Return of O'Neill - divided opinion

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

O'Neill will be expecting plenty of booing. So dont do it all but sing "Alex Mcleish's claret and blue army !" at the top of our voices - that will throw everybody.

[Ger Regan]

Not sure about the story but one thing is for sure, judgement passed in favour of one, to the cost of the other, and although both parties said it was amicable it seemed to me that MON came out feeling fully vindicated, even to the point of congratulating his legal team on the great job they had done.

As you say we simply don't know what went on, the arbitration board did and they made there decision based on the evidence put in front of them, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if MON had been 100% wrong he would have been found in breach of contract on top of which Villa could have gone after him for massive damages in view of the critical time he left, as far as I'm aware this did not happen, so why didn't it happen because I seem to remember massive vitriol being spewed out by the top dogs at the club like that general bloke and Lerners No2 he really waded into MON getting huge fan support behind them, if they felt that strongly why wouldn't you go after him.

The rumour I heard was this (and I stress rumour) MON demanded a severance pay based on the fact that he had been shown the door, the board in turn demanded compensation, it went to arbitration and MON got the money, you make your own minds up as to who won and why.

One slight flaw in that theory, there was no tribunal decision.

So it went to Arbitration and they made no decision, which caused MON to emerge from the hearing thanking his legal team for doing nothing.

Lets assume nothing was done and at the very very least the board did not find in favour of either, MON won, so why is everybody blaming MON, they are both right and both wrong, think you will find its not the case though, MON got a payout from this, simply that, and in any litigation that's the measure of right and wrong in the eyes of civil law.

The assumption is correct. They didn't find in favour of either. They settled before the tribunal needed to adjudge. The rest of your post is utter nonsense.

[eamonn]

If O'Neill did walk out having been told that he'd be getting Stephen Ireland in exchange for James Milner but that the £12m cash on top would be used to pay the assorted dross he had accumulated on the bench I don't think he could have had many complaints. I can see why he'd favour Milner's industry and attitude over Ireland's far superior technical ability but questionable attitude. If he hadn't been offered Ireland who was he going to go after - Aidan McOneWayAlleyEadie?

Given a choice between Physical fitness and willing to run through brick walls versus skill and flair, I think it's clear which he prefers. Ideally you'd have both of course (an on-form Milner and Ireland in our midfield now would see us top half). I think he was great at getting the best out of cloggers and kids with potential but wet behind the ears. How though would he handle a Ginola or Ireland - very talented players old enough with egos to back it up when they feel like it. Would O'Neill be able to get the best out of these type of players? I'm not sure as there's little evidence to suggest he can. Shaun Maloney was his one foray into this type of signing. To whom he compared another errant talent, Lee Hendrie, by O'Neill when Maloney joined. One of his last acts as a Villa player was blazing a horrible shot wide at Old Trafford when we were still in the game. We lost 0-4. Maloney has since said that he was tore a new one by O'Neill afterwards and that it was a side of him that the press rarely knew about.
Henrik Larssen and Sessegnon now are probably the best technical players he's worked with (signed by other managers). But both were/are at their peak and seem to cause less strife than the likes of Stevie. Maybe it's another reason why he shyed away from fancy dan foreign signings. A fear of the unknown, of his and old Robbo's training made to look embarassing and obsolete by a player coached in technical ability above physicality? Kind of ironic that the one time he foraged outside the UK for transfers was to swap Milan Baros (again, another fancy dan, who even O'Dearie got playing well) for John Carew. Apparently instigated by O'Neill's successor, G Hou.
 
I loved having him as our manager because he stood up for us and the media fawned over him/Villa as a result. The cerebral, nephew of Woody-Allen thing at odds with his leaping up and down the touchline. Easy to fall for. We were a gang and while we were doing alright (if flattering to deceive) it was ok. But that ruthless, defensive streak he had was eventually his undoing. Not much has got out about his departure but the General seemed fairly sure that unless MON got rid of wagebill chomping unused subs (Shorey, Davies, NRC, Beye, Sidwell, Harewood et al.) we wouldn't be able to justify spending more. Not an unreasonable request. We can only surmise that after a summer of their agents refusing to bite ('' 'abib, sit tight lad. Forty grand a week for the next 3 years, we'll get you a loan deal at some stage if you get that bored'') O'Neill suddenly realised that he wasn't the ''custodian'' (his word) of the club anymore; his authority finally being questioned by a hitherto far too accomodating Lerner. I can easily see the arrival of Faulkner, a young pup with little experience of football, irking the hell out of O'Neill. Being told by such a novice that incoming transfers would not be happening outside of the Ireland-Milner swap would have had him seething. Speculation this scenario but not difficult to imagine.

Ultimately, we were a dead-ball reliant, counter-attacking team under him - Young and Gabby lightning quick on the break. Laursen and Carew lethal in the air. But there was very little of a patient, passing, technical side to us. Villa season-ticket holders for his last two seasons must have felt a bit puzzled at how feted we had become. Practically all our success was on the road, largely as smash and grab merchants. Which can be exciting but Christ, the amount of draws at home against lesser sides because we didn't have a clue how to take the game to the opposition was our undoing and why 6th was about as good as we and him were.

More than the League Cup wins with Leicester, top six finishes (whoop!) with us and assorted Scottish trophies, maintaining his reputation is arguably his biggest achievement in football.

[Aston Manor]

Poison dwarf. Judas. Pube-head.

It's O'Neill, by the way.

Kind of how I see it!!!!!!!

No matter how much good O'Neill did and he did a lot of good he walked out on us 5 days before the start of a season. We've been on the spiral ever since. He isn't the sole cause of where we are now but he definitely is a huge part.

I think he'll get a mixed reception. Thanks for the good times you self-serving, egotistiocal,selfish wanker.

[Villanation]

Not sure about the story but one thing is for sure, judgement passed in favour of one, to the cost of the other, and although both parties said it was amicable it seemed to me that MON came out feeling fully vindicated, even to the point of congratulating his legal team on the great job they had done.

As you say we simply don't know what went on, the arbitration board did and they made there decision based on the evidence put in front of them, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if MON had been 100% wrong he would have been found in breach of contract on top of which Villa could have gone after him for massive damages in view of the critical time he left, as far as I'm aware this did not happen, so why didn't it happen because I seem to remember massive vitriol being spewed out by the top dogs at the club like that general bloke and Lerners No2 he really waded into MON getting huge fan support behind them, if they felt that strongly why wouldn't you go after him.

The rumour I heard was this (and I stress rumour) MON demanded a severance pay based on the fact that he had been shown the door, the board in turn demanded compensation, it went to arbitration and MON got the money, you make your own minds up as to who won and why.

One slight flaw in that theory, there was no tribunal decision.

So it went to Arbitration and they made no decision, which caused MON to emerge from the hearing thanking his legal team for doing nothing.

Lets assume nothing was done and at the very very least the board did not find in favour of either, MON won, so why is everybody blaming MON, they are both right and both wrong, think you will find its not the case though, MON got a payout from this, simply that, and in any litigation that's the measure of right and wrong in the eyes of civil law.

The assumption is correct. They didn't find in favour of either. They settled before the tribunal needed to adjudge. The rest of your post is utter nonsense.

My previous post, If nothing was decided MON still won, if you look at this years financial statements put out by the club in Feb outlining substantial loses of £53ML buried in the detail is an exceptional payment totaling £12ML this is stated as changes to personal and is believed to be directed at the Martin O'Niell's settlement, now I could have this a tad wrong but when someone pays someone else that kind of money, even a fraction of that, its because they are in the wrong.

I say again anything amicable reached between MON and the club is because MON got what he wanted, otherwise its common sense that any money would have been coming the other way. Assuming that the whole of that 12ML went to pay of MON, that is a massive payment by anybody's calculation, sorry the rest of your post is rubbish.

[hawkeye]

If RL and his advisors believed that they were in the right, why did they settle?
Its pretty obvious he had them over a barrell with thier trousers around thier ankles.
One party wrote a note of every meeting and conversation he had, the other parties did not.
All RL got out of MON was a vow of silence.

When a man with experience meets a man with money, the man with experience gets money, the man with money gets an experience.

[Villanation]

If RL and his advisors believed that they were in the right, why did they settle?
Its pretty obvious he had them over a barrell with thier trousers around thier ankles.
One party wrote a note of every meeting and conversation he had, the other parties did not.
All RL got out of MON was a vow of silence.

When a man with experience meets a man with money, the man with experience gets money, the man with money gets an experience.

Allow me to commend you on that  irrespective of this thread that is priceless, and......noted.

[jembob]

Excellent essay eamonn but the final sentence sums MON up for me. He has his strengths as a manager but the ability to get his team playing good football is not one of them. He probably spent one season too long at Villa Park and you are correct that many home performances were drab, predictable affairs. Most other Premiership managers out thought MON tactically and even the combined experience of his management team couldn't work out how to deal with it. For all the talk of MON's intellect, he made the same mistakes time and again which suggests either a lack of imagination or an arrogant approach to his trade.

Harry Rednapp is another manager adept at managing his reputation at the expense of the clubs that pay them well. I can't remember the details of what happened to Southampton or West Ham soon after he left but it was either relegation or a comlete shambles. At Portsmouth he over spent on players and jumped ship just before it all went so badly wrong - strangely enough none of his chums in the media were prepared to link the two. After a couple of good years at Spurs with an excellent squad and a supportive Chairman he's just about to make a quick exit to the England job just before it goes sour. Bale will leave in the Summer and so will Modric. They won't pay Adebayor's wages and VDV is a stroppy git already moaning in the press. Big Brad can't go on for too much longer and after that you have an average squad of players. Would Rednapp really have the will to rebuild the Spurs squad when he can leave an impending mess to manage England?

Having friends in the media helps - MON and Rednapp are good to journalists, provide easy copy and cultivate the relationships which help them to avoid unwanted criticism. They also fail to expose the mess and turmoil that managers like this leave in their wake.

[hawkeye]

If RL and his advisors believed that they were in the right, why did they settle?
Its pretty obvious he had them over a barrell with thier trousers around thier ankles.
One party wrote a note of every meeting and conversation he had, the other parties did not.
All RL got out of MON was a vow of silence.

When a man with experience meets a man with money, the man with experience gets money, the man with money gets an experience.

Allow me to commend you on that  irrespective of this thread that is priceless, and......noted.

Cheers mate, here is another one "You can allways rely on Americans to make the right decision, after they have exhausted every other possibility"- Winston Churchill

[Dave]

Was Harewood that bad a signing? Yes he was shit but £4m wasn't a particularly big fee for an established PL striker. He didn't work out, it happens.

It was if you think that the likes of Roque Santa Cruz was signing for Blackburn a week later and then going on score 20 odd goals that season.

[Dr.Feelgood]

He's NOT the Messiah , - He's a VERY NAUGHTY BOY !!!

(I GUARANTEE he'll be getting stick from behind the bench)

[Dave Clark Five]

Stick from B3 for the Poison Dwarf.

[Zhong Yi]

earlier post from someone who just wants Villa to beat Sunderland.

to quote David Pleat (Liverscum vs Arsenal title decider 1989) "It would be somewhat poetic justice if we were to get the result on the night"

this season - total disaster, all agreed there, but beating O'Neill in this match and not being relegated will at least bring about some kind of cheer.

lets hope its 2/2!

[JUAN PABLO]

Was Harewood that bad a signing? Yes he was shit but £4m wasn't a particularly big fee for an established PL striker. He didn't work out, it happens.

4 million for shit is a bad signing

[Somniloquism]

Was Harewood that bad a signing? Yes he was shit but £4m wasn't a particularly big fee for an established PL striker. He didn't work out, it happens.

It was if you think that the likes of Roque Santa Cruz was signing for Blackburn a week later and then going on score 20 odd goals that season.

Not that I wanted him but Harewood scored 20 odd goals and 16 goals 3 and 2 seasons before he signed for us. As for Santa Cruz, in the 4 seasons since that season he has scored 10 goals. Blackburn were lucky Hughes left to manage Moneybags Citeh and could pay £18 mill for a crock. Unfortunately MON never went there so we could have £20mil for Heskey.