Return of O'Neill - divided opinion

[SoccerHQ]

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

Was it terrific, absolutely terrific?

Mixed as I thought it would be.

In the Upper Trinity of the 10 people around me (yes it wasn't very full) five clapped and five booed. Of course booing will always seem louder and clapping.

Didn't hear any Anti-MON chants during the game from the Holte. Was booed once when he touched the ball. Seemed less animated than usual aswell although it could've been due to the predictably wretched nature of the game.

[Risso]

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?

Recording conversations is grounds for dismissal where I work.

Not to mention illegal if you do it on the sly and make those recordings available to third parties who they weren't intended for. 

[TopDeck113]

Didn't clap and didn't boo. 

In my time following the Villa, whatever was going on in the background,  I still reckon that Saunders's was by far the greater betrayal.  However, he'd also delivered the greatest returns of any manager I've known.  As for MON, when all is said and done I simply miss the buzz of him being our manager, especially in those first couple of seasons.  I reckon it'll be a long time before there's that feeling again.   

[Dave]

But Hawkeye's post doesn't suggest whether it was in secret or not.

So if it is true then it could have been done with the others' knowledge and consent. Which would be a lot more believable than O'Neill setting up spy-cameras in the board room.

[Risso]

But Hawkeye's post doesn't suggest whether it was in secret or not.

So if it is true then it could have been done with the others' knowledge and consent. Which would be a lot more believable than O'Neill setting up spy-cameras in the board room.

I don't know about you, but if I was asked at work if I minded if somebody recorded our telephone conversation, I'd probably think something was amiss.  A bit like being asked to appear on Jeremy Kyle by your wife.

[Dave]

But Hawkeye's post doesn't suggest whether it was in secret or not.

So if it is true then it could have been done with the others' knowledge and consent. Which would be a lot more believable than O'Neill setting up spy-cameras in the board room.

I don't know about you, but if I was asked at work if I minded if somebody recorded our telephone conversation, I'd probably think something was amiss.  A bit like being asked to appear on Jeremy Kyle by your wife.

If I were in a meeting and somebody said that it was being taped so that a record of the conversation was available then I'd think it was a bit odd but unless I was planning on saying something that I shouldn't then I don't think really be that bothered.

[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.

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?

Recording conversations is grounds for dismissal where I work.

Not to mention illegal if you do it on the sly and make those recordings available to third parties who they weren't intended for. 

he made notes, no tape recorder involved.

[Dave]

Well to me that just sounds like common sense.

The most tedious, trivial meetings at our place are all minuted.

[woody4866]

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?

Recording conversations is grounds for dismissal where I work.

Not to mention illegal if you do it on the sly and make those recordings available to third parties who they weren't intended for. 

he made notes, no tape recorder involved.

making notes is fine as long as he issued minutes to all parties for their records and response

[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.

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?

Recording conversations is grounds for dismissal where I work.

Not to mention illegal if you do it on the sly and make those recordings available to third parties who they weren't intended for. 

he made notes, no tape recorder involved.

making notes is fine as long as he issued minutes to all parties for their records and response

I think you will find that Lawyers advising clients that are having problems with thier employer are told to make a note of every discussion and all behaviour of thier bosses, there is no law that says you have to share that information.

[myf]

Hope he can do us a favour next week against bolton

[Lizz]

I thought he sounded like a scolded schoolboy in that interview

I heard the R5 post match interview. In addition to sounding like a graduate from political spin doctors r us, he also came across as someone who has a very good way with words. My comments aren't meant to be taken as complimentary in case anyone's in any doubt.

[eamonn]

I think you will find that Lawyers advising clients that are having problems with thier employer are told to make a note of every discussion and all behaviour of thier bosses, there is no law that says you have to share that information.

If you don't share how it can it be proved that it is factual and accurate?

[johnc]

I think you will find that Lawyers advising clients that are having problems with thier employer are told to make a note of every discussion and all behaviour of thier bosses, there is no law that says you have to share that information.

If you don't share how it can it be proved that it is factual and accurate?

Because it may well be a factual and accurate recording of what took place and the other party are not able to rebut (for want of a better word) your record. The truth whatever it is will eventually come out.

[ROBBO]

In the interview he said he left the club in very good shape, what about the players that he wasn't playing, on huge wages that were sending the club broke.