Houllier confirms Ireland wants to leave!

[dave.woodhall]

This "manager after the transfer window closed" idea. It also meant we couldn't get rid of anyone, which tends to blow the theory away.

[Toronto Villa]

bloody hell. I'm struggling to follow who's saying what. Milner wanted out. He got his wish. He could have stated he wanted to stay before or after MON bolted. He didn't. MON's gone, we've got Houllier, our team is sitting in the lower half of the league, and Milner's a reserve at Man City. At this moment, nobody's significantly better off.

[pauliewalnuts]

This "manager after the transfer window closed" idea. It also meant we couldn't get rid of anyone, which tends to blow the theory away.

Ironically, being discussed on a thread about Stephen Ireland - a player we took as part payment for another player rather than cash only, which is what you'd expect from a club who were all about reining in the money.

[Eigentor]

If I remember correctly, he was holding out for a 'loyalty' payment or bonus of some sort?

According to the Irish press, they awarded him £1.5m but the contract contained a confidentiality clause. Man City has since withheld the payment because they claim he slagged them off in an interview and our Stevie is suing them for the £1.5m.

That's why he's not playing very well - he's got money worries.

His banks are insolvent.

[Villa'Zawg]

hmmm. i think we're on about the ones from the 22 July.

Speaking at a press conference ahead of Villa's friendly with Bohemians in Dublin on Saturday, O'Neill confirmed Milner had rejected the chance to stay at Villa Park.

He said: "I had a conversation with James before the World Cup and he intimated that he'd like to go.

"City made an offer but it did not meet our valuation. I'm sure matters will be resolved soon. James is back next week having had an extended holiday."

The ones where Milner denied any knowledge of the conversation and reportably tried to phone MON to find out what was happening

Ah yes, July 22nd – First day of pre-season training

Martin O’Neill gives radio interview where he says that Milner intimated he wanted to leave and that we’d have to sell to buy some players.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8846298.stm

Later that same day Pelty had his little meltdown…

July 22, 2010, 07:22:44 PM »

This was pathetic. MON needs to stop whinging about how hard life is and set about improving the team (and, concurrently, not wasting money on the wages of players that never sniff the pitch). If there were a sell-to-buy policy (which there is not), then he would only have himself to blame for the exorbitant wages spent on horrible players. The top wage earner at the club is Emile Heskey. Whose fault is that, I wonder? He has had plenty of money at his disposal and used it on a fair amount of garbage (not in total, of course, but his record in this is only so-so). He is fickle in his player selection and then, when he settles on a side, he runs it into the ground. Further, he has proved himself incapable of identifying talent outside of the country and thus is force to pay these higher wages; again, his fault. This whole moan would be laughable if it were not so infuriating.

And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??) The General confirms that we are getting to grips with the wages and have to sell some players.

« on: July 22, 2010, 07:26:55 PM »
General Krulak here:

1.  Sorry for being off the site...your "military star and illustrious fan" is back...and I didn't take the comment as sarcastic but, rather, as an indication that I am first and foremost a fan.

2.  I know that I have mentioned on more than one occasion that we need to understand that all Premiership Clubs...yes, all football clubs...are a business.  Revenue and expenditures need to make sense.  One of the issues we face, and we have talked about it before and so has MON and others is the issue of the on-going wage bill.  This issue needs to be kept in perspective and needs to be understood.  It is not just the cost of the transfer...it is the on-going wages.  If you don't get that right, you cannot adequately pay your good players much less go onto the market and get new ones.  What we see right now is the Club getting a handle on the wage side of the house.  This is no different than what we have done once before.  This means we have to sell some players...no different than most Premiership Clubs...you see them doing it all the time.  Randy has NOT lost his passion for the Club or has he lost his vision of the goal he has always set for the Villa.  He has spent more time in the UK in the last 2 months than he has ever done before...he has been focused on the Club and has been working closely with MON.  As always, I am NOT going to get into a discussion of transfers BUT I will say that everyone needs to cool down a bit and see what happens.

I think Martin O’Neill’s “crime” was letting the cat out of bag.

"From the same IP address?" - Christ almighty, you really need to get over this paranoid obsession you have with this. As for accusing anyone of having a meltdown over it, there's only one person you could level that accusation at, and it is you.

I'm not obsessed with it but as I've said before, I do though think it was an important day. It was Pelty (and Greg) who brought up the issues from 22nd July, if we're going to discuss it we may as well deal with the full facts.

[Chris Smith]

Ireland has been a massive disappointment since coming here - to do with attitude, rather than talent, but a disappointment nonetheless.

I can't help thinking that the same people who are now moaning that we signed him without a manager would have been moaning if we'd signed nobody (and in some cases are the very same people who are suggesting that we didn't appoint a manager until after the window closed in order to save money).

Lose - lose.

I didn't want Ireland when we were first linked with him so I don't see how you can back up that claim. I just don't accept the assertion earlier in this thread that we had no choice in the matter. I feel that the board went through with it because they thought it would give them a bit os positive publicity at a time when it was in short supply (it still is). I can see why the did it even though it has turned out to have been a very poor decsion as it is clear he does not suit Houlliers's methods.

[Toronto Villa]

The Ireland deal was struck before Houllier was appointed. There was no way it could have been done the other way around. I agree with Chris, that at the time the Ireland piece of the deal did make a lot of sense from a PR standpoint, and for most of us was exactly the type of player we'd been crying out for. Hindsight has taught us that this has been as big a mistake as the Curcic deal was all those years back. I imagine that had Houllier been around at the time, he may have made a very strong case against taking Ireland if he truly felt that that type of player wasn't something he was looking for. Even then, I think we would have taken him based on what the player could potential offer us.

[lovejoy]

i remember when Ireland sign there were those posting here that we was a fanstastic player and we'd done the best out of the deal. Where are you? The problem with an online forum is everyone is wise after the fact and those who were wrong just hide for a while. Few if any have the balls to come on and say they were wrong and better people than them are running things.
I guess my point is we can pick holes in what those who are running things have done without ever having to face up to the errors of our views.

[Risso]

And less than 5 minutes later (from the same IP address??)

I think it only fair to point out that no, the posts weren't from the same IP address.

[Dribbler]

Personally I don't think Milner asked to leave, but was asked if he wanted to leave after an offer had come in from City that the board thought would be too good to refuse. I don't think MON wanted Milner to leave, but having been told effectively that he would have to sell to buy, knew that he wasn't going to get enough money for what he wanted to do from the players he had left on the fringes for so long. If inded anyone wanted to buy them. So in the end he begrudgingly wanted him to leave so that he could have the money to do what he wanted to do regarding summer transfers.

I think it was a weird situation then where no one actually wanted Milner to leave, even himself, but once the proposition came in, everyone warmed to the idea for their own reasons, Milner because he saw it as a better prospect to win silverware, and of course big wages, the board because of the sums involved, and MON because his plans rested on the money from his sale.

Who is to blame? Not sure anyone is per se, though had MON not got us in to the situation he had regarding finances, I think both he and Milner would possibly still be here today.

That's my theory anyway, just a theory but it seems to fit with all people's versions of events.

Regarding Ireland,  Lovejoy, I still think we go the better end of the deal, £18 million and whatever we get for Ireland when we sell him on, is still a bloody good price for Milner, irrespective of how badly Ireland has played for us. 

[eamonn]

i remember when Ireland sign there were those posting here that we was a fanstastic player and we'd done the best out of the deal. Where are you? The problem with an online forum is everyone is wise after the fact and those who were wrong just hide for a while. Few if any have the balls to come on and say they were wrong and better people than them are running things.
I guess my point is we can pick holes in what those who are running things have done without ever having to face up to the errors of our views.

I'm here. I really thought we'd got the best out of the deal and was annoyed when Chris Smith consistently argued the contrary. There's still time for it to work out here for Ireland, and Milner is hardly pulling up trees at Wastelands.
But unfortunately, it looks increasingly likely that Smudger knew best on this one.

[Legion]

I cannot see Ireland having any future at our club.

[PeterWithe]

This "manager after the transfer window closed" idea. It also meant we couldn't get rid of anyone, which tends to blow the theory away.

Didn't Shorey leave during the period we had no manager?

[VillaAlways]

This "manager after the transfer window closed" idea. It also meant we couldn't get rid of anyone, which tends to blow the theory away.

Didn't Shorey leave during the period we had no manager?

WBA confirmed his signing on the 9th August the same day that MON left

[JUAN PABLO]

No, I'm sure you're right greg. Milner wanted to stay here and it was just O'Neill trying to get him out.

Which is why Milner is now at Manchester City in spite of O'Neill leaving.

I'm sure that you're right and that he did deny having that conversation - I'm struggling to find anything on Google about Milner's comments on the above - could you remind me of what he said?

Milner wanted out of Villa as soon as Mancity wanted him. Fact...   he double his wage. Fact