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

[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.

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.

That's what i was trying to say in answer to VD's question, really, Abrahmovich has much more money and it's a hobby, the only conclusion to be drawn on what his spending reflects is that it's down to how much he has, and how much he wants to invest.

No relevance to Lerner at all.

[dave.woodhall]

I think it was always intended as a hobby for Randy, albeit one which had to break even eventually. He can't spend as much on his hobby as others can. 

[richardhubbard]

70 pages on MON, I really am sure DOL, Houiller and McLeish were far worse managers who did far more damage to our great club

[not3bad]

70 pages on MON, I really am sure DOL, Houiller and McLeish were far worse managers who did far more damage to our great club

The others don't really have any advocates though do they?  Among the press or the fans.

[Tokyo Sexwhale]

My main reason for backing O'Neill was that were no better candidates around that were better than him and that we could realistically attract.

[nick harper]

My main reason for backing O'Neill was that were no better candidates around that were better than him and that we could realistically attract.

My memory is that the sale to Lerner meant we could get someone of the calibre of O'Neill. I don't think many fans weren't very excited about someone with his track record taking us on with the influx of financial clout at the same time.

[not3bad]

Absolutely.  Lerner and O'Neill were a "Dream Team".

[ktvillan]

Let's turn this round, VD. Why do you think we should owe MON a favour or be deferential as to what he did here?

I don't actually, I just contrast the enthusiasm for slagging off MON and the cringing reticence to say anything about Lerner.

You obviously haven't spent much time on this board if you believe there's any truth in this.

Exactly, I'm not sure where Villadroid gets this idea that fans are reluctant to criticise Lerner.  He's had his fair share of slaggings on here and elsewhere, but that doesn't mean MON should escape his share. 

Lerner had some credit in the bank in that he backed his manager with funds, but was guilty of naivety, and buying into the MON myth a bit too much.   

MON was guilty of spending a lot of money on overpaid, underused, journeymen who became largely unsellable.  Much as I despise Ellis, his epiphet "an apple well bought is half sold" is something that Lerner and O'Neill might have done better to take heed of -  far too many of MON's "apples" were badly bought, and proved very difficult to shift. 

[Tokyo Sexwhale]

My main reason for backing O'Neill was that were no better candidates around that were better than him and that we could realistically attract.

Sorry, I meant towards the end of his reign, when there were lots of voices wanting him out. 

I think most fans were delighted when he was appointed, and indeed all the way up to the Moscow and Stoke games.  But even after that we finished respectably, got to a League Cup Final and FA Cup semi-final.  So I'd rather he had stayed, simply because he was better than the alternatives.



My memory is that the sale to Lerner meant we could get someone of the calibre of O'Neill. I don't think many fans weren't very excited about someone with his track record taking us on with the influx of financial clout at the same time.

[Steve R]

So it should have been Lerner's decision as to whether the players bought were actually worth what we were paying?

At what point in those 4 years should Lerner have said 'no' then? Bear in mind the stick he took when he finally decided enough was enough.

Should he have vetoed the purchase of Heskey? Or Collins,Dunne & Warnock? How about Sidwell or Shorey? How obvious should it have been to him that there was nothing to suggest that Davies was a better player than Cahill?

[Risso]

So it should have been Lerner's decision as to whether the players bought were actually worth what we were paying?

At what point in those 4 years should Lerner have said 'no' then? Bear in mind the stick he took when he finally decided enough was enough.

Should he have vetoed the purchase of Heskey? Or Collins,Dunne & Warnock? How about Sidwell or Shorey? How obvious should it have been to him that there was nothing to suggest that Davies was a better player than Cahill?

It's not a case of vetoing purchases, it should have been Lerner setting sensible budgets and goals with his manager, and if those players weren't affordable, then they should not have been bought.  I can't imagine that O'Neill had a particularly strong case for wanting to sign Beye, for example.

[Concrete John]

So it should have been Lerner's decision as to whether the players bought were actually worth what we were paying?

At what point in those 4 years should Lerner have said 'no' then? Bear in mind the stick he took when he finally decided enough was enough.

Should he have vetoed the purchase of Heskey? Or Collins,Dunne & Warnock? How about Sidwell or Shorey? How obvious should it have been to him that there was nothing to suggest that Davies was a better player than Cahill?

I think it's more a case of looking at it as an overall piece and seeing the warning sings of the wages/turnover ratio getting out of control before it did.  So rather than challenge his judgement on a particular player, challenge him on the overall wagebill he had created and the portion not being utilised.

[German James]

As the main member of the "Cult of MON" is himself, it will be of great comfort to O'Neill to know that his name can still generate such a lengthy and passionate thread, over two years and three-and-a-bit managers later. I believe he's at least half to blame for our decline, but I don't really understand why we can't try and move on a bit now.

[Steve R]

So it should have been Lerner's decision as to whether the players bought were actually worth what we were paying?

At what point in those 4 years should Lerner have said 'no' then? Bear in mind the stick he took when he finally decided enough was enough.

Should he have vetoed the purchase of Heskey? Or Collins,Dunne & Warnock? How about Sidwell or Shorey? How obvious should it have been to him that there was nothing to suggest that Davies was a better player than Cahill?

It's not a case of vetoing purchases, it should have been Lerner setting sensible budgets and goals with his manager, and if those players weren't affordable, then they should not have been bought.  I can't imagine that O'Neill had a particularly strong case for wanting to sign Beye, for example.

Setting 'sensible budgets' and vetoing the purchase of certain players can be pretty much the same thing. Bear in mind the timing of most of those transfers and how long it takes to sign a player - especially with O'Neill, who never seemed to have Lambert's knack of having an alternative up his sleeve if a selling club dug its heels in.

What if the players concerned were actually worth the money we threw at them?

There seems to be a lot of 20-20 hindsight here regarding decisions Lerner should have made.

We have no idea what case O'Neill put forward for any of the players, or how he engineered a green light for the purchases we made. Do you really think he took a back seat and was prepared to shrug his shoulders and say 'c'est la vie' if he didn't get what he wanted?

Who is to say what conditions wer put around said purchases regarding the need to reign back wages, or that they only started to be made in the summer he left?
 

[pauliewalnuts]

The problem regarding when Lerner should have said no is that he had, at all times, an overview of the financial situation of the club.

He then got to the point where things were so bad, we had to scale back so quickly, we almost got relegated.

It's hard for us to say when he should have put the brakes on, because we didn't see the overview of the financial situation. He did.

What's more, he should ideally have had some sort of plan to grow the club which extended beyond only listening to his manager. It's not hard to conclude that MON was the only person with input to that, because as soon as he fucked off, everything started to go to shit on a number of fronts. Farcical manager searches with even more farcical appointments. That sort of thing.