Return of O'Neill - divided opinion

[john2710]

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.

If that is anything near the truth & I suspect it is, it shows MON was preparing an exit in advance. Once he'd got his proof for the constructive dismissal case, he triggered the exit, the fact that the timing delivered the most disruption possible was an added bonus.  It was rumored around February that he was preparing to walk, if he was unhappy he could of just walked.

As it was he won on all counts;
1. Leaves with managerial reputation intact
2. Is vindicated in court by constructive dismissal claim
3. Gets paid while he watches us fall apart.
4. Gets another job where the process starts again, Sunderland be warned.

 

[cdbearsfan]

He managed to finish sixth, which is a decent enough achievement. However, he did it when he had more money to spend than any manager in our history.

Of the previous managers to him, Taylor, Atkinson, Little, Gregory and even O'Leary managed top six as well. Ok, O'Neill managed it three times in a row, which they didn't. He didn't manage to finish ABOVE sixth though, like Taylor, Atkinson and Little did, and he didn't win a trophy.

He did ok, not spectacularly. To walk out when asked to develop the team that had been (bar Agbonlahor) entirely purchased by him shows his limitations as a coach.

Chequebook manager.

[Greg N'Ash]

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.

If that is anything near the truth & I suspect it is, it shows MON was preparing an exit in advance. Once he'd got his proof for the constructive dismissal case, he triggered the exit, the fact that the timing delivered the most disruption possible was an added bonus.  It was rumored around February that he was preparing to walk, if he was unhappy he could of just walked.

As it was he won on all counts;
1. Leaves with managerial reputation intact
2. Is vindicated in court by constructive dismissal claim
3. Gets paid while he watches us fall apart.
4. Gets another job where the process starts again, Sunderland be warned.

 

Doesn't ring true to me. If it was then Lerner and Co would be well within their rights to broadcast the tricks he was up to. What sort of chairman would employ a manager who tapes private telephone conversations?

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

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.

If that is anything near the truth & I suspect it is, it shows MON was preparing an exit in advance. Once he'd got his proof for the constructive dismissal case, he triggered the exit, the fact that the timing delivered the most disruption possible was an added bonus.  It was rumored around February that he was preparing to walk, if he was unhappy he could of just walked.

As it was he won on all counts;
1. Leaves with managerial reputation intact
2. Is vindicated in court by constructive dismissal claim
3. Gets paid while he watches us fall apart.
4. Gets another job where the process starts again, Sunderland be warned.

 

Doesn't ring true to me. If it was then Lerner and Co would be well within their rights to broadcast the tricks he was up to. What sort of chairman would employ a manager who tapes private telephone conversations?

Keeping tape recordings of all the conversations you have with your work colleagues ?  Terrific !

[Malandro]

Cheque book manager! Ha brilliant.

As for signing players based only in the UK, is that really Xenophobia? Twoddle. It's his management style and I'm not saying I agree with it.

I think he did a good job in his time here - the team he inherited was hopless and we were chasing teams above that were already full of talent (And building on that) and we often matched them in the end.

The style of football was what most expected, very direct, fast and traditional.

What really was the point in him staying? Watch the team he built be dismantled and not replaced.

He left because of broken promises and a total club change in direction. That was one mans call.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

Cheque book manager! Ha brilliant.

As for signing players based only in the UK, is that really Xenophobia? Twoddle. It's his management style and I'm not saying I agree with it.

I think he did a good job in his time here - the team he inherited was hopless and we were chasing teams above that were already full of talent (And building on that) and we often matched them in the end.

The style of football was what most expected, very direct, fast and traditional.

What really was the point in him staying? Watch the team he built be dismantled and not replaced.

He left because of broken promises and a total club change in direction. That was one mans call.

He left because he refused during the preceding 12 months to offload highly paid bit part players despite being told on a number of occasions to do so.

He knew he was going and probably pre-planned to do it 5 days before the opening of the season because he was a vindictive bastard.

I'm off to the game now. I sit in the Trinity Lower and intend to give him some right stick !

[eamonn]

Cheque book manager! Ha brilliant.

As for signing players based only in the UK, is that really Xenophobia? Twoddle. It's his management style and I'm not saying I agree with it.

I think he did a good job in his time here - the team he inherited was hopless and we were chasing teams above that were already full of talent (And building on that) and we often matched them in the end.

The style of football was what most expected, very direct, fast and traditional.

What really was the point in him staying? Watch the team he built be dismantled and not replaced.

He left because of broken promises and a total club change in direction. That was one mans call.

Maybe if he had played the half a dozen or more players that he chose once in a while - Sidwell, Beye, NRC, Davies, Shorey, Harewood etc. instead of leaving them unmotivated on the bench, Lerner might have been more forthcoming in giving him more money for further signings.

The style of football worked a treat when we were away and could soak up pressure and counter-attack sides, but if you were a season ticket-holder for his last two seasons you would have felt short-changed at the clueless attempts at taking the game to opposition who parked the bus.

[Malandro]

Cheque book manager! Ha brilliant.

As for signing players based only in the UK, is that really Xenophobia? Twoddle. It's his management style and I'm not saying I agree with it.

I think he did a good job in his time here - the team he inherited was hopless and we were chasing teams above that were already full of talent (And building on that) and we often matched them in the end.

The style of football was what most expected, very direct, fast and traditional.

What really was the point in him staying? Watch the team he built be dismantled and not replaced.

He left because of broken promises and a total club change in direction. That was one mans call.

He left because he refused during the preceding 12 months to offload highly paid bit part players despite being told on a number of occasions to do so.

He knew he was going and probably pre-planned to do it 5 days before the opening of the season because he was a vindictive bastard.

I'm off to the game now. I sit in the Trinity Lower and intend to give him some right stick !

Thats the club line isn't it? Strange, people who refuse to follow direct orders are normally dismissed sharpish.
Despite the clubs claims of ambition, none of the Milner fee was to be forthcoming. That and a number of other big issues led to his departure.

I think the ET found in his favour, did it not?

[Malandro]

Last comment before I watch our game - I know what direction we are heading in at the moment.

[SheffieldVillain]

the team he inherited was hopless

I can't agree with that Malandro. The team he inherited was being hopelessly managed, yes certainly, and that is O'Neill's key strength, getting the best out of people who are performing below their capabilities.

But hopeless players - Angel, Laursen, Bouma, Delaney, Mellberg, Barry? I wish we had them now. 

[itbrvilla]

Cheque book manager! Ha brilliant.

As for signing players based only in the UK, is that really Xenophobia? Twoddle. It's his management style and I'm not saying I agree with it.

I think he did a good job in his time here - the team he inherited was hopless and we were chasing teams above that were already full of talent (And building on that) and we often matched them in the end.

The style of football was what most expected, very direct, fast and traditional.

What really was the point in him staying? Watch the team he built be dismantled and not replaced.

He left because of broken promises and a total club change in direction. That was one mans call.

He left because he refused during the preceding 12 months to offload highly paid bit part players despite being told on a number of occasions to do so.

He knew he was going and probably pre-planned to do it 5 days before the opening of the season because he was a vindictive bastard.

I'm off to the game now. I sit in the Trinity Lower and intend to give him some right stick !

Thats the club line isn't it? Strange, people who refuse to follow direct orders are normally dismissed sharpish.
Despite the clubs claims of ambition, none of the Milner fee was to be forthcoming. That and a number of other big issues led to his departure.

I think the ET found in his favour, did it not?

I thought it was an outside settlement.

[pauliewalnuts]

Two issues.

1. It didn't settle in his favour, the two parties reached agreement.

2. It was not an employment tribunal, it was an arbitration panel.

How many times do we have to hear this "he won his employment tribunal" nonsense?

[john e]

Two issues.

1. It didn't settle in his favour, the two parties reached agreement.

2. It was not an employment tribunal, it was an arbitration panel.

How many times do we have to hear this "he won his employment tribunal" nonsense?

probably millions and a loads of years, just give up it doesnt matter

[The Man With A Stick]

So, what kind of reception did the wee, four-eyed, turncoat, pubeheaded walking-sack-of-shite get?

Was it terrific, absolutely terrific?

[Phil from the upper holte]

Got boo'd and that was probably the highlight of the game