?% Villa. Martinez, MON and the pie eaters

[KevinGage]

For me- and this isn't a departure from what I've said previously- the money we spent during the MON era gave us no divine right to top 4.  Not that you have that even if you spend Citeh -style digits.

What it did  do is give us a window of opportunity to take advantage of some of the established sides who faltered - Arsenal in 08/09 and Liverpool in 09/10.   

Even genuine miracle workers like the oft mentioned Cloughie at Forest and maybe to a degree Lambert at Norwich did actually need some level of financial backing to deliver the success they managed. They couldn't operate with the well completely dry. They just massively overachieved vis a vis the expendature > success ratio.

O'Neill didn't.  He delivered parity. When factoring in the state of the club when he arrived, against the money he was given to spend (more than the likes of Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal during his time with us). And generously (a little too generously in my opinion) being given the freedom pay his players far more than Tottenham and Everton did. Despite Tottenham generating far more income than we do. Everton, of course  finished above his side three times in his four years at the club.

Despite all that, I struggle to view him as a bad manager. A bad manager would have made a complete hames of the thing, wouldn't have got anywhere near top 4 or secured European qualification.

I just genuinely struggle with the concept that we overachieved on his watch.  All the evidence points to the contrary (except odd stats citing player utilisation measured against made up transfer fees, players girth when taken as a whole et.c). But those who wish to believe it will not be swayed by logic, common sense and so forth. So good luck to 'em.

[Greg N'Ash]

Doesn't really matter really does it? by the time he sold milner (or not) the dream was over. He'd built his team, it wasn't good enough or he wasn't

It doesn't really matter how much he spent? Surely you wouldn't keep exaggerating it if it didn't matter?

its matters in the sense he had enough to get into the top4. In fact all that stopped him was some really terrible decisions with player purchases and the fact that while the 1st team was strong, the reserves were never good enough to cover for injuries despite the 40+m he spent on them. you could knock off the milner money and it still would be much more than moyes spent getting there which i believe was something like 6m net per season on average. pennies compared to MON's budget

I still think that the £13/14m a year net wasn't as outrageously badly spent as you make out.

Where does the 13/14m a year net come from?

Greg's figures including the Milner sale. He is the voice of reason don't you know?

As i said, you can include him or not, doesn't matter. He had the use of Milner until he left and all the other players he bought. He had more time and money than any comparable Villa manager and he couldn't do presumably what he promised the board he would if they indulged him. A massive failure and when the dust has settled and we eventually get out the huge financial bind he put us into, we'll look back at his league finishes and say, "oh DOL did that on a fraction of the money even including inflation, and so did Gregory, and BFR and Taylor and Little. Hang on some of them finished higher and won stuff" .....and so on.

[Percy McCarthy]

I don't think we over-achieved, but don't agree that all the evidence points to the contrary, considering that we were doing well and improving every year. I also think that, despite some mistakes, we had value for money in the transfer market when you consider that three players out of his £80m spend have recently gone for £63m.

[Clampy]

To be honest, i'm not too sure what going over all this old ground achieves really, except that it gives Greg an excuse to type in the letters MON, which he seems to have managed to do every day since the bloke left, which is all a bit sad really.

[PeterWithesShin]

i don't think you can call 38 games a fluke - they took advantage of liverpool's problems. We had exactly the same chance with arsenal and we blew it big time.

Well, if you count the 72 points Arsenal finished on in 08/09 as the same as the 58 Liverpool finished on in 04/05 then yes, we had exactly the same chance, other than totally irrelevant 14 point difference.

Them getting to 61 points wasn't a fluke, but 61 points being enough for 4th was.

not sure what the points total prove apart from the league probably being weaker as a whole the season Arsenal were in trouble.

The fact Everton finished 4th with a minus GD and only scored 45 goals (the same amount that bottom placed Southampton scored) would suggest they were a tad fortuitous that season.
Mind, I wish we could be that fortuitous!

[Percy McCarthy]

Doesn't really matter really does it? by the time he sold milner (or not) the dream was over. He'd built his team, it wasn't good enough or he wasn't

It doesn't really matter how much he spent? Surely you wouldn't keep exaggerating it if it didn't matter?

its matters in the sense he had enough to get into the top4. In fact all that stopped him was some really terrible decisions with player purchases and the fact that while the 1st team was strong, the reserves were never good enough to cover for injuries despite the 40+m he spent on them. you could knock off the milner money and it still would be much more than moyes spent getting there which i believe was something like 6m net per season on average. pennies compared to MON's budget

I still think that the £13/14m a year net wasn't as outrageously badly spent as you make out.

Where does the 13/14m a year net come from?

Greg's figures including the Milner sale. He is the voice of reason don't you know?

As i said, you can include him or not, doesn't matter. He had the use of Milner until he left and all the other players he bought. He had more time and money than any comparable Villa manager and he couldn't do presumably what he promised the board he would if they indulged him. A massive failure and when the dust has settled and we eventually get out the huge financial bind he put us into, we'll look back at his league finishes and say, "oh DOL did that on a fraction of the money even including inflation, and so did Gregory, and BFR and Taylor and Little. Hang on some of them finished higher and won stuff" .....and so on.

Just curious as to why you keep quoting an £80m net spend and not the £54m you believe it to be. I've heard of selective use of statistics, but you're actually using stats you don't believe to exaggerate his spending. And as for saying it doesn't matter what he spent, no offence like, but you really don't seem to post about much else.

[KevinGage]

I don't think we over-achieved, but don't agree that all the evidence points to the contrary, considering that we were doing well and improving every year. I also think that, despite some mistakes, we had value for money in the transfer market when you consider that three players out of his £80m spend have recently gone for £63m.

If the end goal was to spend a big sum and receive the bulk of it back in less than 3-4 years, then yes, you could say we had value for money in the transfer market.

But I'd imagine that money was spend at the time with the intention of pushing the club on -and better management of his resources as a whole would have possibly meant that we didn't have to lose three key components of the family silver in quite the same brutal way as we've experienced over the past 12 months.

Players will always want to move -even from successful sides.  It's a fact of life. Short career + wanting to maximize earning potential + gain different experiences = player loyalty becoming an increasingly alien concept.

But better management of the purse strings - that is adding decent quality to suppliment the likes of Ash, Downing and Milner- might have convinced at least a few of them that they could achieve their goals with us.   It was they  who wanted to leave us, lets not forget. 

In short, it was thanks to MON that we acquired the services of Ash, Milner and Downing in the first place- and got good value from them re performances and eventual money recouped.  But it was also  thanks to MON that his (pretty fundamental) weaknesses in the transfer market meant that we lost them, and lost the opportunity to build a suitable side around them to keep them at VP longterm.

[pauliewalnuts]

He did alright with the money he spent, as KG said above, money doesn't give you a divine right to anything, at least not until you get up to Man City levels.

We paid top dollar for a few players who turned out to be not that good, and who have left, or will leave, for significantly less. I appreciate that every manager buys the odd duffer, but with Martin, his reluctance to bother using scouts or to look outside the UK meant that we paid top dollar pretty much every time.

We also now have a few players who contribute next to nothing and earn big money. Again, every club suffers from this at times, but with Martin's preference for UK based players, the fees were higher and so were the salaries involved.

Basically, we're discovering that what success MON did have was all rather short term and with a price to pay. The really great managers don't just deliver results, they also leave a legacy.

Martin's legacy was a patchy squad, a number of players on big money for doing nothing, and an unmanageable wage bill.

[Greg N'Ash]

To be honest, i'm not too sure what going over all this old ground achieves really, except that it gives Greg an excuse to type in the letters MON, which he seems to have managed to do every day since the bloke left, which is all a bit sad really.

Hey at least i admit an interest in the scumball. Better than being one of the 4 or 5 who were his biggest supporters on here but who deny any interest or support for him now. And yet they always manage to find the time to defend him on any thread that mentions him.. As others have said, if i have no interest in a person i'd doub't i'd spend hours talking about him. *scratches chin*

[Greg N'Ash]

Doesn't really matter really does it? by the time he sold milner (or not) the dream was over. He'd built his team, it wasn't good enough or he wasn't

It doesn't really matter how much he spent? Surely you wouldn't keep exaggerating it if it didn't matter?

its matters in the sense he had enough to get into the top4. In fact all that stopped him was some really terrible decisions with player purchases and the fact that while the 1st team was strong, the reserves were never good enough to cover for injuries despite the 40+m he spent on them. you could knock off the milner money and it still would be much more than moyes spent getting there which i believe was something like 6m net per season on average. pennies compared to MON's budget

I still think that the £13/14m a year net wasn't as outrageously badly spent as you make out.

Where does the 13/14m a year net come from?

Greg's figures including the Milner sale. He is the voice of reason don't you know?

As i said, you can include him or not, doesn't matter. He had the use of Milner until he left and all the other players he bought. He had more time and money than any comparable Villa manager and he couldn't do presumably what he promised the board he would if they indulged him. A massive failure and when the dust has settled and we eventually get out the huge financial bind he put us into, we'll look back at his league finishes and say, "oh DOL did that on a fraction of the money even including inflation, and so did Gregory, and BFR and Taylor and Little. Hang on some of them finished higher and won stuff" .....and so on.

Just curious as to why you keep quoting an £80m net spend and not the £54m you believe it to be. I've heard of selective use of statistics, but you're actually using stats you don't believe to exaggerate his spending. And as for saying it doesn't matter what he spent, no offence like, but you really don't seem to post about much else.

 i believe its 80m but i'm quite happy to go along with your figure if it makes you feel better percy.. still incredible waste. Add on the wage bill to go with the transfers and its horrific

[Percy McCarthy]

Right, so you've changed your mind about him selling Milner then?

[LeeB]

Greg, can you pm me your address so I can send you an invoice for the time I've wasted reading your tiresome squabbles.

Mods, can we introduce a MON tax?

[Greg N'Ash]

Right, so you've changed your mind about him selling Milner then?

no i think its obvious he wanted to sell him the way he let the cat out the bag without telling Milner but he never had to cope without him - he fucked off. I don't see why this is so confusing for you. He had his team, the finished product, built at huge expense and it failed. Whether he sold Milner or not after the failure doesn't really matter does it?

[Greg N'Ash]

Greg, can you pm me your address so I can send you an invoice for the time I've wasted reading your tiresome squabbles.

Mods, can we introduce a MON tax?

well meebe if Percy agrees to pay half. I mean he's said on here that he couldn't give a toss about MON and yet he's still on here fighting his corner. Work that one out.......

[dave.woodhall]

The statistics about our points in comparison to the average of the top six was relevant when you declared that in your opinion we were massively below that average, is no longer relevant now we have the facts to discuss rather than just your skewed opinion?

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your concerns about your personal integrity seriously whilst you continually accuse me of duplicity and then change the subject when I challenge your accusations.

Feel free to now ignore the Villa points/avg top six points statistics that you raised and change the subject but you'll have to be more specific if you want me to understand the point you are now trying to make regarding the other 14 clubs.

The point I was making, which you misconstrued, and for some reason now accuse me of avoiding, is a simple one. Our points average, total, call it what you like, is below the rest of the top six. That's why we finished sixth. Were it higher than any of theirs we would have finished above them. When you say we spent less than them (according to your figures) you forget to mention this.

The reason to mention 14 other clubs is that you ignore them as though they don't exist. In your world we only compete with the clubs who finish above us, they are our only challengers and the only ones with which to compare our expenditure.

Your puerile and repetitive digs about me I find laughable. It says everything about you that you can abuse me, yet when asked a direct question you squeal "Ooooh, I can't answer that. I'll be banned."