Houllier confirms Ireland wants to leave!

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The only case I can think of where a club has taken legal action against a player is Chelsea and Adrian Mutu. Despite Chelsea getting the eventual legal support from FIFA, Mutu continued to play in Italy and almost six years since the legal process was started, Chelsea still haven't recieved a penny in compensation. Nor do I think they ever will, despite having the law on their side.

I agree with you Brian but unless bodies like FIFA act swiftly and ban a player from playing for any other club, players will continue to take the piss.

[Dave]

FWIW, I'm not necessarily in agreement with Greg. I think MON's comments were unhelpful and seriously reduced our chances of keeping Milner (he might have left anyway), but that doesn't mean that he had an agenda. As MON were in a state of mind where he could leave the club a few weeks later without thinking too much about the concequences, it is not imconceivable that he made those comments too without thinking too much about the concequences.

Indeed. I have absolutely no doubt that once Milner said that he wanted to leave, O'Neill didn't do much to help matters.

But only someone with a less than stable grip on reality would suggest that Milner wanted to stay with Villa until dastardly Martin O'Neill tried to force him out of the club.

Wouldn't they Greg?

[WikiVilla]

Stephen Ireland is the biggest prick waste of talent since Nigel fucking Callaghan.

Harsh on Nigel, at least he put in a few good games
I've seen nothing from Ireland since he joined, nothing

[lordmcgrath5]

God forbid that employees should have rights.

Morally and ethically at least, if not legally, I don't think you can describe modern day footballers as employees. They inhabit a completely different universe to normal workers. Many are whores and mercenaries, happy to go along with all the shit their agents tell them to add even more to their already stratospheric salaries and bonuses.

[sfx412]

 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.

Why is it so hard  to accept that the club had a deal, formulated between various parties that suited them all, Mon included, supposedly.
Why would we renege on it?
What deep insight would the Board gain on Mon's departure that would allow them to upset an agreed and assumingly signed deal.
From past experience Mon was very thorough in his negotiations and contracts, we've been told he was totally complicent in the deal, so why would the club rock the boat, upset Man City, possibly Milner, the footballing world, just because Mon walked.
Did they have some magical foresight of the current hindsight, I can't see how.
Ireland was a decent bet, a good quality player, and we had a gap in midfield plus a fee. How were the Board to know that Ireland didn't want away, had problems negotiating with City and has subsequently only showed his petulant side, not his talented side to Villa fans. I'm sure the initial managerial insecurity didn't help, especially if Mon was as good at convincing players to play for him as some claim, plus the delay in finding a replacement as he walked and wasn't sacked, plus all the injuries to key players and Houllier's moves to change the club to make it more in his image, may all be a factor too.
Thing is deal was done, job sorted long before most of that all started, how and why could the Board have stopped the deal, unless of cause we have an oracle in the depths of Villa Park.

[Greg N'Ash]

FWIW, I'm not necessarily in agreement with Greg. I think MON's comments were unhelpful and seriously reduced our chances of keeping Milner (he might have left anyway), but that doesn't mean that he had an agenda. As MON were in a state of mind where he could leave the club a few weeks later without thinking too much about the concequences, it is not imconceivable that he made those comments too without thinking too much about the concequences.

Indeed. I have absolutely no doubt that once Milner said that he wanted to leave, O'Neill didn't do much to help matters.

But only someone with a less than stable grip on reality would suggest that Milner wanted to stay with Villa until dastardly Martin O'Neill tried to force him out of the club.

Wouldn't they Greg?

But i never stated Milner wanted to stay at all. I said MON wanted him out probably because he needed the money his transfer would provide and with no-one wanting to buy his mistakes, Milner was the best bet. Look i'm sure in the last 3 or 4 seasons we've had offers for players that haven't been made public but have been discussed by the club and the player involved. Maybe that player has expressed his interest in leaving. The big difference is the manager/club at the time has not then broadcasted it to the general public that the player wants to leave. Once you do that he is going to leave. Now you still haven't answered me why if MON was so keen to keep him did he do that?

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Stephen Ireland is the biggest prick waste of talent since Nigel fucking Callaghan.

Harsh on Nigel, at least he put in a few good games
I've seen nothing from Ireland since he joined, nothing

True.

If my memory serves me right, Callaghan scord on his debut, I think it was a 2-0 win over Sheff Wed.

[Chris Smith]

 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.

Why is it so hard  to accept that the club had a deal, formulated between various parties that suited them all, Mon included, supposedly.
Why would we renege on it?
What deep insight would the Board gain on Mon's departure that would allow them to upset an agreed and assumingly signed deal.
From past experience Mon was very thorough in his negotiations and contracts, we've been told he was totally complicent in the deal, so why would the club rock the boat, upset Man City, possibly Milner, the footballing world, just because Mon walked.
Did they have some magical foresight of the current hindsight, I can't see how.
Ireland was a decent bet, a good quality player, and we had a gap in midfield plus a fee. How were the Board to know that Ireland didn't want away, had problems negotiating with City and has subsequently only showed his petulant side, not his talented side to Villa fans. I'm sure the initial managerial insecurity didn't help, especially if Mon was as good at convincing players to play for him as some claim, plus the delay in finding a replacement as he walked and wasn't sacked, plus all the injuries to key players and Houllier's moves to change the club to make it more in his image, may all be a factor too.
Thing is deal was done, job sorted long before most of that all started, how and why could the Board have stopped the deal, unless of cause we have an oracle in the depths of Villa Park.

The board could have said to Man City " we're going to have a new manager, we're not sure if Stephen Ireland will fit in with his plans so at present we do not wish to pursue his signature".

Milner could still haved had his move if they'd stumped up the cash and we wouldn't be stuck with a flop who we'll more than likely make a loss on.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Does anybody have a dateline of events, as this is like discussing the gender of the angels?

[Chris Smith]

Does anybody have a dateline of events, as this is like discussing the gender of the angels?

MON left around 9th August, Milner plays for us on 14th and moves to Man City on 18th with nut job coming the other way.

As I've said several times, I can understand WHY they did it is the ridiculous assertion that we had no choice in the matter after O'Neill left that I am disputing.

[WikiVilla]

Ireland was just a makeweight as part of the Milner deal. simple as that.
Did we get £26m + Ireland or £18M + Ireland (£8m) ?

[Risso]

It hasn't worked out for Ireland, but I still contend it was a deal worth doing.  The new manager was always going to have a teamful of new players who he didn't know, so I worked on the theory that one more player (and one who was supposed to have that creativity we missed from central midfield) would be better than not having that player.

[JJ-AV]

Ireland was just a makeweight as part of the Milner deal. simple as that.
Did we get £26m + Ireland or £18M + Ireland (£8m) ?

I believe it went through as £26m for Milner, and £8m for Ireland.

Meaning we were left with £18m net and Ireland.

[pauliewalnuts]

I know we miss him an awful lot, and I'd rather have kept the player, and I appreciate the money is no use if you don't use it, but 26 million pounds for  James Milner.

Crikey.

[Villa'Zawg]

It was a shit a deal.

It was shit because Milner was our best player last season
It was shit because it weakened us and strengthened the team that finished 3 points ahead of us
It was shit because Milner was less than half way through his contract
It was shit because it included Stephen "Football Is SHIT Why Did I get Stuck Doin It ..." Ireland
It was shit because of what it said about our ambitions
It was great because the board banked £16,000,000(ish)