Return of O'Neill - divided opinion

[Dave Clark Five]

I have a feeling that McLeish will walk out with MON thinking he'll get a heroes welcome and so McLeish would want to be part of that.

Both will get a bit of a shock when they both get booed!

I will boo O'Neill and clap McLeish.

F...in behave Dave.Thats not fu..in good is it?You need to look further up the tree to see the real reasons why O'NEIL LEFT!For F..ks sake would you not rather have O'Neil stayed and we went into Champions League football?We were nearly there mate,and Lerner fucked it up,big time.Sorry,but that's the way i feel about the situation.C'mon the villa!

How did Lerner fuck it up? Should he have wasted more money on the whims of a 'manager' who would not play club assets if he had fallen out with them? Why do you think O'Neill left? There is a good chance that you are wrong.

[danlanza]

I have a feeling that McLeish will walk out with MON thinking he'll get a heroes welcome and so McLeish would want to be part of that.

Both will get a bit of a shock when they both get booed!

I will boo O'Neill and clap McLeish.

F...in behave Dave.Thats not fu..in good is it?You need to look further up the tree to see the real reasons why O'NEIL LEFT!For F..ks sake would you not rather have O'Neil stayed and we went into Champions League football?We were nearly there mate,and Lerner fucked it up,big time.Sorry,but that's the way i feel about the situation.C'mon the villa!

How did Lerner fuck it up? Should he have wasted more money on the whims of a 'manager' who would not play club assets if he had fallen out with them? Why do you think O'Neill left? There is a good chance that you are wrong.

Possibly mate,i just think that when we had stability we did well,ONeill gave us stability and we played some bloody good football.Yes it was mostly predictable but not like we are watching now.We used to attack teams with no fear.I remember my last season in K7 watchinhg great football under O'Neil.Then it went tits up.

[cdbearsfan]

That's because he spent all the money before he left. He knew it would go tits up. That's why he fucked off.

[pauliewalnuts]

That's because he spent all the money before he left. He knew it would go tits up. That's why he fucked off.

That's my take on it, more or less.

I think there came a point where he was asked to do something about the wage bill (in the way that every manager bar, probably, two, in the PL have to, what wth it being part of 'managing'), decided that he was going to struggle to maintain his reputation in terms of league finish, and wasn't prepared to take that risk.

I also think he thought, at the time, that he was a good shout to get a job of the Liverpool level having left us, and don't think he thought for a moment he'd end up making what could - at the very best - be described as a sideways move. I reckon he'd have thought himself considerably better than Sunderland at that point.

He certainly thought himself considerably better than Aston Villa at the time.

Wrong.

[hawkeye]

The real arguement came down to the Milner transfer, not exactly news but he insisted that he could use the Milner money, he recorded every conversation with Faulkner and Lerner and of course they were not quite as meticulous as MON and that is why they settled. one set of lawyers had a complete dossier, the other set had virtualy nothing because RL and Faulkner did not bother to take notes. MON maintains that he has the goods on Lerner and Faulkner but he signed away his right to publish for 5 years. He will complete his Biography and then the MON version of the truth will be out.

[dave.woodhall]

The real arguement came down to the Milner transfer, not exactly news but he insisted that he could use the Milner money, he recorded every conversation with Faulkner and Lerner and of course they were not quite as meticulous as MON and that is why they settled. one set of lawyers had a complete dossier, the other set had virtualy nothing because RL and Faulkner did not bother to take notes. MON maintains that he has the goods on Lerner and Faulkner but he signed away his right to publish for 5 years. He will complete his Biography and then the MON version of the truth will be out.

Not in the slightest bit vindictive, then.

[tomd2103]

That's because he spent all the money before he left. He knew it would go tits up. That's why he fucked off.

That's my take on it, more or less.

I think there came a point where he was asked to do something about the wage bill (in the way that every manager bar, probably, two, in the PL have to, what wth it being part of 'managing'), decided that he was going to struggle to maintain his reputation in terms of league finish, and wasn't prepared to take that risk.

I also think he thought, at the time, that he was a good shout to get a job of the Liverpool level having left us, and don't think he thought for a moment he'd end up making what could - at the very best - be described as a sideways move. I reckon he'd have thought himself considerably better than Sunderland at that point.

He certainly thought himself considerably better than Aston Villa at the time.

Wrong.

Not knowing the full details of what went on, I too think that is probably what happened and MON didn't like being told what to do.  Again it is speculation, but I think his mind was set on leaving and he timed it to cause as much disruption as he could knowing that the worse Villa did after his exit, the better it reflected on him.

He is an interesting character though and the media do seem to love him.  Despite always being talked up by the media, he has never been mentioned when some of the bigger jobs have come up.  I worked up in Glasgow last year and was surprised to hear some Celtic fans saying that they didn't think his style of play was that great.

[dave.woodhall]

  Despite always being talked up by the media, he has never been mentioned when some of the bigger jobs have come up. 

The one big gap in his CV is decent Champions League experience and at the big clubs that's the only show in town.

[Billy Walker]

From The Guardian:

Martin O'Neill goes back to Aston Villa on Saturday for the first time since his resignation five days before the start of the 2010‑11 season. If some Villa fans have never quite forgiven the man now in charge of Sunderland for leaving, many would happily take him back tomorrow.

"I had the privilege of managing one of the finest clubs in England with a great tradition and great history and I was there for four years," said O'Neill, who finished sixth in the Premier League in his last three campaigns at Villa Park.

Such appearances ultimately proved deceptive. "Things were a little sour in the final season," acknowledged the Sunderland manager. "The irony of that was it was our best season. We finished in the top six, were about six points off the Champions League places and reached the semi-final of the FA Cup and final of the League Cup. But that can't be helped, sometimes these things happen."

O'Neill took a claim of constructive dismissal against Villa to the FA Premier League managers' arbitration tribunal, where the dispute was resolved in his favour.

"I'm not going into any explanations of anything. I don't think on the eve of the match that is the right time to do it," said O'Neill. "Maybe at some stage or another the clearing-up of an issue or two might be useful but it's not going to be today. I am part of Aston Villa's past now and I hopefully belong to Sunderland's future, certainly the immediate future. That's how I view it."

Ellis Short, Sunderland's owner, has challenged O'Neill to achieve further top‑six finishes on Wearside but the Northern Irishman is undaunted: "Of course it's achievable, absolutely. This club is big enough to be able to have those sort of demands put on it. That should be the ambition."

While he has breathed new life into Sunderland, who are ninth having maintained real relegation fears when O'Neill arrived at the club in December, Villa have regressed under Alex McLeish this season. They are perched, perilously, in 15th, six points above the bottom three, and regard victory on Saturday as imperative. "Aston Villa will rise again to be a great club," said O'Neill. "It might not happen tomorrow but it will happen."

McLeish's cause has been further hindered by the absence of both his principal striker, Darren Bent, and his captain and key midfielder Stilian Petrov. While Bent's ankle injury is slowly healing, the Bulgarian has acute leukaemia and is receiving intense treatment.

"Stilian is going through many courses of chemotherapy," said O'Neill who, since Petrov's recent diagnosis, has been in regular contact with a player he managed at Celtic and Villa. "I have seen Stilian and he is a remarkable young man; he is very upbeat. It's going to be a pretty tough, rough ride for him but he's ready for it.

"I haven't spoken to him for a couple of days but depending on how the chemotherapy has gone, Stilian might be at the game. If he is, I'll certainly be saying hello. He was great for me."

O'Neill's "admiration" for McLeish will ensure cordial relations between the two technical areas at Villa Park , even though there was a time when, as managers of Celtic and Rangers respectively, it was politic for the pair to keep their distance. "I never went out to dinner with him, put it that way," said O'Neill. "I wouldn't want to have been seen in any corner of Glasgow eating with the Rangers manager. It might have been the last time I would have eaten."

Should, as predicted, home fans distribute "McLeish Out" flyers before kick-off, the Villa manager may need to rely on all his Glasgow-honed survival instincts but the Scot is clearly frustrated that the dissenters do not appreciate assorted mitigating factors, including a tight budget.

"There are a lot of quality players who have left the club since Martin departed and maybe just before he left," said McLeish. "That's why I said our squad at the start of the season lacked a bit of experience – and I prayed the experienced players would stay fit.

"It has certainly not worked out that way. A lot of young players have been forced into action, maybe a little bit before their time."

[tomd2103]

"That's why I said our squad at the start of the season lacked a bit of experience – and I prayed the experienced players would stay fit.

"It has certainly not worked out that way. A lot of young players have been forced into action, maybe a little bit before their time."

Oh dear, he's really scraping the barrel for excuses now.  When he came out with that, why didn't the interviewer remind him that the experienced players have been fit for most of the season and that he has often left experienced players on the bench and played youngsters over them.  Sorry, not buying that one!! 

[hawkeye]

The real arguement came down to the Milner transfer, not exactly news but he insisted that he could use the Milner money, he recorded every conversation with Faulkner and Lerner and of course they were not quite as meticulous as MON and that is why they settled. one set of lawyers had a complete dossier, the other set had virtualy nothing because RL and Faulkner did not bother to take notes. MON maintains that he has the goods on Lerner and Faulkner but he signed away his right to publish for 5 years. He will complete his Biography and then the MON version of the truth will be out.

Not in the slightest bit vindictive, then.

He knew exactly what he as doing, sadly they did not. Cold, calculated or vindictive. Use any adjective you want. It is impossible to believe that he sanctioned every single contract and transfer without the approval of the Board. He therefor remains blameless in his world.

[eamonn]

I wonder about Petrov and O'Neill's relationship. Stan's illness aside, are his loyalties still strong to his old manager? ''Gaffer, it's a shame you left cos of the spending restrictions. But thanks to him I've been on good money here for the last six years''.

[Ian.]

The real arguement came down to the Milner transfer, not exactly news but he insisted that he could use the Milner money, he recorded every conversation with Faulkner and Lerner and of course they were not quite as meticulous as MON and that is why they settled. one set of lawyers had a complete dossier, the other set had virtualy nothing because RL and Faulkner did not bother to take notes. MON maintains that he has the goods on Lerner and Faulkner but he signed away his right to publish for 5 years. He will complete his Biography and then the MON version of the truth will be out.

Not in the slightest bit vindictive, then.

He knew exactly what he as doing, sadly they did not. Cold, calculated or vindictive. Use any adjective you want. It is impossible to believe that he sanctioned every single contract and transfer without the approval of the Board. He therefor remains blameless in his world.

Very vindictive. This is why I can not understand people who still hold a flame for him. Maybe he was promised the money but because Randy did not want us to fall into a terrible financial situation he wanted to hold it back until certain others were removed off the bill.
Both have made mistakes but MON has not had any consideration for anyone involved with the club, from players, staff and fans.

[KevinGage]

The real arguement came down to the Milner transfer, not exactly news but he insisted that he could use the Milner money, he recorded every conversation with Faulkner and Lerner and of course they were not quite as meticulous as MON and that is why they settled. one set of lawyers had a complete dossier, the other set had virtualy nothing because RL and Faulkner did not bother to take notes. MON maintains that he has the goods on Lerner and Faulkner but he signed away his right to publish for 5 years. He will complete his Biography and then the MON version of the truth will be out.

Interesting hawks.

The timing of the Milner deal and his departure always suggested that the former was a factor in the latter.

But not, it seems, due to boardroom interference (as a few on here tried to suggest),  having to take Ireland against his will (another popular theory) or not even wanting to sell Jimmy in the first place (he was the first to say he was available for the right offer, lets not forget).

And to be honest,  if it was purely because he felt that Milner's departure should have been sacrifice enough that summer, I'd have a degree of sympathy with him.  But there were six names circulated to the press as far back as March that year of players surplus to requirements,  Davies, Shorey, Luke Young, Steve Sidwell, NRC and Harewood.  At the time of his departure, there was no movement there (Luke and NRC actually turned down moves).   So even with a loss as big as Milner, the board wouldn't sanction any more moves  (or at least,  not the amount of incoming deals he felt necessary).  If that's the situation, I can understand his frustration. But I get the boards position too.

As Paulie and others have said, the best managers manage.  Redknapp has often been told no by Levy.  Moyes has survived on crumbs for the last 5/6 years. Part of the mystique around MON was the idea that his mere presence guarantees maximum effort- constantly getting more from less. Here was his opportunity to really cement that reputation, to take on Spurs and co with the challenges the wage bill presented, and having to deal with largely the same set of players he had the previous campaign.

He'd spent the best part of four years shaping that side exactly how he wanted.  Four years of popularity bordering on deity status with the majority of the support (even if he was increasingly showing himself to be all to mortal). What did that count for the first summer he didn't get his own way?  Nada. 

[Rip Van We Go Again]

It will be pissing down today, this will be my approach to O'Neill as he struggles to get into the dug out