5% Villa- Oliver Holt Interview

[pauliewalnuts]

*looks up*

I love this site. It doesn't half make me laugh.

[Sexual Ealing]

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 arsed 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?

As I said, he lets you know where his information's from. You choose to deigrate it, which is up to you.

There are several millions of pounds in unspoken settlements that indicate that he may be nearer the mark than you, Mr W. and gregnash when it comes to what's happened over the last year or so.

As the above looks a bit too much like the innuendo I complained of earlier, let me just confirm that anything I have written is nothing more than conjecture, based on a personal hunch.

I can't be bothered to read obscure blogs, or to pretend that I know or knew the mind of any of our departed managers.

Everything he had done, or will do, has to be judged against that. 

I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).

Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?

[dave.woodhall]

I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).

Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?

If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?

[Sexual Ealing]

I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).

Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?

If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?

I would imagine that a court of law probably wouldn't care whether or not a manager has ever lost a tribunal. This wasn't a court of law, why cave so quickly if he didn't have a case?

I'd rather buy McGeady than Michael Mansfield.

[Sexual Ealing]

I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).

Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?

If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?

And, incidentally, 'he did a very convincing impression' is innuendo.

Why don't you just say what you know?

[Greg N'Ash]

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 arsed 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?

As I said, he lets you know where his information's from. You choose to deigrate it, which is up to you.

There are several millions of pounds in unspoken settlements that indicate that he may be nearer the mark than you, Mr W. and gregnash when it comes to what's happened over the last year or so.

As the above looks a bit too much like the innuendo I complained of earlier, let me just confirm that anything I have written is nothing more than conjecture, based on a personal hunch.

I can't be bothered to read obscure blogs, or to pretend that I know or knew the mind of any of our departed managers.

Everything he had done, or will do, has to be judged against that. 

I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).

Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?

why did he not go down the route of the villa historian then if he was so badly treated? All have been out in the open and we'd all make up our own mind. Or mebbe he was worried it wouldn't paint him in a very good light?

[Sexual Ealing]

He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.

[Dave Cooper please]

My opinions are balanced by the facts that the support them. Where's the balance in yours?

Your opinions are backed by your interpretation of the facts as you see them, same as everybody else on here.

My opinions are based on an acceptance of the facts. That isn't the same as everybody else on here.

No, your interpretation of the facts as you see them.
There is also the question of where you get the facts that you use to put over your viewpoint from, after all one paper (or website)'s fact is another paper (or website)'s load of made up bollocks.

[pauliewalnuts]

I don't really care too much what was said in the tribunal, the thing I will remember is the casual abandon with which the egotistical gobshite shat on us as supporters and the impact it had on producing a year (and counting) of utter bollocks.

[Greg N'Ash]

He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.

oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.

[dave.woodhall]

I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).

Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?

If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?

And, incidentally, 'he did a very convincing impression' is innuendo.

Why don't you just say what you know?

I know he left five days before the season started, taking his entire backroom staff with him. What I don't know is why some people seem to bend over backwards to take his side against that of the team they support.

[Sexual Ealing]

He didn't have to - we paid him straight off.

oh so you're saying it was all about the money then? well at least we agree on something.

No, I'm saying it looks like he thought he had a case for constructive dismissal. And it looks like the PL tribunal and the board of AVFC agreed with him.

[pauliewalnuts]

The board agreed with him? I doubt it, somehow.

Parties enter into LMA tribunals with a commitment to abide by the findings. To suggest the board agreed because they paid up us to misunderstand the way the tribunals work.

[Sexual Ealing]

I wasn't suggesting that you don't believe that, only that you might be wrong to see things in those terms. Unless, obviously, you've got any evidence to the contrary (thet he left when he did to be vindictive).

Greg, he didn't actually sue Villa - it was a Premier League tribunal. What the fuck are the board doing paying compensation out if he doesn't have a case?

If he didn't leave to be vindictive, he did a very convincing impression. Has a manager ever lost a tribunal?

And, incidentally, 'he did a very convincing impression' is innuendo.

Why don't you just say what you know?

I know he left five days before the season started, taking his entire backroom staff with him. What I don't know is why some people seem to bend over backwards to take his side against that of the team they support.

In the absence of any evidence or indication of the background to the incident, what I don't know is why seemingly rational people seem to bend over backwards to see a conspiracy and/or malice in a decision that could have happened for innumerable reasons - morally good, bad or irrelevant.

[Sexual Ealing]

The board agreed with him? I doubt it, somehow.

Parties enter into LMA tribunals with a commitment to abide by the findings. To suggest the board agreed because they paid up us to misunderstand the way the tribunals work.

Apologies, you're right. It seems the board didn't have enough confidence that their refutal would hold up in a court of law.