Club Statement

[Chris Smith]

The Blues had nothing to lose, we did.  I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.

Aprt from McLeish's constructive dismissal case, that is.

I rather got the impression that was concocted to divert attention away from the tapping up.

It had the full support of the LMA.

[hilts_coolerking]

It's this sort of 'out of the box' thinking that will bring us the success we crave.

The kind of success we crave is unlikely to be brought by the kind of thinking that appoints managers of McLeish's calibre when managers of Benitez's calibre are available.

[Toronto Villa]

...

why does it have to be a good deal? Blues wanted the full payout, we said no, they met somewhere in the middle that alleviated the need for further distraction and cost. However you want to cut it, the end result is that it puts an end to this affair, and hopefully we can get on with preparing for the season.

Today's announcement doesn't change a thing in my eyes. We got a manager that most of us didn't endorse, but he's the manager and that's that. Had we got an employed manager like Moyes that was popular we'd have likely paid even more in compensation. All I know, at least from my persepective is that we now we have to get behind the club and hope that the decision made by the board is justified.

What grounds do you have for insisting that we "met in the middle"? Why are you discounting the possibility that we have simply had to pay the costs stipulated in the original contracts i.e. "the full amount"? What reason do you have for saying we would have paid more compensation for Moyes?

I'm not claiming you are wrong, I'm asking what reason you have for insisting these statements are anything other than conjecture on your part?

Because they asked for a full payout (widely reported at the time as being £5.4m prior to June 30) of McLeish's contract having claimed we tapped him up, and a settlement was reached which generally suggests some for of compromise. None of us will ever have the hard facts considering the sum paid is "undisclosed", but considering the compensation paid is also said to include two of his assistants then it is reasonable to believe that they came to an agreement that both parties could live with in order to move on. Had we paid the full amount I'm sure there would be reports by now from media who have an agenda against the club suggesting as much.

[hilts_coolerking]

It had the full support of the LMA.

As you would expect; I'm not sure it has any bearing on the merits of the case any more than Blues' desire to refute it in the strongest possible terms.  The timing is everything.

[Brend'Watkins]

It's this sort of 'out of the box' thinking that will bring us the success we crave.

The kind of success we crave is unlikely to be brought by the kind of thinking that appoints managers of McLeish's calibre when managers of Benitez's calibre are available.

Let's wait and see.  It is what it is now, we have to get on with it.

[Chris Smith]

It had the full support of the LMA.

As you would expect; I'm not sure it has any bearing on the merits of the case any more than Blues' desire to refute it in the strongest possible terms.  The timing is everything.

You can keep saying the same thing over and over again for as long as you like but all it will prove is that you need to have the last word.

The important point is that McLeish can now get on with his job.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

It would've all ended in tears, IMO.

As opposed to appointing McLeish, which has all started in tears.

It's this sort of 'out of the box' thinking that will bring us the success we crave.

We always start off liking our managers and end up hating them.  Wouldn't it be refresshing to see Fletch and Risso being roggered by AM for all their worth 3 years down the line?

I've a feeling that Risso and I will have egg free faces in 3 years time.
I'd be mightily surprised if McLeish is still here and the current owners too.

[hilts_coolerking]

The important point is that McLeish can now get on with his job.

If you don't wish to participate in a discussion about the terms of the settlement and what they might imply, then there are any number of other threads for you to reduce to bickering.

[Concrete John]

The Blues had nothing to lose, we did.  I imagine the figure will probably be roughly a year's salary for everybody involved, which would make the £3m figure sound about right.

Aprt from McLeish's constructive dismissal case, that is.

I rather got the impression that was concocted to divert attention away from the tapping up.

So once again no actual basis in fact. 

That's the thing about this thread - other than the simple and basic fact that a settlement has been reached, everything else, be it the amount or meaning behind it, is 100% conjecture.

Some will take these theories as fact if it portrays the board in line with their own perceptions, but that makes them no more valid, be they positive or negative.

[Chris Smith]

The important point is that McLeish can now get on with his job.

If you don't wish to participate in a discussion about the terms of the settlement and what they might imply, then there are any number of other threads for you to reduce to bickering.

We don't know the terms of the settlement so how can we discuss the implications? As is your want you are putting it forward in the worst possible light for Aston Villa. I've suggested that it was more likely to be a compromise as it suited both parties. All that your discussion consists of is a repeating those positions in a slightly different way.

[Merv]

The fact we reached a settlement is one thing - it's actually a good thing, it's done, all concerned can move on. Fine with that.

It's the fact Villa have had to effectively pay a fee to hire a manager whose appointment was widely viewed as unpopular that causes reaction. And I can understand that.

[hilts_coolerking]

We don't know the terms of the settlement so how can we discuss the implications? As is your want you are putting it forward in the worst possible light for Aston Villa. I've suggested that it was more likely to be a compromise as it suited both parties. All that your discussion consists of is a repeating those positions in a slightly different way.

As I said, if you don't feel able to discuss it, don't participate in it.

[kippaxvilla2]

Our board being owned by Peter Pannu.

I love the way that these things are kept quiet, but people still think they know what happened.

As I see it, McLeish had plenty of justification for walking, otherwise why would he have initiated his constructive dismissal case?  And as that's been dropped also, then doesn't that suggest some form of compromise was reached as both partied had a case? 

It's over and done with, so lets get on with our summer business and see what type of manager our money, however much it was, has got us.

Appointing McLeish was bad enough in the first place.  Having to pay another club anything more than a penny for his services is an insult.

I am in the office and getting funny looks because that one made me laugh a lot.

[hilts_coolerking]

So once again no actual basis in fact. 

In my defence, I didn't claim that was fact; simply the impression I got from the course of events.

[Lee]

£3m for him and the others according to the Torygraph.

A fucking disgrace.

And if true, the sign of a board who haven't got the first clue what they're doing.

i'd say a sign of a board coming to a pragmatic compromise in order to get on with preparing for the season. If we hadn't settled this would have dragged on for as long as the MON thing did. I'm not happy with having to give them anything but does anyone seriously believe that we didn't tap him up?

Of course, this is an admission of guilt -  if we believed that were completely in the right, there is no way we would have paid it. This what makes the situation even more farcical