5% Villa- Oliver Holt Interview

[Villa'Zawg]

I heard we were going to focus on reducing wages and I've seen that happen since. What's that if it isn't large-scale economies?

"I heard" isn't fact, it's gossip.
I haven't seen a significant reduction in the wage bill beyond getting rid of players who hardly played, those on free transfers and Ashley Young who we had no chance of keeping once Man Utd came calling. As we do not yet know their replacements you cannot say we are making "large-scale economies, that is just your own spin on limited evidence.
Besides, we needed to make some savings as, by figures you yourself have provided, we were spending an untenable percentage of our income on wages.

Fact - O'Neill walked out five days before the season started.

That's it, no other facts, the rest is conjecture.

I "heard" it from the General and then I witnessed those players I listed leaving the club, bringing in £40-£50m in transfers fees and taking maybe £15m per year off the wage bill. I'd categorise that as significant and in comparison to investing an average of £20m per year as was done in the first 4 years, I'd categorise that as large-scale economies.

The figures I have posted show that our wage bill was at the bottom of the scale for a top six PL team and that the part of the business that was under performing and out of kilter with comparable clubs was not our wage bill but our revenue, in particular our commercial revenue.

I agree with you that the only thing we know about O'Neill leaving is that it happened, which is why I find it ridiculous that people insist that they know it was an act of petulance and there were no extenuating circumstances.

[Ger Regan]

Those players left over the course of 3 transfer windows. You make it sound as if they all left within a week of each other, and we didn't make an effort to keep any of them, or that no other players came in in the meantime. Also, only 3 of them could be classed as first team regulars. All 3 of which wanted to leave, and were not pushed.

[dave.woodhall]

During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.

[Lambert and Payne]

He is at least open about his sources, allowing you to judge for yourself.

You may prefer innuendo, but you'd be mistaken if you thought everyone else the same as you.

The nightclub in Evesham? That's a bit presumptuous, as I've never been.

Blathering on about facts and then regularly citing half arse  economics from such esteemed websites as Swiss Butter Mountain or whatever it was might raise questions about ones credibility just a tad, wouldn't you agree?

Its not innuendo anymore its marylins, mazza's if your cool 

Thing is none of us really know what's happened, the only fact as Dave said, he walked out 5 days before the season started, if that wasn't to cause maximum disruption then I don't know what it was for. His position was hardly untenable, the money was clearly there, the Ireland deal proves that, the Bannan comments also show something else was going on

[Greg N'Ash]

During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.

Villadawg omitting a fact that totally skewers his arguement you say? Never!

[Villa'Zawg]

During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.

That seems a bit disingenuous seeing as I was answering your direct question as to which players had left since O'Neill. Feel free to make your own case that there hasn't been any large-scale economies from the regime where they were investing an average of £20m per season.

[Greg N'Ash]

but with those names you list as leaving since last summer, with the arrival of Ireland, Makoun and Bent its hardly a massive cut back is it? Half the ones that left were deadwood or coming to the end of their careers anyway

[dave.woodhall]

During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.

That seems a bit disingenuous seeing as I was answering your direct question as to which players had left since O'Neill. Feel free to make your own case that there hasn't been any large-scale economies from the regime where they were investing an average of £20m per season.

I asked which players had been sold. Four of the eight you mentioned came to the end of their contracts and at least one of those has been offered new terms. That leaves another four, of which two asked to move and another two were fringe first team players at best.

All you're doing is emphasising the belief that Martin O'Neill walked out because he couldn't get his own way anymore.

[hilts_coolerking]

I can see that there was a realisation that we had to be more prudent, particularly in respect of salaries, but I really don't see what was so unreasonable or intolerable that O'Neill felt the only course of action left open to him was to walk out five days before the new season taking all his staff with him and leaving the club in the lurch at a critical time.  Not to mention his seeming lack of respect for the club staff and players with whom he had worked over the past four years, or the supporters.

If there was something completely unreasonable or intolerable which made him do that, I've yet to hear any suggestion of what it might have been.

[Villa'Zawg]

During the period you use to show how O'Neill's position became so untenable, you conveniently omit the small matter of a smashed transfer record.

That seems a bit disingenuous seeing as I was answering your direct question as to which players had left since O'Neill. Feel free to make your own case that there hasn't been any large-scale economies from the regime where they were investing an average of £20m per season.

I asked which players had been sold. Four of the eight you mentioned came to the end of their contracts and at least one of those has been offered new terms. That leaves another four, of which two asked to move and another two were fringe first team players at best.

All you're doing is emphasising the belief that Martin O'Neill walked out because he couldn't get his own way anymore.

I don't know why he left and unlike you, I don't pretend to know why he left

It was you that wanted to talk about whether or not there have been large-scale economies. I think the facts based on players in/out suggest there have been, in terms of both transfer spending and wages.

If I'm wrong, McLeish has a huge transfer pot and I'll happily admit I was wrong come the end of the transfer window.

[Greg N'Ash]

I'm struggling to work out how any of the departures would cause MON to leave even if most of them going wouldn't have been an issue at the time he left.

Milner - agreed to flog him, it was quite clear in his media utterances that MON wasn't demanding he stay
Davies - he never played him, why would he be upset?
NRC - ditto
Sidwell - never more than a sub
Carew - regularly dropped or mysteriously 'injured' At best entering veteran stage.
Osbourne - !!?

Friedel - he wasn't exactly young when he joined. He's gone out to pasture now as at best a stop-gap, at worse a reserve.

I just can't see the loss of any of them would force MON to walk out. Anyone?

[dave.woodhall]

I don't know why he left and unlike you, I don't pretend to know why he left

It was you that wanted to talk about whether or not there have been large-scale economies. I think the facts based on players in/out suggest there have been, in terms of both transfer spending and wages.

If I'm wrong, McLeish has a huge transfer pot and I'll happily admit I was wrong come the end of the transfer window.

For someone who goes on so much about how "facts are sacred" you don't half stretch them. I've never said I know why he left. I know he did so at a time that could appear to have been inspired by malice, behaving in a way that caused maximum inconvenience. Why he did so is something I have no idea about. I've left it to others to infer that he did so because his working conditions had been made intolerable.

The "facts" you use in evidence are, indeed, compelling. Unfortunately for you, they undermine your case. When you're having to bring up the likes of Osbourne, Davies and Sidwell as evidence of the sort of economies that would make O'Neill's job impossible, you really are on dodgy ground. You missed out Salifou and a handful of reserves as well so I'll add them for you. Now let's look at the other side, namely Darren Bent. I would hardly say that such a purchase is the act of a club whose manager had been told he had to make so many economies he couldn't do his job properly. 

[Eigentor]

Mere guesswork, no facts: MON spelt the whole summer sulking with pre-season preparations suffering massively as a result. Before the season he realised that he wasn't up for it, and that his reputation could take a hit if he went into the season with a half-arsed attitude. So he quit, not because the timing would cause maximum inconvenience for the club, but because it took him so much time to realise that he wasn't interested in doing the job anymore.

[Villa'Zawg]

I don't know why he left and unlike you, I don't pretend to know why he left

It was you that wanted to talk about whether or not there have been large-scale economies. I think the facts based on players in/out suggest there have been, in terms of both transfer spending and wages.

If I'm wrong, McLeish has a huge transfer pot and I'll happily admit I was wrong come the end of the transfer window.

For someone who goes on so much about how "facts are sacred" you don't half stretch them. I've never said I know why he left. I know he did so at a time that could appear to have been inspired by malice, behaving in a way that caused maximum inconvenience. Why he did so is something I have no idea about. I've left it to others to infer that he did so because his working conditions had been made intolerable.

The "facts" you use in evidence are, indeed, compelling. Unfortunately for you, they undermine your case. When you're having to bring up the likes of Osbourne, Davies and Sidwell as evidence of the sort of economies that would make O'Neill's job impossible, you really are on dodgy ground. You missed out Salifou and a handful of reserves as well so I'll add them for you. Now let's look at the other side, namely Darren Bent. I would hardly say that such a purchase is the act of a club whose manager had been told he had to make so many economies he couldn't do his job properly. 

Hold on a moment.

I've never argued that he left because of economies, you brought that up. I just pointed out that there does appear to have been a step change in the level of investment. Regardless of your opinion as to the quality of the players who have left, the economics remain the same.

Again, I think you're being disingenuous in suggesting you haven't implied that the fault lies absolutely and solely with O'Neill, of course you have.

For my part, I don't have any difficulty in imaging that Paul Faulkner misjudged something and made O'Neill's position untenable. On that basis, until I learn more about what happened, I'm willing to give O'Neill the benefit of the doubt.

[Eigentor]

For my part, I don't have any difficulty in imaging that Paul Faulkner misjudged something and made O'Neill's position untenable.

That won't explain why MON reportedly sulked all summer. The little we know suggest that the relationship between MON and the board steadily deteriorated, not that there was a single incident that made his position untenable.