O'Neill talks about Villa

[Louzie0]

Wasn't the reason for his public appearance today the fact he'd been asked to give evidence to the House of Commons culture committee on its inquiry into football governance?

Yes. Link.

Yeah, but you know what these Parliamentary committees are like, they've been little more than MON mouthpieces for decades.

I still shudder at the treatment they dished out to Honest Robert Chase after that little bastard, who hasn't even got a Law degree by the way (Ged may be many things but at least his LLB's bought & paid for), did the dirty on him at Norwich in the 90s.

That Jeremy Corbyn's been making sly digs about Cuellar's injury record all season. And don't get me started on that c*** Michael Fabricant and his Historians FC schtick.

It's an anti-Villa conspiracy all right, make no mistake about that.

Brill

[Steve R]

For no particular reason I actually thought we'd paid up his contract, and couldn't understand what else he felt entitled to.

If it is about being paid up in full, maybe the timing of the case comes down to the point at which it became clear to him he would not get gainful employment during the remaining year of his rolling deal - if that is what he had.

Even accepting his own figures (I don't), 72 mill is still a very sizeable sum over 4 years. Especially when you consider that 3 of the 9 transfer windows he was actually at the club yielded little more than just one Petrov. If he's included the Milner money, it looks even worse when compared to what we actually got for the money, and that's before factoring in the total cost of his transfer dealings - mainly wages saved on sales vs wages spent on acquisitions.

[pauliewalnuts]

So actually he was attending an official event and was asked publicly about why he left Villa. He revealled little, did not slag the club off, although some on here want to say that he has deliberately surfaced during a difficult time for the club to seek publicity. Some people are so desperate to call MON names. We have no idea why he left but for some reason people have convinced themselves that he chose a moment to harm a club he'd spent four years building. Get a grip

Yeah, because I'm sure that today was the first time he's been asked about the club. I'm sure it wasn't, but it was the first time he decided to venture an opinion.

What makes me laugh is the bizarre loyalty of some people on here to a man who, when asked to do something all managers are asked to do from time to time - go easy on the spending - flounced out at a time he knew was going to drop us right in it.

How much do you think he gave a flying fuck about us at that point?

My money's on not at all.

[RossLeach]

Surely we'd have him back for 8x games....

[VillaAlways]

Surely we'd have him back for 8x games....

No thanks

[pauliewalnuts]

Surely we'd have him back for 8x games....

Only if we'd decided we had absolutely zero self respect.

Having him back would be even more humiliating than turning to Big Sam to save us.

[BannedUserIAT]

Will Milner, Gillette and Hicks be called to give testimony?

[willywombat]

Surely we'd have him back for 8x games....

I would rather we were definately relegated

[BannedUserIAT]

Now that's being silly.

[placeforparks]

For no particular reason I actually thought we'd paid up his contract, and couldn't understand what else he felt entitled to.

If it is about being paid up in full, maybe the timing of the case comes down to the point at which it became clear to him he would not get gainful employment during the remaining year of his rolling deal - if that is what he had.

i thought he only ever had rolling 1-year deals because of the situation with his wife's illness?

i imagine the club's stance will be that he resigned and therefore forfeited that contract and is entitled to no compensation.

what MON will be arguing for is constructive dismissal - similar to what curbishley did with west ham and won.

[Simba]

it was my understanding based on cryptic comments from General K that the club simply demanded that we reduce the percentage wage bill. It was at about 80% or more of Gross and unsustainable. Add that a number of those expensive assets were never utilised and the club have a point.

MON wouldn't comply and that caused the impasse.

I think the Club ( decent minutes of the meeting I hope) have a strong enough case to defeat a constructive dismissal case.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

Wasn't the reason for his public appearance today the fact he'd been asked to give evidence to the House of Commons culture committee on its inquiry into football governance?

Yes. Link.

From that link I see O'Neill was givng evidence to a parliamentary committee in somewhere called Thatcher room.
Next week, Steve Hodge and David O'Leary talk about their times at Villa from the site of Hitler's bunker.

[eastie]

Mon didn't have to make any comment on villa at all, he chose to reveal his spending in at attempt to make it clear he felt it had been greatly exaggerated and even at £72 net it has been shown that in his 4 years only man city and chelsea spent more than him.

[Phil from the upper holte]

So actually he was attending an official event and was asked publicly about why he left Villa. He revealled little, did not slag the club off, although some on here want to say that he has deliberately surfaced during a difficult time for the club to seek publicity. Some people are so desperate to call MON names. We have no idea why he left but for some reason people have convinced themselves that he chose a moment to harm a club he'd spent four years building. Get a grip

I'd have him back tomorrow - and I'd bet he'd get a huge positive welcome at Villa Park. Won't happen though and nor should it onwards and upwards - or actually downwards and sideways for a while.

Would he bollocks

[DB]

Surely we'd have him back for 8x games....

Only if we'd decided we had absolutely zero self respect.

Having him back would be even more humiliating than turning to Big Sam to save us.

More humiliating than getting relegated?