Would you have MON back!!

[Dave Clark Five]

Maybe, but O'Neill is still a twat.

[Villa'Zawg]

I wouldn't be happy if they were recommending targets or had a spiv like Silkman at West Ham doing deals above the managers head.

Ultimately it's their (or the Lerner trusts) money though, so they might have a veto on any deal they see as lacking in value.

Ultimately it's his career though, so he might want to resign a job that has become a puppet role.

[old man villa fan]

The bloke has just taken £2million off us for 'constructive dismissal' so he is a non-runner. 

Is that true.  I have only ever seen that MON was happy with the result but there again I could have missed it.  I didn't even know the reason for the legal action.

It has puzzled me why MON has been out of work for so long and this only came up recently.  The only thing I could think of was that as he walked out on a contract, the club were preventing him from taking another job for another year, the same as gardening leave and then MON going to try and get the term reduced so that he could get a new job during the close season.  Also, I thought that, as MON or the club have never come out and said anything direct about his walking out, was due to the club taking action against him.

I never could have imagined that a manager could leave and then take the club to a tribunal for constructive dismissal, presumably for not giving him money for transfers, especially when it would have meant the owner putting his hand in his pocket again.  Together with the fact that, although instructed to cut the wage bill prior to this, was doing just the opposite.

It just goes to show that you can misjudge situations.

In answer to the OP, now f****** way would I have him back.  As much for his decline in his final season and not being able to plan for the future of the club as for his walking out.  When he was appointed I thought he was great but as time went on I saw that he was very limited as a manager.

[Dave Clark Five]

The bloke has just taken £2million off us for 'constructive dismissal' so he is a non-runner. 

Is that true.  I have only ever seen that MON was happy with the result but there again I could have missed it.  I didn't even know the reason for the legal action.

It has puzzled me why MON has been out of work for so long and this only came up recently.  The only thing I could think of was that as he walked out on a contract, the club were preventing him from taking another job for another year, the same as gardening leave and then MON going to try and get the term reduced so that he could get a new job during the close season.  Also, I thought that, as MON or the club have never come out and said anything direct about his walking out, was due to the club taking action against him.

I never could have imagined that a manager could leave and then take the club to a tribunal for constructive dismissal, presumably for not giving him money for transfers, especially when it would have meant the owner putting his hand in his pocket again.  Together with the fact that, although instructed to cut the wage bill prior to this, was doing just the opposite.

It just goes to show that you can misjudge situations.

In answer to the OP, now f****** way would I have him back.  As much for his decline in his final season and not being able to plan for the future of the club as for his walking out.  When he was appointed I thought he was great but as time went on I saw that he was very limited as a manager.

I agree with you about misjudging situations. It can only have been malicious gossip about the constructive dismissal thing. He could never have convinced any tribunal as they are not impressed by dwarfs who cannot look anyone in the eye.

[KevinGage]

I wouldn't be happy if they were recommending targets or had a spiv like Silkman at West Ham doing deals above the managers head.

Ultimately it's their (or the Lerner trusts) money though, so they might have a veto on any deal they see as lacking in value.

Ultimately it's his career though, so he might want to resign a job that has become a puppet role.

So the big horrible Randy Lerner said  a rare 'no' to Martin the Magnificent and the the latter was right to flounce off? Is that about the size of it?

Owners say no to purchases all the time, Redknapp often expressed his frustration with Levy last summer. Moyes probably knows a thing or two about the scenario also.

In fact, I can't think of too many clubs that would approve every single deal a manager puts forward, even the nouveau riche lot probably have some form of quality control occasionally.

[mr woo]

Of all the available managers on the market he's probably the one that (I mean this seriously) virtually guarantees you a boost in the playing staff you have at your disposal. His infectious enthusiasm, his high profile, his track record of polishing turds, his tried and tested backroom staff all points to a bright and trophy-laden future.
A club like ours, seemingly going backwards, with best players leaving and fans restless, should snap him up in an instant.


Mind you, if the c*** came crawling back on his hands and knees begging forgiveness, I'd stamp on his fingers.




And spear his dog.

[atomicjam]

I would rather negotiate Spaghetti Junction on a pogo stick than have MON back.

[Ger Regan]

what would you say if he was given a budget to spend (subject to the sale of Milner), chose to spend it on McGeady and was knocked back by the board on the basis that they didn't think it was the right player to sign?

Still no reason to leave 5 days before the season. If McGeady was his target, then surely MON would have informed the board at the start of pre-season, so by your version of events they waited until the very last minute to say no? Do you really believe that? And where has this version come from by the way?

My understanding of things is that there couldn't be any signings until some of the deadwood was moved on to free up wages, irrespective of the milner sale.

[Greg N'Ash]

they agreed to buy Ireland just before MON left. While i'm willing to believe in theory that Lerner suddenly pulled the plug on MON's transfer funding, I find it very hard to believe he would agree to spend that amount of money if his manager had given any indication that he was so unhappy he was going to walk out.

[KevinGage]

If you think about it at the time, the deals that were widely touted -plus the ones that actually went through- would have had the effect of increasing an already bloated wage bill substantially.

Milner £40K - out

Ireland £65K - in
McGeady £40-60K in
Keane £60 K in

We had already gone over budget in 2009. This is only speculation on my part, but what if RL had flagged is concerns to MON as far back as then but agreed to go over budget on the understanding that players would be moved on in Jan and the following summer?

Maybe MON intended to move players on, or maybe he was just paying RL lipservice and gambled on the prospect that RL would once again relent. Regardless -and as we've seen with the the accounts- could RL really afford to let the thing get even further out of hand?

[Dante Lavelli]

I've dipped in and out of this thread and not read all the comments, but if this was a poll what do we think the result would be?

I'd guess:

Yes 25%
No 75%

although its quite confusing as Gastonilla seems to post a lot with a positive view so he might have been double/triple counted.

[Gaztonniller]

It won't happen, but it is a yes for me. Dream world stuff really.

But,

 I'm amazed that everyone still holds MON 100% to blame for his departure and Randy 0%. We dont know the details behind his decision, but what we do know now is that he took the club to arbitration for unfair dismissal and was awarded a sum of money. The matter wouldnt have got to that stage if he didny have a case, which means that Randy/the board did something which he (and an arbitrator) felt he could not continue. We can only speculate what that was, most likely transfer money. For the record, I think he was wrong to walk out, he should have stayed one more year. I just  dont get the vitriol levied at him, when Randy gets off scot free in most fans eyes.

 There will never be agreement about his time here, but some of the stuff posted is ridiculous. The fact is he did spend quite a lot of money, but what people seem to forget that he only spent an amount to try keep up with the big boys, not surpass them, which is what he did. To get to the next level we needed more investment. City have shown us this year the investment needed. We could talk all night about the individual signings and let people be as selective as they wish but the fact of the matter is as a whole his signings improved us greatly and brought us to the brink of Champions League football.

                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
jonzy85
first team
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1819

It won't happen, but it is a yes for me. Dream world stuff really.

But,

 I'm amazed that everyone still holds MON 100% to blame for his departure and Randy 0%. We dont know the details behind his decision, but what we do know now is that he took the club to arbitration for unfair dismissal and was awarded a sum of money. The matter wouldnt have got to that stage if he didny have a case, which means that Randy/the board did something which he (and an arbitrator) felt he could not continue. We can only speculate what that was, most likely transfer money. For the record, I think he was wrong to walk out, he should have stayed one more year. I just  dont get the vitriol levied at him, when Randy gets off scot free in most fans eyes.

 There will never be agreement about his time here, but some of the stuff posted is ridiculous. The fact is he did spend quite a lot of money, but what people seem to forget that he only spent an amount to try keep up with the big boys, not surpass them, which is what he did. To get to the next level we needed more investment. City have shown us this year the investment needed. We could talk all night about the individual signings and let people be as selective as they wish but the fact of the matter is as a whole his signings improved us greatly and brought us to the brink of Champions League football.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is why i just like reading H&V; Two very rational and objective posts that not many can argue with.
And in addition i'd add that as said above the details of MON leaving still aint really known as he has kept silent so most of the tirade against him does seem based on just speculation without anyone really knowing the true facts.   

[Gaztonniller]

I agree they were good signings Holtenderinthesky, but my point is that GV claimed MoN should be considered as manager again partly because of his signings. Milner was an obvious one we would all have made after his loan spell. So that really leaves only AY as talent spotted and it was obvious he had something at Watford, fair play it was us who stumped up the cash.

But the amount we spunked on fees and wages under MoN far outweighs the profit we will make on those 2, or even 3 if we sell Downing.

(Milner was an obvious one we would all have made after his loan spell. So that really leaves only AY as talent spotted and it was obvious he had something at Watford, fair play it was us who stumped up the cash.)

It was so abvious that other scouts/pundits who may have been watching at the time didnt stick their neck out to sign him. Again the facts are that MON also saw the potential (as with AY) and signed him up before any other club manager.   And in the case of AY, remember when the 9 mill transfer fee was mention some on here (inc myself) questioned RL/MON paying such a high fee at the time. Guess who have now been proven to be right?

So we're agreed then, Milner needed no scouting as he'd already spent a year at the Villa, AY was an obvious talent and thanks to RL we had the money to pay for them. And as i've said, their profit will help recoup some of the money we lost on Sidwell, Davis, Harewood etc.
Or you can choose to ignore the millions we lost on dud signings and pretend their profit paid for Bent. You may prefer to look only at his 2 or 3 signings that we'd make a profit on, I prefer to look at the bigger picture.

Id prefer to look at the FULL picture that being; consistent results that got the club into the europe and got players doing so well that they got into the international reckoning & club getting to wembley for the first time in ages.
And name a manager who has a 100% record of successful signings?   

[Gaztonniller]

Milner is the only player MON signed who you can say we made a massive profit on. But then if DOL had the money we'd have probably have signed him earlier for half what we paid. Of the rest, Downing looks the only other one. Young, we'll be lucky to make 5m on him. Looking at our squad minus them 3, there's no-one bought in by MON who's a major asset.. Overall if you work out how much Cahill is worth now, then the whole MON period was a massive waste of resources, with nothing much to show a year later than old men, duds, Houllier's buys and our promising youth squad

GN; if anybody on here says they're in complete agreement with this, i'll be absolutely jaw droppingly staggerred and pass me the earwax.

[Ross]

Maybe.  We've signed the striker he never would, and he maybe able to build a decent team now as a result!