I think Mark Hughes would be our manager if O'Neil left in May. An appointment I wouldn't have had a problem with. The General himself said they liked Hughes but the timing was wrong due to him being appointed Fulham's new gaffer
Genuine question here - can someone remind me of exactly what the events were when he was heavily linked with Fulham in the summer? From memory it was that he was at least tempted, but they wouldn't pay the release fee, and he wouldn't walk out. Was that have been before their CL qualification? If that is right, then paying his release fee would have been a small price for us given his suitability and our need.
He resigned on December 6th, after having fallen well short in the title race and been knocked out of the Champions League.Maybe we should have just predicted that would happen and waited? If only it were so easy. Surely, though, having said you thought Martin left us in a very strong position, we had something to maintain, so waiting for a manager to become available would have meant throwing away something?It's all so easy isn't it, this football chairman lark. It's the same for (not you) the people screaming "sack Houllier now!". Not one of them has put forward a compelling plan re what we do next.
Quote from: Holte L2 on December 29, 2010, 04:29:03 PMI think Mark Hughes would be our manager if O'Neil left in May. An appointment I wouldn't have had a problem with. The General himself said they liked Hughes but the timing was wrong due to him being appointed Fulham's new gafferwhen did the General say they liked Hughes? Wouldn't that have been picked up by the press had he actually pinpointed a specific person, especially as that person was in another job at the time? I think there was a good chance we'd have got Hughes, but he's hardly pulling up any trees at Fulham is he?
I wonder how many of the same posters now telling us we should have just gone out and magicked up the best manager they can name really quickly, like it was a video game, are the same ones who used to tell those of us who complained that MON was slow to get moving in the transfer market, "it's not that easy you know, it's not a video game"?
Quote from: toronto villa on December 29, 2010, 04:32:51 PMQuote from: Holte L2 on December 29, 2010, 04:29:03 PMI think Mark Hughes would be our manager if O'Neil left in May. An appointment I wouldn't have had a problem with. The General himself said they liked Hughes but the timing was wrong due to him being appointed Fulham's new gafferwhen did the General say they liked Hughes? Wouldn't that have been picked up by the press had he actually pinpointed a specific person, especially as that person was in another job at the time? I think there was a good chance we'd have got Hughes, but he's hardly pulling up any trees at Fulham is he?The General said it online the day of the Vienna away game. It was also picked up by MysteryMan on Villatalk.Hughes is doing a solid job if unspectacular at Fulham. Whoever was going to take over from Hodgson was on a hiding to nothing. He's done with Wales, and at Blackburn and Citeh
Hughes is doing a solid job if unspectacular at Fulham. Whoever was going to take over from Hodgson was on a hiding to nothing. He's done with Wales, and at Blackburn and Citeh
Quote from: Dribbler on December 29, 2010, 03:14:55 PMQuote from: John M on December 29, 2010, 01:27:26 PMQuote from: pauliewalnuts on December 29, 2010, 01:11:38 PMA somewhat cyclical argument, but the very fact that had MON not left when he had, Houllier wouldn't even have been considered for the job, shows that you can't pretend MON's departure had no effect.Sorry, but when MON left none of us were considerign him for the job. It's the way Randy wanted to go so fair enough, but if you jacked your job tomorrow and whoever replaced you was shite, would you accept you were partially to blame for a decision you had no hand in? And with all the arguments about the timing of his departure, lets not forget that the club took their time in finding a new man and didn't jump into anything.Martin left us in a much better state than we are in now, so what had happened since he's gone is simply not his fault. Mmmm how can I put this in a way you might understand. If Father Christmas left his job on Christmas eve, it would be very difficult to replace him in time for the big event, and indeed the choice of stand in Father Christmas would be rather limited too. Whoever came in would find it difficult replacing such a pivotal figure at such a pivotal time even if the picture was rosy and the previous Father Christmas had left things in a great state. Unfortunately things weren't left in a great state, though maybe some that were blinded by the magic of Christmas and the faerie's sparkle thought it was. Now we've all had a bad Christmas because we didn't get the presents we wanted. The new Father Christmas hasn't exactly covered himself in glory, but he hasn't been helped by some of his helpers, and some of his key sleigh pulling reindeer that were meant to help him deliver his presents to us deserving Villa fans, got themselves injured or have gone AWOL. We shouldn't be too harsh on him though, he came in when everything was in full flow and with the wheels just primed to come off the sleigh and he has had very little opportunity to gain any control as the wheels were already in motion. Given the time of his appointment he couldn't even get the mechanics in he wanted to try and fix everything that was wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that most of the causal chains that buggered up Christmas were put in motion long before Christmas and the ones that weren't were ones that the incumbent Father Christmas had no control over. Maybe if he'd had that little bit of magic dust everything would be much better now, though we would be blinded to the underlying reality by that dust, but it's a rare commodity these days, and unfortunately he didn't seem to have it, or enough of it, to have a positive effect. It would be unfair however to blame him for not fixing the mess he inherited considering when he inherited it.The moral of the story? It was MoN that killed Christmas. That is now my favourite xmas story. Makes a lot of sense .............
Quote from: John M on December 29, 2010, 01:27:26 PMQuote from: pauliewalnuts on December 29, 2010, 01:11:38 PMA somewhat cyclical argument, but the very fact that had MON not left when he had, Houllier wouldn't even have been considered for the job, shows that you can't pretend MON's departure had no effect.Sorry, but when MON left none of us were considerign him for the job. It's the way Randy wanted to go so fair enough, but if you jacked your job tomorrow and whoever replaced you was shite, would you accept you were partially to blame for a decision you had no hand in? And with all the arguments about the timing of his departure, lets not forget that the club took their time in finding a new man and didn't jump into anything.Martin left us in a much better state than we are in now, so what had happened since he's gone is simply not his fault. Mmmm how can I put this in a way you might understand. If Father Christmas left his job on Christmas eve, it would be very difficult to replace him in time for the big event, and indeed the choice of stand in Father Christmas would be rather limited too. Whoever came in would find it difficult replacing such a pivotal figure at such a pivotal time even if the picture was rosy and the previous Father Christmas had left things in a great state. Unfortunately things weren't left in a great state, though maybe some that were blinded by the magic of Christmas and the faerie's sparkle thought it was. Now we've all had a bad Christmas because we didn't get the presents we wanted. The new Father Christmas hasn't exactly covered himself in glory, but he hasn't been helped by some of his helpers, and some of his key sleigh pulling reindeer that were meant to help him deliver his presents to us deserving Villa fans, got themselves injured or have gone AWOL. We shouldn't be too harsh on him though, he came in when everything was in full flow and with the wheels just primed to come off the sleigh and he has had very little opportunity to gain any control as the wheels were already in motion. Given the time of his appointment he couldn't even get the mechanics in he wanted to try and fix everything that was wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that most of the causal chains that buggered up Christmas were put in motion long before Christmas and the ones that weren't were ones that the incumbent Father Christmas had no control over. Maybe if he'd had that little bit of magic dust everything would be much better now, though we would be blinded to the underlying reality by that dust, but it's a rare commodity these days, and unfortunately he didn't seem to have it, or enough of it, to have a positive effect. It would be unfair however to blame him for not fixing the mess he inherited considering when he inherited it.The moral of the story? It was MoN that killed Christmas.
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on December 29, 2010, 01:11:38 PMA somewhat cyclical argument, but the very fact that had MON not left when he had, Houllier wouldn't even have been considered for the job, shows that you can't pretend MON's departure had no effect.Sorry, but when MON left none of us were considerign him for the job. It's the way Randy wanted to go so fair enough, but if you jacked your job tomorrow and whoever replaced you was shite, would you accept you were partially to blame for a decision you had no hand in? And with all the arguments about the timing of his departure, lets not forget that the club took their time in finding a new man and didn't jump into anything.Martin left us in a much better state than we are in now, so what had happened since he's gone is simply not his fault.
A somewhat cyclical argument, but the very fact that had MON not left when he had, Houllier wouldn't even have been considered for the job, shows that you can't pretend MON's departure had no effect.
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on December 29, 2010, 04:38:18 PMI wonder how many of the same posters now telling us we should have just gone out and magicked up the best manager they can name really quickly, like it was a video game, are the same ones who used to tell those of us who complained that MON was slow to get moving in the transfer market, "it's not that easy you know, it's not a video game"?The thing is though Paulie they DID take their time. What was it - 6 weeks from MON going to Houllier being appointed?