The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[dave.woodhall]

Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option. 

[KevinGage]

However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.

Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?

It's what Spurs did when they appointed Harry. It's what Man City are doing every summer. But I don't think we needed another £120m to maintain our forward momentum.

I would have had him tell Man City to feck off this summer and given the manager £10m plus whatever Faulkner manages to raise from selling some of the 6 players identified as potential sales.

So the responsibility lies with Faulkner to shift the deadwood now, absolving MON of all blame in that key area. How convenient.

Dunno where you got the figures for Tottenham's transfer dealing since 'arry has been in charge either.

Lets see:

* Palacios-------- £12 -15 million
* Cudicini---------Free
* Defoe----------- £15 million
* Keane-----------£12 -16 million
* Naughton------
* Walker----------£8 million for both
* Crouch ---------£10 million
* Bassong--------£8 million
* Krankjar--------£2.5 million
* Kaboul----------£6.5 million
* Sandro---------£7 million


So only about £40 million out, VD. Or did I not carry the 1?

[Villa'Zawg]

Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option. 

Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.

I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.

In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?

[Villa'Zawg]

However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.

Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?

It's what Spurs did when they appointed Harry. It's what Man City are doing every summer. But I don't think we needed another £120m to maintain our forward momentum.

I would have had him tell Man City to feck off this summer and given the manager £10m plus whatever Faulkner manages to raise from selling some of the 6 players identified as potential sales.

So the responsibility lies with Faulkner to shift the deadwood now, absolving MON of all blame in that key area. How convenient.

Dunno where you got the figures for Tottenham's transfer dealing since 'arry has been in charge either.

Lets see:

* Palacios-------- £12 -15 million
* Cudicini---------Free
* Defoe----------- £15 million
* Keane-----------£12 -16 million
* Naughton------
* Walker----------£8 million for both
* Crouch ---------£10 million
* Bassong--------£8 million
* Krankjar--------£2.5 million
* Kaboul----------£6.5 million
* Sandro---------£7 million


So only about £40 million out, VD. Or did I not carry the 1?

I'm sorry you are right, he has only spent approx. £80m since last January. I included the £40m worth of players who arrived during the 3 months before Redknapp did.

[pmarachi]

I feel that this word "legacy" is being over used...

[dave.woodhall]

Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option. 

Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.

I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.

In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?

Yes, of course we could have kept a player who didn't want to be here and for whom another club were offering a ridiculous price. It happens all the time. How di you know the manager wasn't given a transfer budget?

[ROBBO]

What legacy? He spent more money that any other manager outside of the top four and Spurs and achieved the position that kind of spend demanded. What are we left with? A core of players that will keep us safely in mid table and a lot of overpaid underused players that at the moment we can't get rid of.

[ozzjim]

Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option. 

Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.

I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.

In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?

Yes, of course we could have kept a player who didn't want to be here and for whom another club were offering a ridiculous price. It happens all the time. How di you know the manager wasn't given a transfer budget?

Being offered by a club that Jose Mourinho has said has complete control over the transfer market and no one else can compete with - he is the european cup winning manager and is managing arguably the biggest side in world football. Milner was going. Whether Villa had a choice or not.

[KevinGage]

Exactly.

The only way we might have persuaded him to stay was if we'd made significant enough progress ourselves in the past few years. Had we cracked 4th when the opportunity was there he (and Barry) might have been content enough to believe they could achieve their goals and ambitions with us.

The above scenario would have required more nous in the transfer market, better use of resources and tactical flexibility at crucial times though.  Which brings us neatly back to MON...

[N'ZMAV]

What legacy? He spent more money that any other manager outside of the top four and Spurs and achieved the position that kind of spend demanded. What are we left with? A core of players that will keep us safely in mid table and a lot of overpaid underused players that at the moment we can't get rid of.

Can't really disagree with this too much.

Martin was perfect for us at the time of his appointment, and the years that followed saw us progress a lot as a club, but, only to where we should have always been. I feel I must credit Martin for that, he developed some of our players and achieved a lot of good things, on the other hand, a lot of what I would call basics for an established manager with a good experience went wrong. No point in me listing them, we all know what they were/are. The only way we'll know if Martin leaving was the right thing or not will be the legacy of the next manager.

[Concrete John]

The fact is, other than MON's 1st team, what other options did we have all over the pitch.  This can only be viewed as an average return on the money he spent.

I just can't agree with the frame of mind that sees our opinions of his squad options as a return for the money spent.  The return is the W/D/L figures, league position and any trophies.

Some interesting points have been raised, mainly around the transfer record, which I'm afraid will be debated until rapture with one side focusing on the Harewoods and Heskeys and the other on the Youngs and Milners.  Spending is comparative and we were competitive in that context, but we did NOT spend the sort of money where CL football could be viewed as where we should be.  I think it's a case of the view that he should have got 6th with what he had to spend is right, but then so is the fact that the next manager will do extremely well to match or better that with less, if that's what happens.

I also agree with Chris Smith's point that if Martin walked as he couldn't achieve 4th with the forthcoming budget, we won't attract a top manager, who will have the same ambitions, without Randy having a rethink.   

[sfx412]

Chris I'm not sure what 'mood music' you listen to, but the latest song I read from General k gave me the impression RL's commitment was no less than before.
I appreciate its a convenient Mon exit excuse but what justification is there to suggest there is no backing for new managers. Do you know something no one else does, share your insight please.

[Chris Smith]

Chris I'm not sure what 'mood music' you listen to, but the latest song I read from General k gave me the impression RL's commitment was no less than before.
I appreciate its a convenient Mon exit excuse but what justification is there to suggest there is no backing for new managers. Do you know something no one else does, share your insight please.

That we're not going to make a quick appointment suggests we'll not spend anything else this summer. January is always a difficult time to buy; whether by accident or design we're likely to make a profit on transfers this season.

[BannedUserIAT]

Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option. 

Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.

I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.

In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?

VD, I can see your way of thinking here. Milner makes such a huge difference to our team. You only have to look at the Newcastle match to realise this. With him, we're not half bad. Without him, we're going to be decidedly average. What's the cost of that in terms of league position, season ticket sales, merchandise sales, potential loss of 4th spot, cup runs, etc? It's huge.

But Man City tapped Milner up. I've heard rumours of over 200k a week! Even if half of that is right (and I suspect it's somewhere in between), who would say no? Imagine if you, being a Villa supporter, playing for, say, Sunderland and Man City come in for you. Do you really give that much of a fuck about Sunderland? No. Do you give that much of a fuck about all that extra shiny money? Oh yes. So you tell your boss you want out (don't worry, he's being paid double, too). Your head is gone. You're already somewhere else.

Now we all know how Milner played against West Ham but I suspect he knew that te deal was done and that it was his last hurrah in the claret and blue. Would he have been like that game in, game out if we'd pulled the rug out from under him? I dunno.

Randy did what he could.

As for MoN.....to echo others, a nearly man. Which, given his working environment, is a great shame.

[Villa'Zawg]

Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option. 

Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.

I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.

In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?

VD, I can see your way of thinking here. Milner makes such a huge difference to our team. You only have to look at the Newcastle match to realise this. With him, we're not half bad. Without him, we're going to be decidedly average. What's the cost of that in terms of league position, season ticket sales, merchandise sales, potential loss of 4th spot, cup runs, etc? It's huge.

But Man City tapped Milner up. I've heard rumours of over 200k a week! Even if half of that is right (and I suspect it's somewhere in between), who would say no? Imagine if you, being a Villa supporter, playing for, say, Sunderland and Man City come in for you. Do you really give that much of a fuck about Sunderland? No. Do you give that much of a fuck about all that extra shiny money? Oh yes. So you tell your boss you want out (don't worry, he's being paid double, too). Your head is gone. You're already somewhere else.

Now we all know how Milner played against West Ham but I suspect he knew that te deal was done and that it was his last hurrah in the claret and blue. Would he have been like that game in, game out if we'd pulled the rug out from under him? I dunno.

Randy did what he could.

As for MoN.....to echo others, a nearly man. Which, given his working environment, is a great shame.

I understand the argument, the same things were said recently about Barry to Liverpool, Ronaldo, Fabregas, Alonso, Gerrard etc... Not a single one of them went on strike, played worse or left before the club agreed to sell them.

With Milner it isn't just the difference he made to our team, it's the difference he is going to make to the team that finished 3 points ahead of us last season.

Edit: I've just seen Milner's own explanation of his position.

"When things are being said every day in the paper and wherever you go out and people are asking you what's happening and you don't know yourself, there's only one thing you can do, just concentrate on your football and that's all I did.

"I just kept doing as well as I could at Aston Villa and see what happened."