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

[hilts_coolerking]

In the sense that O'Neill thought he deserved a payment, we didn't and yet in the end he got one suggests that it went in his favour.

[paul_e]

In the sense that O'Neill thought he deserved a payment, we didn't and yet in the end he got one suggests that it went in his favour.

You're falling into the trap of making an assumption there.

It could be he wanted 2 million, we offered 500k and it settled for 1m.  there's no winner or loser in that, it's a value both are willing to accept to save the hassle of a 'hearing', it's really not uncommon and is favoured because no one wins.

[Mazrim]

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.

No it doesn't, it suggests naivety. Which has negative connotations enough already.
Hardly a compliment is it? Especially directed at the chairman of a high profile organisation.

[Mazrim]

In the sense that O'Neill thought he deserved a payment, we didn't and yet in the end he got one suggests that it went in his favour.

I can't/won't go into detail but from what I understand there was some sort of technicality or loophole that was exploited.
I am... *ahem* not qualifying this in any way as fact. Not at all. No sir, not me. You don't get me I'm part of the union etc.

[hilts_coolerking]

In the sense that O'Neill thought he deserved a payment, we didn't and yet in the end he got one suggests that it went in his favour.

You're falling into the trap of making an assumption there.

It could be he wanted 2 million, we offered 500k and it settled for 1m.  there's no winner or loser in that, it's a value both are willing to accept to save the hassle of a 'hearing', it's really not uncommon and is favoured because no one wins.

What assumption am I making?  He wanted compensation; we didn't think he deserved any.  We ended up having to pay him.  No assumptions in there at all.

[Concrete John]

In the sense that O'Neill thought he deserved a payment, we didn't and yet in the end he got one suggests that it went in his favour.

You're falling into the trap of making an assumption there.

It could be he wanted 2 million, we offered 500k and it settled for 1m.  there's no winner or loser in that, it's a value both are willing to accept to save the hassle of a 'hearing', it's really not uncommon and is favoured because no one wins.

What assumption am I making?  He wanted compensation; we didn't think he deserved any.  We ended up having to pay him.  No assumptions in there at all.

Perhaps the assumption is that we didn't think he deserved compensation, when in fact we we arguing over the amount as opposed to whether he got anything or not?

That having been said, I do get the feeling that Martin walked out of it happier than we did.

[hilts_coolerking]

Perhaps the assumption is that we didn't think he deserved compensation, when in fact we we arguing over the amount as opposed to whether he got anything or not?

That having been said, I do get the feeling that Martin walked out of it happier than we did.

Well it's possible I suppose but it seems unlikely doesn't it?  It's not common practice to pay compensation to staff who walk out.  I'm with you, I think the whole thing worked out in his favour, which is basically what Chris's initial comment was.

[Fergal]

We have every right to discuss what has fucked our club up, and every right to discuss it as often as we want. 
I blame MoN and Randy.  MoN for spending the money badly and Randy for letting him do it.  Also we should have known we were getting too big for our boots when we sent the Ladies 3rd team to play a European game we should have won...

[Villadroid]

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.

You should have noticed that I deliberately inserted the word "many" in the question, so I could avoid being trapped by some quibble about me stating that all fans think Lerner is blameless.

Unless I am mistaken the thread is entitled The Legend of MON, and I think weighing up all factors which contribute or detract from that legend, including Lerner, is well with in that remit.

Perhaps if the invitation to slag off MON had been more explicit, you could claim that I was off topic, but it's not.

As for arguing for the sake of it, I don't think that stands up because I opened the argument up to discuss the possibility that part of being a fan often requires a shared narrative, and you shut it down and returned to the confines of your preferred narrative.

[Concrete John]

We have every right to discuss what has fucked our club up, and every right to discuss it as often as we want. 
I blame MoN and Randy.  MoN for spending the money badly and Randy for letting him do it.  Also we should have known we were getting too big for our boots when we sent the Ladies 3rd team to play a European game we should have won...

Moscow are a good side and already had a lead from the first leg.  Let's not pretend that we were anything other than 2nd favourites to go through no matter what team we sent.

[Mister E]

We have every right to discuss what has fucked our club up, and every right to discuss it as often as we want. 
I blame MoN and Randy.  MoN for spending the money badly and Randy for letting him do it.  Also we should have known we were getting too big for our boots when we sent the Ladies 3rd team to play a European game we should have won...

Moscow are a good side and already had a lead from the first leg.  Let's not pretend that we were anything other than 2nd favourites to go through no matter what team we sent.

Moscow was not the issue! Yes, the selection was crazy, but if MON had picked stronger sides earlier in the tournament we would have avoided playing in Moscow in the depths of their winter altogether.
He showed a naivety in that tournament (which I remarked upon at the time) that belies his self-styled image as a 'senior' manager.

[Mister E]

As for arguing for the sake of it, I don't think that stands up because I opened the argument up to discuss the possibility that part of being a fan often requires a shared narrative, and you shut it down and returned to the confines of your preferred narrative.

I agree about the shared narrative, but part of being an obsessive (as fans are; particularly those who spend their time on fanzine sites) is to live with one's own narrative and defend it to the hilt.
So don't expect anyone to agree with you, however hard you keep poking the hornet's next.

[not3bad]

Well yeah, there is a shared narrative.  I think we all like it when one particular team wins.

[Villadroid]

As for arguing for the sake of it, I don't think that stands up because I opened the argument up to discuss the possibility that part of being a fan often requires a shared narrative, and you shut it down and returned to the confines of your preferred narrative.

I agree about the shared narrative, but part of being an obsessive (as fans are; particularly those who spend their time on fanzine sites) is to live with one's own narrative and defend it to the hilt.
So don't expect anyone to agree with you, however hard you keep poking the hornet's next.

Nice one.

[Dave Cooper please]

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!

A well reasoned argument = an opinion that agrees with yours.

I see, so none of the other arguments, no matter how well written, researched and articulated are well reasoned?

At least we know what we're dealing with.