Club Statement

[Risso]

The one thing I can't understand is, if the board asked the question, "right, so Houllier has to go.  Who is going to replace him?"  That if the answer was, "Alex McLeish," why they bothered getting rid of Houllier?

That's exactly what I thought when it became more likely that McLeish was a candidate. Which I couldn't quite believe to put it mildly.
In fact I offered anybody 1000-1 odds and nobody took me up on it... phew!

I did.  Fortunately for you the only currency I had to hand was 1 Zimbabwean Dollar, so you owe me the grand sum of £1.66. 

[Villa'Zawg]

...

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.

I would have thought that the speed of settlement is just as likely to suggest that it was a cut and dried case and the amounts of compensation involved were contractually enforceable.

Your point that a full settlement would be more likely to be reported in the media doesn't seem to make any sense. Our willingness to settle in full would be a great inducement for both sides to keep the matter private. At least until such time as BIH produces the relevant financial accounts on the HK stock market. It will come out in the end.

[Chris Smith]

...

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.

I would have thought that the speed of settlement is just as likely to suggest that it was a cut and dried case and the amounts of compensation involved were contractually enforceable.

Your point that a full settlement would be more likely to be reported in the media doesn't seem to make any sense. Our willingness to settle in full would be a great inducement for both sides to keep the matter private. At least until such time as BIH produces the relevant financial accounts on the HK stock market. It will come out in the end.

The speed of the settlement is most likely because McLeish wanted Grant and they want Calderwood but this was holding it up. It's pragamatism not conspiracy.

[Mazrim]

If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.

[Villa'Zawg]

I know that they have made the appointment and we have to carry on for the greater good, but I would like just one, just one ditty of the logic that they used to even contemplate employing him in the first place.

As Spock would say "it's illogical captain"
 

Ferguson's comments on the appointment are the only logical explanation I have seen, albeit with obviously worrying implications for our ambition.

"At Rangers, for instance, by the time Alex took over, they weren't spending the kind of money which they had done previously, so Alex did a great job there. He managed to unite a unit there and do very well. In all his jobs he's had to deal with that kind of situation of making do with what you have and making the best of it and that's a quality that. He's got the experience now of doing all of these things and Aston Villa will represent the same type of challenge."

[hilts_coolerking]

If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.

Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.

[Concrete John]

If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.

Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.

And if that's the case how did the Telegraph then find out it was £3m, which most people seem to be taking as gospel?

[nick harper]

I know that they have made the appointment and we have to carry on for the greater good, but I would like just one, just one ditty of the logic that they used to even contemplate employing him in the first place.

As Spock would say "it's illogical captain"
 

Ferguson's comments on the appointment are the only logical explanation I have seen, albeit with obviously worrying implications for our ambition.

"At Rangers, for instance, by the time Alex took over, they weren't spending the kind of money which they had done previously, so Alex did a great job there. He managed to unite a unit there and do very well. In all his jobs he's had to deal with that kind of situation of making do with what you have and making the best of it and that's a quality that. He's got the experience now of doing all of these things and Aston Villa will represent the same type of challenge."

Blimey, hadn't seen that before. Makes grim reading.

[hilts_coolerking]

And if that's the case how did the Telegraph then find out it was £3m, which most people seem to be taking as gospel?

Not sure why you're asking me that, I've not mentioned £3M or the Telegraph once.

[Mazrim]

If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.

Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.

But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.

Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.

[Risso]

If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.

Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.

But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.

Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.

They'll have to disclose the payments in their accounts, as will Bigtop.

[Concrete John]

And if that's the case how did the Telegraph then find out it was £3m, which most people seem to be taking as gospel?

Not sure why you're asking me that, I've not mentioned £3M or the Telegraph once.

Wasn't aimed at you in particular.  Just point out the large contradictions in this thread.

"We hushed it up because we don't want anyone to know we paid up the full £5.4m they wanted - what a disgrace!"

"We paid £3m - what a disgrace!"

[Villa'Zawg]

...


I would have thought that the speed of settlement is just as likely to suggest that it was a cut and dried case and the amounts of compensation involved were contractually enforceable.

Your point that a full settlement would be more likely to be reported in the media doesn't seem to make any sense. Our willingness to settle in full would be a great inducement for both sides to keep the matter private. At least until such time as BIH produces the relevant financial accounts on the HK stock market. It will come out in the end.

The speed of the settlement is most likely because McLeish wanted Grant and they want Calderwood but this was holding it up. It's pragamatism not conspiracy.

It isn't most likely to be for those reasons any more than any other reasons. You just don't know. I haven't said anything at all to suggest conspiracy.

[hilts_coolerking]

But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.

Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.

The point is that in order to get what they wanted they may have had to accept conditions.  "We [Villa] will give you what you want but only on the condition that you keep quiet about it" sort of thing.  It would certainly make sense from our point of view.  However, as you say, it's all speculation.  In my view though, they held the better cards in the negotiations which ought to have led to them getting the better of the deal.

I also agree that we shouldn't have been in this position to start with.

[Villa'Zawg]

If Blose had got what they wanted they would be bleating about it in the press about 2.6 seconds after recieving the money.

Not if we asked, as part of the settlement, for it to remain undisclosed.

But if they got they wanted, or in their view, entitled to, why would they accept any conditions?
It was a compromise. McLeish drops his claims, they drop theirs, some sort of fee is involved. Likely nobody will ever know the details and who came off best if at all and I very much doubt the Telegraph know either.
Villa never release any financial details they dont have to, even when there's no harm in it. Par for the course.

Of course, we should never have got involved in this to begin with.

because that was a condition for us agreeing to give them what they wanted without dispute? Regardless of the merits of the case, we could have made it a drawn out affair as we did with O'Neill.