Was the General right to comment on O'Neill

[Villa'Zawg]

You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?

Not everyone who disliked MON's football booed the team, mind.

And what's more

I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.

I find it hard to believe that anyone wasn't behind the team because they didn't like the manager. Suggesting otherwise strikes me as either incredibly "holier than thou" or just naive.

Personally, as mentioned before, I found our home football turgid and borderline unwatchable on an extremely regular basis for two years.

I still wanted us to win every single match, though.

There appeared to be a "better" level of support at the West Ham game on Saturday, even in the pubs and outside the ground before the match. Is that in question?

If so, what might have caused the difference if it wasn't the absence of ill-feeling toward the manager?

[dave.woodhall]

I can never understand why not going to the match because of the chairman is a noble, justified, protest and not going because of the manager is an act of disloyalty.

[Villa'Zawg]

They amount to the same don't they?

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Wouldn't holding back your support for the team because you don't like the manager equate to believing the manager is bigger than the Club?

O'Neill enjoyed the longest honeymoon from the fans in Villa management history. I put it down to fans wanting to believe rather than believing. I really don't think he'll be missed by anybody.

[pauliewalnuts]

You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?

Not everyone who disliked MON's football booed the team, mind.

And what's more

I think the majority of Villa supporters are behind the manager and team at every game. The minority who found that difficult to do because of their antipathy towards the previous manager joined in is all.

I find it hard to believe that anyone wasn't behind the team because they didn't like the manager. Suggesting otherwise strikes me as either incredibly "holier than thou" or just naive.

Personally, as mentioned before, I found our home football turgid and borderline unwatchable on an extremely regular basis for two years.

I still wanted us to win every single match, though.

There appeared to be a "better" level of support at the West Ham game on Saturday, even in the pubs and outside the ground before the match. Is that in question?

If so, what might have caused the difference if it wasn't the absence of ill-feeling toward the manager?

"A better level of support" is one thing, but you seemed to be implying that some people "would not support" the club if they didn't like the manager. That's a different thing.

I went to the first game of last season, and to the game on Saturday.

I didn't like the manager's brand of football 12 months ago, but I didn't boo, I supported the team and hoped we won.

On Saturday, I did the same thing, but I was happier - ie of a better mood - as there was not a season of predictable football ahead of us any longer.

The support I gave wasn't any better or worse, i was just in a better mood.

[Villa'Zawg]

...

"A better level of support" is one thing, but you seemed to be implying that some people "would not support" the club if they didn't like the manager. That's a different thing.

I went to the first game of last season, and to the game on Saturday.

I didn't like the manager's brand of football 12 months ago, but I didn't boo, I supported the team and hoped we won.

On Saturday, I did the same thing, but I was happier - ie of a better mood - as there was not a season of predictable football ahead of us any longer.

The support I gave wasn't any better or worse, i was just in a better mood.

The atmosphere and support level was better on Saturday imo. If it wasn't down to you or I, it must have been something or someone else.

I suggested it was the minority (that's an important word in my sentence) who had found it difficult to get behind the manager and team due to their antipathy towards the previous manager. Maybe there was something else, I don't know.

[dave.woodhall]

I was happier on Saturday because there was a feeling of all in it together against the world and that any show of less than 100% total support would be seized on for the Crisis Club stories.

[not3bad]

I think it was to do with the manner in which MON left rather than his style or his teams.  Time to put aside petty differences and get behind the team and all that.  Of course the fact that the team put on a good show helped quite a lot.

[TimTheVillain]

Not only was the General right to comment but it is his prerogative as a Non Exec Director of the club.

He may not pull many punches, but he has become the one the press look to for 'interesting' comments.

[adrenachrome]

I don't have a problem with The General's intervention, he had to unfuck a clusterfuck, and he did it well.

I do not however, subscribe to the simplistic view that the wages issue is only a problem because MoN bought players which he did not then play. I agree with Villadawg that there was a policy change between statements covering three months that is yet to be fully explained.  You did not need to be Nostradamus to predict that it would be difficult to ship players out in the current transfer market.


 
 

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The explanation may be that most transfers take place in the last week of the window.

[ktvillan]

You think the players consider all that when they are getting booed?[/]quote]

Well Percy, I'd guess at least some of the players realise they are in the entertainement and winning business, and that the paying customers are likely to get a little disgruntled if they are "earning" their multi million pound salaries by serving up a shower of shite.  Or that maybe some of the disaffection is aimed at the manager rather than them.  I'd be surprised if they are thinking, "oh the fans appear to be withholding their vocal support today, perhaps I won;t try quite as hard as my efforts won't be appreicated".  I'd be more surprised if they are thinking "man these Villa fans really hate their club."

[ktvillan]

...

"A better level of support" is one thing, but you seemed to be implying that some people "would not support" the club if they didn't like the manager. That's a different thing.

I went to the first game of last season, and to the game on Saturday.

I didn't like the manager's brand of football 12 months ago, but I didn't boo, I supported the team and hoped we won.

On Saturday, I did the same thing, but I was happier - ie of a better mood - as there was not a season of predictable football ahead of us any longer.

The support I gave wasn't any better or worse, i was just in a better mood.

The atmosphere and support level was better on Saturday imo. If it wasn't down to you or I, it must have been something or someone else.

I suggested it was the minority (that's an important word in my sentence) who had found it difficult to get behind the manager and team due to their antipathy towards the previous manager. Maybe there was something else, I don't know.

I couldn't stand O'Neill and found it increasingly difficult to get behind the team with any enthusiam because of O'Neill's selections, tactics, and style of play, which meant I really didnt enjoy watching us.   I wasn't alone in that. However I was still behind the team, still wanted us to win and bat Man City and Spurs for 4th even though it would have meant O'Neill still being here.  I think what you witnessed on Saturday was partially a return of enthusiasm of those who were not looking forward to more turgid football, plus a big "screw you for walking out on us" to O'Neill.

[ktvillan]

I don't have a problem with The General's intervention, he had to unfuck a clusterfuck, and he did it well.

I do not however, subscribe to the simplistic view that the wages issue is only a problem because MoN bought players which he did not then play. I agree with Villadawg that there was a policy change between statements covering three months that is yet to be fully explained.  You did not need to be Nostradamus to predict that it would be difficult to ship players out in the current transfer market.

I wonder if there was a policy change though? Or if O'Neill was told all along he could have x amount for transfers as long as he kept the wages within , say, 65% or 70% of turnover.  That would make business sense. It would have been an odd financial strategy from a successful businessman not to have some kind of limit on spending, so I somehow doubt the policy in the first 4 years was spend spend spend and fuck the wage bill.  If Martin had backed himself into a corner by overpaying his signings, passing the wages/turnover limit, and suddenly finding he couldnt shift the players he wasnt using in order to buy new ones, that's his fault. 

But agreed, perhaps it is something the club ought to clarify.

[usav]

Wouldn't holding back your support for the team because you don't like the manager equate to believing the manager is bigger than the Club?

O'Neill enjoyed the longest honeymoon from the fans in Villa management history. I put it down to fans wanting to believe rather than believing. I really don't think he'll be missed by anybody.

This man speaks sense.

Not very often, mind.