The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[pmk1981]

anyone remember this interview with oniell earlier his year titled " its not my nature to down tools"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/apr/04/martin-oneill-aston-villa-interview

he has downed tools at every job he has had, lol

[Dave]

Net spend is relevant of course - if a club have spent a lot through recouping a lot it means their manager is decent at getting players who he doesn't want in the shop window, performing and generating revenue if sold. As such they can then spend more to buy other players.

But it's not particularly relevant when comparing Redknapp and O'Neill's records. It's only relevant if you're comparing Spurs and Villa as clubs.

It's very easy to praise the club for getting absurd tranfer fees for the likes of Keane, Berbatov and Carrick but it doesn't make Harry Redknapp any better a manager as he had nothing to do with those transfers.

Harry Redknapp's net spend over the last two of seasons is approximately £55m.

[sfx412]

Wrap it up every way you like Rednapp achieved 4th, Mon never beat the 6th place Dol achieved with next to no spend, 3 times on the trot then quit just before the season kicked off.

[hilts_coolerking]

It's the over the top language that I object to. He'd done a decent job, as did MON, but it's not the remarkable achievement coolerking tries to pretend it is.

Given that it took him less than two years to do it, I think it was a remarkable achievement. You can go on as much as you like about spend, net spend and the rest, but Redknapp managed to achieve what has been beyond any Spurs manager for 20 years. Even if they had massively outspent us, which I don't accept, they didn't massively outspend Man City and they finished above them too.

But most of all, given how wonderful you thought Martin O'Neill was, and how highly you regard the work he did at Villa, Redknapp's achievement in comparison is significantly better. Meaning - to use your own over the top language - he is considerably more than "all mouth", which is the phrase which sparked my interest in this.

[Chris Smith]

It's the over the top language that I object to. He'd done a decent job, as did MON, but it's not the remarkable achievement coolerking tries to pretend it is.

Given that it took him less than two years to do it, I think it was a remarkable achievement. You can go on as much as you like about spend, net spend and the rest, but Redknapp managed to achieve what has been beyond any Spurs manager for 20 years. Even if they had massively outspent us, which I don't accept, they didn't massively outspend Man City and they finished above them too.

But most of all, given how wonderful you thought Martin O'Neill was, and how highly you regard the work he did at Villa, Redknapp's achievement in comparison is significantly better. Meaning - to use your own over the top language - he is considerably more than "all mouth", which is the phrase which sparked my interest in this.

He is all mouth; a horrible, hypocritical individual. Why you admire him so highly is mystifying.

We're going round in circles now but I think that you know your gushing praise for him was over the top but don't have the balls to admit it so will carry on trying to justify the ludicrous idea that getting 4th place with a team that cost almost £200m to assemble is working wonders. Whether it's better than O'Neill did is neither here nor there; the fact is that it is not the sort of astounding, earth shattering achievement you are trying to convince us it is. I think that's something only the most one-eyed Spurs fan would agree with.

[Villa'Zawg]

It'll be interesting when we finally have some information about the circumstances surrounding the resignations.

[Risso]

However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.

It certainly is, particularly if your idea of a good job is finishing no higher than 6th after spending £120M.

As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.

You don't seem to understand the concept of net spend.  Yes their squad cost more, but then they've also had an awful lot of high profile sales as well.

Totally irrelevant other than from an accountants point of view.

Redknapp has a squad of players to choose from that cost £190m to assemble.

Our manager, when he finally arrives, will have a squad of players to choose from that cost £109m to assemble.

Do you not understand? They have a stronger squad than us as they've spent more on it because whereas we've only been investing for 4 years they've been at it for much longer.

Just because you don't understand the concept of "net spend", doesn't make it irrelevant I'm afraid. 

If we were to sell Ashley Young and Agbonlahor for say, £40m, and went out and spent the same amount on Darren Bent and Lennon, we'd be no better off player wise, but we'd have £40m in our amount spent column.  Using your limited understanding of the situation, because we'd spent £40m, we should automatically be better off, when of course we'd have two very similar players.  That's why "net spend" is relevant.

[hilts_coolerking]

He is all mouth; a horrible, hypocritical individual. Why you admire him so highly is mystifying.

We're going round in circles now but I think that you know your gushing praise for him was over the top but don't have the balls to admit it so will carry on trying to justify the ludicrous idea that getting 4th place with a team that cost almost £200m to assemble is working wonders. Whether it's better than O'Neill did is neither here nor there; the fact is that it is not the sort of astounding, earth shattering achievement you are trying to convince us it is. I think that's something only the most one-eyed Spurs fan would agree with.

On the contrary, I think he deserves all the praise he gets. Which is probably why he got the Manager of the Year award. And equally on the contrary, you know that your fawning admiration for such a limited manager as O'Neill was way over the top and rather than come out and say you totally misjudged him, what you do instead is denigrate the achievements of those who have achieved more in a shorter time. 

It's mystifying that you still think O'Neill did a wonderful job at Villa and yet decry Redknapp for doing precisely what it was beyond O'Neill's abilities to do.

And while we're on the subject of horrible hypocritical individuals, how would you describe a manager who is quoted as saying "It's not in my nature to down tools", before quitting his job and leaving Villa in an extremely awkward situation five days before the start of a new season?

[ronshirt]

Mr X lives in a four bedroomed house which cost £1m. He bought it with the proceeds of the sale of his previous house which he sold for £999,950. So his new house cost £50.

Mr Y lives in a tent that cost £50.

[KevinGage]

And again, the accumulated value of the squad 'arry inherited measured purely on transfer fees alone isn't a barometer of how good that side was.

[Villa'Zawg]

Why isn't the accumuated value a good barometer of the quality of the squad?

[KevinGage]

How much did the squad that relegated Newcastle cost?

[Shrek]

If you are gonna talk about why Harry and Martin's net spend shouldn't you take into account the 30million Harry will recoup via CL?

After all he achieved what we were all trying for.

[Risso]

Why isn't the accumuated value a good barometer of the quality of the squad?

You cunningly missed out the word "alone" there.  Because there a number of other factors that should be taken into account.

[KevinGage]

If the previous manager had made good use of the funds available chances are 'arry wouldn't have taken over a side scraping about at the arse end of the table. Or taken over at all.

So the spend under previous managers -whilst not being completely irrelevant- doesn't automatically ensure that Redknapp had a head start when he took over.