5% Villa- Oliver Holt Interview

[Greg N'Ash]

Okay. we'll all agree that he was still a complete shit to leave us when he did and no-one with any professionalism whatever the provocation would do that. That is at least fact.

[Sexual Ealing]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.

You're confusing yourself, you poor love.

If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.

Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.

who said his contract was breached?? we don't know that... you're just making this up as you go along.

I think you need to acquaint yourself with the word 'if'.

[Villa'Zawg]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.

Maybe his motives aren't the same as you interpret them to be and perhaps he got exactly what he wanted when he embarked on the legal arguments?

[Greg N'Ash]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.

Maybe his motives aren't the same as you interpret them to be and perhaps he got exactly what he wanted when he embarked on the legal arguments?

yep money. because he certainly didn't get his grievances aired beyond the tribunal. Thats the only reasons there are - money or getting the facts known

[Ger Regan]

Those defending MON's argument might be a bit stronger were it not for the fact that it wasn't the first time that he shat on a club from a great height. Quitting Norwich the morning of a game due to a disagreement with the chairman over a transfer is high up there on the list of things that shouldn't be done by apparently decent and honourable managers. How this can be discounted by some when looking at his exit from villa is beyond me.

[dave.woodhall]

Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?

I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.

I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible. 

[Sexual Ealing]

Those defending MON's argument might be a bit stronger were it not for the fact that it wasn't the first time that he shat on a club from a great height. Quitting Norwich the morning of a game due to a disagreement with the chairman over a transfer is high up there on the list of things that shouldn't be done by apparently decent and honourable managers. How this can be discounted by some when looking at his exit from villa is beyond me.

I lived in Norwich for six years, quite recently; if you can find more than 3 Norwich fans who agree with your appraisal of that time I'll be very impressed.

[Sexual Ealing]

Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?

I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.

I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible. 

How do you know?

[Ger Regan]

I lived in Norwich for six years, quite recently; if you can find more than 3 Norwich fans who agree with your appraisal of that time I'll be very impressed.

What part of it is incorrect then?

[Greg N'Ash]

Those defending MON's argument might be a bit stronger were it not for the fact that it wasn't the first time that he shat on a club from a great height. Quitting Norwich the morning of a game due to a disagreement with the chairman over a transfer is high up there on the list of things that shouldn't be done by apparently decent and honourable managers. How this can be discounted by some when looking at his exit from villa is beyond me.

yep, he's got massive form for this sort of shennigans. Sooner or later you have to say he's either been massively unlucky with the boards he's worked with and regularly feels the need to threaten to leave or leave. or perhaps he's a ******. Occam's razzor. again.

[Sexual Ealing]

I lived in Norwich for six years, quite recently; if you can find more than 3 Norwich fans who agree with your appraisal of that time I'll be very impressed.

What part of it is incorrect then?

Well, it all depends on the type of people you're happy to work for.

Robert Chase was one of the worst type of small-fry ****** that was enamoured with football betwee the Old & Sky eras.

Go on, tell me what MON did wrong there and I'll be delighted to be educated, and to pass on your wisdom to the NCFC faithful.

I'm sure they'd be enourmously grateful to hear your well-informed thoughts from that West of Ireland Canaries' hotbed.

Hurry up though, I'm tired.

[dave.woodhall]

Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?

I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.

I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible. 

How do you know?

There was no mass exodus of players. None of his backroom staff lost their jobs. Working conditions at Bodymoor were as good as he'd always enjoyed. I'm sure we'd have heard if large-scale economies had been made which would have had an adverse effect on his ability to do the job.

[KevinGage]

There's no shame in ignorance

As you've demonstrated more than once on this thread.

We know he walked out. We know that there were rumblings of discontent as far back as March -when MON wouldn't confirm he'd remain at the club beyond the end of the season at a press conference. We know there were links to Liverpool from about the time Kenny Dalglish went back there as club ambassador. We know that Bannan went public in the media and said he didn't seem the same in pre season, and attributed this to him not getting the Liverpool job.

If we also have:

1. The clubs take on events post August
2. MON not contradicting that at anytime since
3. The tribunual report not mentioning anything about the club being in breach of contract, or that their actions somehow made MON's job untenable

Then why would anyone still persist in trying to get milage out of the notion that the club were in any way to blame for his act of petulance?

[Sexual Ealing]

Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?

I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.

I think it's weird that you will unhesitatingly take the part of a man whjo caused so much damage to the club you support. Now, how was he forced out? Constructive dismissal in the real world usually takes the form of making a job impossible to do. There are no circumstances in which O'Neill's job was being made impossible. 

How do you know?

There was no mass exodus of players. None of his backroom staff lost their jobs. Working conditions at Bodymoor were as good as he'd always enjoyed. I'm sure we'd have heard if large-scale economies had been made which would have had an adverse effect on his ability to do the job.

Again, you're being mildly sarcastic when hard evidence is what's required.

Still though, as long as you still feel important.

[Sexual Ealing]

There's no shame in ignorance

As you've demonstrated more than once on this thread.

We know he walked out. We know that there were rumblings of discontent as far back as March -when MON wouldn't confirm he'd remain at the club beyond the end of the season at a press conference. We know there were links to Liverpool from about the time Kenny Dalglish went back there as club ambassador. We know that Bannan went public in the media and said he didn't seem the same in pre season, and attributed this to him not getting the Liverpool job.

If we also have:

1. The clubs take on events post August
2. MON not contradicting that at anytime since
3. The tribunual report not mentioning anything about the club being in breach of contract, or that their actions somehow made MON's job untenable

Then why would anyone still persist in trying to get milage out of the notion that the club were in any way to blame for his act of petulance?

It's not a quest to gain mileage, it's just that some people think you're wrong.

Let's see where we are in a few months, this (and I recognise my complicity) is fucking pointless and actually quite depressing.