, or something else entirely, no one but the parties involved are in a position to know.

It is difficult to make the case that things have improved for Aston Villa since O'Neill left.

[Brend'Watkins]

I suppose the question remains as to whether the fact that Abramovich has spent £2bn is a measure of how bad his managers have been, or something else.

I'd say the thing it reflects most is how much money he's got, and how much he is prepared to put into Chelsea.

We're not comparing apples with apples though are we.

For Chelsea & Man City owners it's a hobby.  For RL it's been a business and unfortunately one that he appears to have less of an interest in than he had at the out set.

[Concrete John]

It is difficult to make the case that things have improved for Aston Villa since O'Neill left.

Has anybody actually tried to make that case?  I've certainly missed it if they have!

I think this thread boils down to two question really:-
1.  On reflection, how good a job did he actually do?
2.  How much of where we are now is down to him?