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

[Villadroid]

So you're playing Devil's advocate as some sort of social experiment. How pompous of you.

I think the wheels of the MON bandwagon came off when he spent all our money, petulantly left on the eve of battle taking all his staff and took us to court. That normally does it. Have you been deactivated in the last few years?

He spent the money he was allowed to by the board, like every other manager.

Petulantly left, yes, and that's his legacy but his staff were his mates and walked out with him. It's not as though they were going to be wanted without him.

He didn't take us to court, but a PL tribunal did find in his favour so presumably he was within his rights.

I think a few of you need to move on, at the moment it seems like hell hath no fury like a Villa fan scorned. It's a pity we made a mess of some subsequent appointments but I'd sooner have Lambert as manager than O'Neill, so we got there eventually, and it's perhaps time we started looking forward.

A well reasoned argument at last.

I thank you sir!

[Chico Hamilton III]

Shouldn't this shit be shifted to Villa memories anyway?

[Chris Smith]

He didn't take us to court, but a PL tribunal did find in his favour so presumably he was within his rights.

No it didn't.

MON and the club reached an agreement in the course of the tribunal, there was no finding in anyone's favour.

Fair enough, although the writing was clearly on the wall or why would we have settled?

[not3bad]

What "Shibboleths" are you referring to?


You're just taking the piss really aren't you?

I certainly am not.

There was a poll recently in which people were asked which Villa manager in recent history pissed them off the most.  The winner was David O'Leary, who beat MON by a number of votes.

After you've asked the question "Are you still on the MON bandwagon", to any Villa fan you can find, you could follow up by saying "Is Randy Lerner blameless for Villa's current situation".   You seem to reckon people think RL is largely blameless, yes?

[Villadroid]

He didn't take us to court, but a PL tribunal did find in his favour so presumably he was within his rights.

No it didn't.

MON and the club reached an agreement in the course of the tribunal, there was no finding in anyone's favour.

Fair enough, although the writing was clearly on the wall or why would we have settled?

Who paid who is usually the decider but obviously faces need to be saved.

[Mazrim]

So you're playing Devil's advocate as some sort of social experiment. How pompous of you.

I think the wheels of the MON bandwagon came off when he spent all our money, petulantly left on the eve of battle taking all his staff and took us to court. That normally does it. Have you been deactivated in the last few years?

He spent the money he was allowed to by the board, like every other manager.

Petulantly left, yes, and that's his legacy but his staff were his mates and walked out with him. It's not as though they were going to be wanted without him.

He didn't take us to court, but a PL tribunal did find in his favour so presumably he was within his rights.

I think a few of you need to move on, at the moment it seems like hell hath no fury like a Villa fan scorned. It's a pity we made a mess of some subsequent appointments but I'd sooner have Lambert as manager than O'Neill, so we got there eventually, and it's perhaps time we started looking forward.

Yes he spent the money he was allowed to. Poorly. And we're still feeling the effects. We have the right to discuss it.
You can move on if you want to.

I think we can be forgiven for thinking it would have been more appropriate if his staff stayed a little while to hand over duties to the new regime with a team preparing for a new season just days away. It's what I would call honourable.

Semantics. He took us to a tribunal. It's just another legal action.
An agreement was reached and we'll probably never know the exact details. But he could have just left without fuss. He'd caused enough damage as far as I'm concerned but, stay classy Martin.

I am very much looking forward. I'm actually optimistic for the future. But with respect Chris, on this thread about MON he's going to figure quite heavily, especially when some folks are going out of their way to defend him.

And although I have no respect for him any more, I don't feel any hate towards him. I just wish he'd never have joined us and wasted all our money. I'm also happy that his reputation is being burned through and he's being found out. Maybe it was that gloating that prompted the likes of Villadroid to come out of the woodwork.

*shrugs* It's all gravy.

[KevinGage]

What pseudonym do you post under on Sunderland messageboards, VD?

Your (as always) impassioned defence of the guy is wasted on us, but you might still be able to convert some of their lot.

[Brend'Watkins]

Yes, we should move on but it's a fans right to look at every possible reason why we find ourselves in the predicament we are.  Most of the pointers are still looking at MON and his legacy as the main reasons. 

MON will become a footnote in our history once the Lambert plan fully kicks in but until then he will be discussed at length over and over again in the same way as what might have been had Phil Dowd sent off Vidic.

[Villadroid]

What "Shibboleths" are you referring to?


You're just taking the piss really aren't you?

I certainly am not.

There was a poll recently in which people were asked which Villa manager in recent history pissed them off the most.  The winner was David O'Leary, who beat MON by a number of votes.

After you've asked the question "Are you still on the MON bandwagon", to any Villa fan you can find, you could follow up by saying "Is Randy Lerner blameless for Villa's current situation".   You seem to reckon people think RL is largely blameless, yes?

The shibboleth which constantly pops up in the Lerner side of the narrative is 'naive', a choice of such a word seems to reveal a desire to ameliorate criticism of RL's failure to implement the right plan.

No manager would be described as naive for buying a bad player because his job entails not being naive.

So why the difference?

[Mazrim]

How is calling Lerner naive a shibboleth? What narrative are you referring to?

"No manager would be described as naive for buying a bad player because his job entails not being naive."

Eh?

[not3bad]

What "Shibboleths" are you referring to?


You're just taking the piss really aren't you?

I certainly am not.

There was a poll recently in which people were asked which Villa manager in recent history pissed them off the most.  The winner was David O'Leary, who beat MON by a number of votes.

After you've asked the question "Are you still on the MON bandwagon", to any Villa fan you can find, you could follow up by saying "Is Randy Lerner blameless for Villa's current situation".   You seem to reckon people think RL is largely blameless, yes?

The shibboleth which constantly pops up in the Lerner side of the narrative is 'naive', a choice of such a word seems to reveal a desire to ameliorate criticism of RL's failure to implement the right plan.

No manager would be described as naive for buying a bad player because his job entails not being naive.

Firstly, You've dodged the question - do you or do you not assume that Villa fans think Lerner is blameless?

Secondly, you yourself argued that Villa should have "known what they were getting" with Martin O'Neill, implying that his resulting purchases were entirely predictable.  So by that logic either O'Neill has been naive for his entire career, or you're just twisting and turning like a worm on a hook to keep the argument going - which is it?

[paul_e]

He was naive in expecting a manager who has the reputation MON had to be able to spot a decent player and build a squad for the long term benefit of the club.  A lot of fans (including myself) were guilty of the same.  What actually happened is he built a squad to provide a short term benefit to both the club and more importantly brand MON.  The lack of long term benefit is the reason he gets the criticism he does from the fans.

I don't see how anyone can argue that a lot of our problems for 2 and a bit seasons are, at least to a large extent, a direct result of his attempts make a short term push to the champions league, with, I assume, the plan being to re-evaluate once we were there, I doubt he thought much beyond that target though, that certainly doesn't appear to have been the case.

[Villadroid]

What "Shibboleths" are you referring to?


You're just taking the piss really aren't you?

I certainly am not.

There was a poll recently in which people were asked which Villa manager in recent history pissed them off the most.  The winner was David O'Leary, who beat MON by a number of votes.

After you've asked the question "Are you still on the MON bandwagon", to any Villa fan you can find, you could follow up by saying "Is Randy Lerner blameless for Villa's current situation".   You seem to reckon people think RL is largely blameless, yes?

The shibboleth which constantly pops up in the Lerner side of the narrative is 'naive', a choice of such a word seems to reveal a desire to ameliorate criticism of RL's failure to implement the right plan.

No manager would be described as naive for buying a bad player because his job entails not being naive.

Firstly, You've dodged the question - do you or do you not assume that Villa fans think Lerner is blameless?

Secondly, you yourself argued that Villa should have "known what they were getting" with Martin O'Neill, implying that his resulting purchases were entirely predictable.  So by that logic either O'Neill has been naive for his entire career, or you're just twisting and turning like a worm on a hook to keep the argument going - which is it?

Do I think many Villa fans think Lerner is blameless?

I suppose I do because the use of the word naive suggests innocence rather than culpability.

I think it was predictable that O'Neill would play a big striker up front and use a counter-attacking style.

As for your assumption about my motives, I don't think your conclusion is logical.

It looks like a thinly disguised ad hominem attack meant to provoke me into some similar response which would allow you to avoid proper argument.

But I could be wrong.

 

[not3bad]

Do I think many Villa fans think Lerner is blameless?

I suppose I do

Perhaps then, you could look through this thread alone and find where people have apportioned part of the responsibility to Lerner.

Perhaps you could acknowledge that people have reminded you that the reason MON's part of the blame is concentrated on in this thread, is because this is a thread about MON.

I think you've ignored these points because you simply want to continue the argument for the sake of it.

I expect you'll tell me I'm wrong.

[pauliewalnuts]

He didn't take us to court, but a PL tribunal did find in his favour so presumably he was within his rights.

No it didn't.

MON and the club reached an agreement in the course of the tribunal, there was no finding in anyone's favour.

Fair enough, although the writing was clearly on the wall or why would we have settled?

Lots of reasons, it could have dragged on for longer, it could have been affecting the other workings of the club. It can be cheaper and easier to make the issue go away with a compromise.

We don't know how much he settled for. He might have been after 2m and accepted 100k for all we know. We also don't know what he was claiming. Maybe we were disputing one clause in a batch of several. We just don't know, we can't say anyone won, MON or the club.

Of course, you could probably say that effectively, they both lost. The club because at the time we were heading for stormy waters as we struggled to cope with such a large chunk of the football operations gone, and MON because his career took such a nosedive, he wasn't eyeing the Liverpool job anymore, and winder up at Sunderland, which is an underwhelming next step.