We've not had a Martin O'Neill argument in ages...

[cdward]

I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.

This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.

Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.

Give them what he had and see.

That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.

you just beat me to it

Exactly. O'Neill ran away when he saw the mess he'd created. The chairman couldn't.

The buck stops with the chairman. And irrespective of how O'Neill walked away, what Lerner has done to the club in the 5 years since is simply unforgivable.

In all seriousness, and I'm not defending him, but what would you have realistically done differently? We have regular Lerner/Lambert/everyone else is/was shit arguments on here, but I'm interested in knowing what else could have been done given the situation we faced in 2010.

It just seems that Lerner decided to change course, and that was it. MON didn't agree, and went, then Lerner just continued on his journey. The only hint of where he is/was trying to take us is the Deloitte top 20, not sure if this is still his target.
Maybe the definition of a successful football club is different between chairman and manager, and chairman and fans.

[pauliewalnuts]

MON ran away. Lerner couldn't run away, and still can't, he owns the club.

The problem is that, although he can't run away, he has mentally detached himself from the club in the last few years, and this is part of the problem.

Of course, another part of the problem is that when he mentally re-attaches himself to the club, he seems to make more bad decisions than good ones.

[SamTheMouse]

None of the decisions Randy has made indicate that he really understands the first thing about football.

And for a high-powered American businessman, he seems very naive.

[joe_c]

exactly the best Villa  manager of the last eight years bar none.

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Yup. Kind of like saying the new U2 album is their best work in the last eight years.

[Lee]

I still can't believe that there are Villa fans out there that still think O'Neill was good for the club.

This is the guy who sold Gary Cahill for pittance and then replaced him with Zat Knight ffs.

Consistent top 6 finishes, cup final and semi final appearances, european football, buying players and selling them for massive profit, having several Villa players playing for England, never losing to our local rivals, were all good for the club. He was certainly better for the club than Lambert, McLeish or Houllier.

Give them what he had and see.

That's the crux of the problem - the chairman.

He has been the common denominator.

The "success" of MON and the subsequent fall from grace has been a result of his astronomical naivety

[Dave]

If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?

This nonsense again?

Really?

[Ian.]

I wonder if consistently finishing 6th but with no trophies, spending similar money to what MON did would cause the Liverpool fans to be calling for the bullet. I'm sure it would, as they are now thinking Rodgers is not the man for them. Why should it be different for us to think the time MON spent here was a massive underachievement in relation to money spent or waisted?

[Dave]

Why should it be different for us to think the time MON spent here was a massive underachievement in relation to money spent or waisted?

I'm not sure that 'massive underachievement' is fair either.

I think that he just about managed parity with what could reasonably expected of him given what was happening with the other teams around us at the time. I think it was a missed opportunity certainly, but I don't think that's the same as a massive underachievement.

[Ads]

I think we should have finished in the top four. 50 odd points, 3rd in the table come March and we blow it, because the manager had no appreciation of variety. Be that tactical variety, squad selection or players to be brought into that squad.

Ultimately, our house blew in very, very quickly after MON went. All that money that was invested and we got so little return for it. What a bloody waste of a chance.

[Ian.]

Why should it be different for us to think the time MON spent here was a massive underachievement in relation to money spent or waisted?

I'm not sure that 'massive underachievement' is fair either.

I think that he just about managed parity with what could reasonably expected of him given what was happening with the other teams around us at the time. I think it was a missed opportunity certainly, but that's I don't think that's the same as a massive underachievement.

I really meant I'm sure Liverpool fans would be thinking spending the money he did was a massive underachievement.

I was trying to put a different spin on things between the thinking of fans from different clubs. I was speaking to a colleague the other day who thinks MON was the best thing we have ever had and we probably wished he was still with us. He finds it hard to believe we don't like him and does not understand that for most part from the creation of the Premier League we have averaged 6th in the league (up to point of MON leaving).

I asked him, a Liverpool fan if that record would be good enough for him and he said no chance.

[FatSam]

I think we should have finished in the top four. 50 odd points, 3rd in the table come March and we blow it, because the manager had no appreciation of variety. Be that tactical variety, squad selection or players to be brought into that squad.

Ultimately, our house blew in very, very quickly after MON went. All that money that was invested and we got so little return for it. What a bloody waste of a chance.

I agree entirely. Especially as Everton finished above us for three of his four seasons in charge, and Tottenham finished in the top four in his last season.

[dave.woodhall]

That Everton point is a good one, particularly given that their recent placings have been seen as a surprise.

[cdward]

If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?

This nonsense again?

Really?

Maybe i am wrong in assuming you read the title of the thread.

[johnc]

If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?

This nonsense again?

Really?

Well he did recieve a payout. This would imply he was wronged in some way

[Richard E]

If the chairman was not responsible for MON walking away, why did he pay him compensation?

This nonsense again?

Really?

Well he did recieve a payout. This would imply he was wronged in some way

<bangs head on desk in frustration>

He didn't receive a payout - the parties reached an out of Court settlement.

Companies make settlement payments in litigation for all manner of reasons, mainly related to legal costs.

For all we know it might have been MON for whom the case was going really badly and if so perhaps he agreed to accept a settlement at a much lower figure than it was going to cost Aston Villa (and MON) to have a silk there for any longer. Certainly the guy who was representing MON is very good indeed and therefore not cheap.