Return of O'Neill - divided opinion

[Oscar Arce]

One thing's for sure, he will be overjoyed to beat us and send us down

[Lee]

One thing's for sure, he will be overjoyed to beat us and send us down

He was also overjoyed at his significant payout and the fact that he felt vindicated too. I'm glad that it took him so long to get back into football, he hood-winked most of us.

I really hope he falls on his arse at Blunderland

[Dave]

He had scored 3 league goals in 30 odd games the season before we signed him. The 20 goal season was in the Championship.

He'll be 33 later this year. Unless i'm mistaken, only once in his career has he scored more than 5 league goals in a season in our top flight.

I still can't believe we ever signed him.

Sorry, you are correct about the 20 odd but he did get the 14 PL goals the two seasons before.  But I was more comparing with RSC who has only got into double figures once whilst in his 12 seasons in Europe. I agree with you on the signing but he probably paid for his transfer fee as his 5 league goals must have got us a place or two in the league.

Surely the important thing isn't what MFH did at West Ham or what Santa Cruz did at Bayern, but what they did once they moved to their new club?

MFH was dreadful, Santa Cruz was a total success. Hughes identified a player who would fit in well and score goals, O'Neill didn't.

What happened before and after in their careers isn't particularly relevant to their respective merits that season.

What happened before is relevant, because unless managers can see into the future when they make a purchase, then the past record is normally something that should be considered.

MON bought Harewood as 3rd or 4th choice striker and 5 goals in mostly sub appearances wasn't a bad return for that type of player. But as with most of his purchases, he paid over the top for him.

Hughes bought RSC as he had no funds at Blackburn but took the £3.5 mill gamble which paid off for one season. He was essentially the striker equivalent of buying Martin Laursen.

Actually, I would say that trying to see into the future is exactly what a manager should be doing when making a prospective signing. There was no guarantee that McGrath or Platt would turn into what they eventually did when Taylor signed them. It's all very well saying that Harewood was signed to bring in five or so goals off the bench, but if so, why spend a fraction of that in doing so? Henri Camara, Marcus Bent, Lomana Lua-Lua. Equally mediocre but not sitting on a big contract bleeding the club dry of wages you might need later on.

More to the point though, as the Santa Cruz example shows - if you're not so completely myopic in your transfer policy you might just find a better option than your current two meaning you don't have to run them into the ground.

As for your last sentence, I would say that that's precisely the problem. Maybe if O'Neill had aimed for a few more Laursen/Santa Cruz style signings and fewer Harewood style signings things may have turned out differently.

[Handsworth Wood Villa]

The best Villa manager that I have known.

Beautiful.

Actually I want to change that to the best Villa manager that I have known.

[badluckeric(gates)]

poll required.
for me though,loved him but will never forgive him.

[Villanation]

Didn't love him, thought some of his football at times was basic beyond belief, never been a fan of the long ball game, was outraged at decision he made for the Moscow game, that said he blooded the youngsters and I thought the likes of Bannan really came to the front during that game.

On the positive side there is no question he had the ear of the players, loved the way he instilled a sense of loyalty and honour to the club when the first thing he did at Villa on his appointment was get down to Bodymoor and put up photo's of Villa teams throughout the ages showing the new players what they have to live up to, that's a Club man for you and a definite Cloughie trait, basically he put together some very good players In Ashley Young, Gabriel Agbonlahor, Brad Friedal, James Milner and even Downing started to show in his last season.

As I've already mentioned in this thread I have no opinion on his leaving although maybe his timing was circumspect and could have been better, but I've said it before, there is another side to this story and we will never know, and judging by the events that have occurred after his departure and right up to now I personally get the feeling that its nowhere near as simple as all being down to MON, I recall having a conversation with a mate of mine who is an Arsenal fan and him making reference to the settlement payment we paid out to MON, him commenting "what the phuk did you do for him to get that much", "try to kill him or something".

As for him being at Villa park and with Sunderland, quite honestly I couldn't give a dam, he's the manager of Sunderland, that's it, I'd be more concerned about the fact that in the MON v Mcleish clashes in the past MON as mainly had the upper hand and knows just how to get the better of McLeish, I think that's more important TBH.



 

[PeterWithe]

We always seem to go back to Harewood as MONs worst signing, if he's our biggest dud then that's not too bad.

Admittedly he was the only player he bought who I wasn't that excited by but he wouldn't even make the top 50 worst signings of his generation.

[TheSandman]

Harewood wasn't even close to Pubehead's worst signing.

Emile Heskey and Curtis Davies come on down!

[Ger Regan]

Harewood wasn't even close to Pubehead's worst signing.

Emile Heskey and Curtis Davies come on down!

Beye must be up there with heskey as well.

[cheltenhamlion]

Not even a big financial blackhole in his terms, but how fucking long was Salifou here drawing down the best part of a million a year?

[LeeB]

Harewood wasn't even close to Pubehead's worst signing.

Emile Heskey and Curtis Davies come on down!

Warnock? Delph? Sidwell? All challenging hard for that award. And that fat bastard at the back isn't far off.

[PeterWithe]

But of all these players named now, only Harewood was really viewed as a questionable signing in the main and at the time £4m wasn't a stupid fee.

[mozza]

We had some good away days ..............but he sold us down the river at Moscow and then tried
to get back in our good books with a cheap meal in the Holte Suite - didn't work as far as I was conerned
and he showed his true colours by walking out just days before the season starts -

   

[PeterWithesShin]

But of all these players named now, only Harewood was really viewed as a questionable signing in the main and at the time £4m wasn't a stupid fee.

Indeed. Only Harewood and Heskey made me think "what the fuck?" when we signed them. The fact other players turned out to be a disappointment is another story. I even saw the logic in signing Beye.

[Somniloquism]

Actually, I would say that trying to see into the future is exactly what a manager should be doing when making a prospective signing. There was no guarantee that McGrath or Platt would turn into what they eventually did when Taylor signed them. It's all very well saying that Harewood was signed to bring in five or so goals off the bench, but if so, why spend a fraction of that in doing so? Henri Camara, Marcus Bent, Lomana Lua-Lua. Equally mediocre but not sitting on a big contract bleeding the club dry of wages you might need later on.

More to the point though, as the Santa Cruz example shows - if you're not so completely myopic in your transfer policy you might just find a better option than your current two meaning you don't have to run them into the ground.

As for your last sentence, I would say that that's precisely the problem. Maybe if O'Neill had aimed for a few more Laursen/Santa Cruz style signings and fewer Harewood style signings things may have turned out differently.

I did mention in reply to Paulie that the fact he never played players more was a major pisstake by O'Neill. Even Harewood would probably have bagged more for us with more appearances. And I think I would have preferred keeping him rather then getting in Heskey.

But when I was mentioning Laursen, I was thinking more that Santa Cruz could easily have been injured for most of the season as he was his second season for Blackburn. He did have previous for missing most of a season with injuries at Bayern. For a season and a half, Laursen turned out to be one of the signings of the decade for us, but he could easily have been another Ivo Stas, only with proof of existence.