O'Neill talks about Villa

[Chris Smith]

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.

The General said explicitly, not cryptically, that MON had agreed to the policy of reducing the wage bill at the start of the summer but then just before the fall out had changed his stance. The club had failed to sell the players that they had been trying to and the obvious conclusion is that the manager decided that if we wanted to compete we had to make our signings anyway and Faulkner said no

[JUAN PABLO]

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

only If he pays for the players wages

[Villa'Zawg]

Some people have very short memories, have him back to get us out of trouble? this is the time of year we died in the arse under ONeill, post Cristmas we were always shit. Think hard about the players he ostracised, one in particular never got picked for months and now is a regular in midfield, he had as many fallings out with players as Houllier. Think about the huge wages he paid for wankers we can't get rid of and who never kicked a ball in anger. The wonderful revelation that our new spearhead to lead the revolution at Villa was going to be Marvellous Marlon Harewood. Giving the game away in Europe which i believe started the rot at Villa. He left because he could see the writing on the wall pure and simple and remember he was all set to ditch us to go to Liverpool.

Are you sure? He is suing the Daily Mirror for libel for the story they wrote about him wanting to join Liverpool.

[eastie]

I think mon basically has seen that without being given funds for transfers the club would not progress and therefore decided he couldn't take us on from there- quite understandable in that sense , seems we couldn't move certain players on and reached an impasse, I can see both sides of the story but the timing of his departure was disappointing, had he gone in may it would have been better.

Without huge investment no club is going to break the top 4 , and maybe  mon wasn't prepared to settle for just top 6?

Also the arrival of Faulkner may have taken away some of his control at the club and had an impact on his decision.

[Brend'Watkins]

I think mon basically has seen that without being given funds for transfers the club would not progress and therefore decided he couldn't take us on from there- quite understandable in that sense , seems we couldn't move certain players on and reached an impasse, I can see both sides of the story but the timing of his departure was disappointing, had he gone in may it would have been better.

Without huge investment no club is going to break the top 4 , and maybe  mon wasn't prepared to settle for just top 6?

That could have been written by Oliver Holt himself......making MON ambitious the club less so.

MON's failing was not getting rid of the shit he signed, getting them off the pay roll.  Maybe if he put a bit more effort into this he'd still be here and we'd now be looking to offload MCGeady and Keane in the Summer and get them off the pay roll..

[eastie]

Bren , you can't sell players if nobody will buy them. As is widely known I wanted mon out as I felt he'd taken us as far as he could , I didn't like the football and many of his decisions- in his 4 years he had a chance to spend big money and chase a top 4 place , for whatever reason we failed and it was very hsrd to compete without huge investment last summer.

The financial crash and man city's emergence were unforeseen and maybe randy just could not afford to keep pumping money in as was , it seems they had different views and that was that.

No way can I be called a mon backer but he did a lot of good at the club as well as a lot of bad , he wasn't the ogre some would portray and equally he wasn't the god others would have you believe.
He did a decent job in his time here - not great and not shit!

It was however best for the club that he departed but the mistake was not replacing him with a quality manager.

[JUAN PABLO]

 I was over the moon when we got him and over the moon when he left.   Sums it up for me.

[eastie]

I was over the moon when we got him and over the moon when he left.   Sums it up for me.

Exactly Same here juan Pablo!

[Small Rodent]

If MON had been on the sideline on Saturday we would not have had one of the most uninspiring Villa performances I have seen in nearly 40 years. It was like watching a gang of strangers wearing the shirts as they played without fight or passion

Which says more about the infantile mind of the footballer than anything else.

[Concrete John]

Also the arrival of Faulkner may have taken away some of his control at the club and had an impact on his decision.

I think that had a lot to do with it.  His ego was such that he didn't like being told what he could or couldn't do by a man much younger than him who was new to football. 

[Villa'Zawg]

Also the arrival of Faulkner may have taken away some of his control at the club and had an impact on his decision.

I think that had a lot to do with it.  His ego was such that he didn't like being told what he could or couldn't do by a man much younger than him who was new to football. 

I think O'Neill would have been able to work within financial constraints, I don't think he would have accepted interference in football matters such as which players he could sign within those constraints.

The entire Select Commitee procedures are available online here - Clicky

I can't see much wrong with what he said. He was challenged with "You spent £120m in 4 years at Villa" and responded with "The amount was much less… The figure was closer to £70m"

[Concrete John]

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.

I don't see any loyalty to him being shown here.  What I do see is those you think he did a good job at the club and aren't afraid to say so despite the nature of his departure.  I'm one of them.

Im also of the opinion that the full story of what happened to make him leave is still to be told.  Until then I'll reserve judgement on his character (OK - bit pissed off at the timing!) and defend his record as our manager.   

[Duncan Shaw]

Quote from: Simba on Today at 04:15:56 AM
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.

The General said explicitly, not cryptically, that MON had agreed to the policy of reducing the wage bill at the start of the summer but then just before the fall out had changed his stance. The club had failed to sell the players that they had been trying to and the obvious conclusion is that the manager decided that if we wanted to compete we had to make our signings anyway and Faulkner said no

Further to this, I think he actually touted Milner for a move because he couldn;t sell the others and he was the most sellable asset, therefore the only way of raising funds to buy his targets.  Remebr the press comments where he said Milner had told him he wanted to go?

[Olneythelonely]

What makes me laugh is the bizarre loyalty of some people [/quote]

I think it's sweet, embarrassing but sweet.

[eastie]

Quote from: Simba on Today at 04:15:56 AM
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.

The General said explicitly, not cryptically, that MON had agreed to the policy of reducing the wage bill at the start of the summer but then just before the fall out had changed his stance. The club had failed to sell the players that they had been trying to and the obvious conclusion is that the manager decided that if we wanted to compete we had to make our signings anyway and Faulkner said no

Further to this, I think he actually touted Milner for a move because he couldn;t sell the others and he was the most sellable asset, therefore the only way of raising funds to buy his targets.  Remebr the press comments where he said Milner had told him he wanted to go?

not sure about that , i think milner very much wanted to go and wasnt interested in signing a new deal, therefore it made sense to cash in on him .