markavfc40 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) It is annoying though that the general consensus among a lot of football fans seems to be that O'Neill did a magnificent job and that we were lucky to have him. Lucky to have him. Really? I've never got that impression. I know plenty of supporters of others clubs and if they'd been stupid enough to suggest that I'd simply point out that it was the opposite and that he was lucky to have managed us. In fact O'Neill himself stated many times what an honor it was to manage such a great club right from when he joined, whist he was here and since he left. That's the impression I got from some of the people I've spoken to. I never said O'Neill said that. You need to put them in their place mate or stop talking to idiots Also I never said you did say O'Neill said that. I was simply adding weight to how stupid it was for anyone to suggest we were lucky to have him manage us when O'Neill himself stated on numerous occasions what an honor it was for him to have managed us. Edited November 21, 2013 by markavfc40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 doen't that go to show how dormant we have been for a lot longer than folk want to readily admit to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 The Cahill one makes me cry. Even my Gran could tell he was going to be a top defender yet one the most highly rated managers in UK at the couldn't see it! I will never understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Guys fans of other clubs will only see us as how we were when their teams played us where we finish in the league. They will never know or care about the real damage MON did to the club. Although I blame the blind nature of board backing more than the manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 All good managers make mistakes on players. The questions start gathering momentum, when there have been so many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) The Cahill one makes me cry. Even my Gran could tell he was going to be a top defender yet one the most highly rated managers in UK at the couldn't see it! I will never understand. This is just rewriting history, Cahill was a raw youth in 2006/7 and certainly not good enough to hold down a regular place in a premier league team that was trying to challenge for top 4. He had been brought into the first team too early due to the failure of the previous chairman to provide adequate funds for transfers and quite understandably wanted to go on playing at that level. He had run out of short term loan opportunities and selling him to Bolton was a good way of helping him get what he wanted - he went to a lesser side whose main concern was avoiding relegation and he was able to learn his trade there. He was pretty inconsistent in his first seasons with Bolton. In my view he is actually still inconsistent and his game has flaws but with the experience he has gained, and surrounded by a starry Chelsea side costing billions of pounds, it doesn't show up so much. Oh, and £5m was a pretty good price for him considering the stage of his development. Not all youth team players get to flourish at the club the were apprenticed to. Edited November 25, 2013 by briny_ear 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 You can't really deny that selling Cahill to Bolton wasn't a bad deal, regardless of how you rated him when he was with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 The Cahill one makes me cry. Even my Gran could tell he was going to be a top defender yet one the most highly rated managers in UK at the couldn't see it! I will never understand. This is just rewriting history, Cahill was a raw youth in 2006/7 and certainly not good enough to hold down a regular place in a premier league team that was trying to challenge for top 4. He had been brought into the first team too early due to the failure of the previous chairman to provide adequate funds for transfers and quite understandably wanted to go on playing at that level. He had run out of short term loan opportunities and selling him to Bolton was a good way of helping him get what he wanted - he went to a lesser side whose main concern was avoiding relegation and he was able to learn his trade there. He was pretty inconsistent in his first seasons with Bolton. In my view he is actually still inconsistent and his game has flaws but with the experience he has gained, and surrounded by a starry Chelsea side costing billions of pounds, it doesn't show up so much. Oh, and £5m was a pretty good price for him considering the stage of his development. Not all youth team players get to flourish at the club the were apprenticed to. Didn't Cahill want guarantees of first team football? Which we quite rightly didn't offer, thus he asked for a move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Regarding the Cahill thing. My Dad met Graham Taylor on an plane I think coming back from a European game that GT had been the pundit on.. He asked about the whole Cahill thing and GT was adamant that the club had done the right thing. Apparently GC was getting a bit too big for his boots and becoming quite disruptive. They all knew that he was going to be a good player, but he just didn't see his future at Villa Park. At the time £5M was the best they could get and it was the consensus at the club that it would be better to let him go than to have him get more difficult down the line. I am paraphrasing a lot as I was told this a long time ago and obviously my dad was recalling a conversation that he had had. I don't think the club messed up on this, I just think that they had to make the best out of a bad situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 The Cahill one makes me cry. Even my Gran could tell he was going to be a top defender yet one the most highly rated managers in UK at the couldn't see it! I will never understand. This is just rewriting history, Cahill was a raw youth in 2006/7 and certainly not good enough to hold down a regular place in a premier league team that was trying to challenge for top 4. He had been brought into the first team too early due to the failure of the previous chairman to provide adequate funds for transfers and quite understandably wanted to go on playing at that level. He had run out of short term loan opportunities and selling him to Bolton was a good way of helping him get what he wanted - he went to a lesser side whose main concern was avoiding relegation and he was able to learn his trade there. He was pretty inconsistent in his first seasons with Bolton. In my view he is actually still inconsistent and his game has flaws but with the experience he has gained, and surrounded by a starry Chelsea side costing billions of pounds, it doesn't show up so much. Oh, and £5m was a pretty good price for him considering the stage of his development. Not all youth team players get to flourish at the club the were apprenticed to. No it isn't rewriting of history, it was a stupid idea then, only made worse by the passage of time. O'Neill inherited a defence that had Laursen, Mellberg and Cahill as central defenders. He then spent over £20m on Curtis Davies, Carlos Cuellar and Zat Knight. Yes that's right kids, Curtis Davies, Zat Knight, and Carlos Cuellar. Cahill may have been a raw youth, but he was already better than Curtis Davies, and much, much better than Zat Knight. O'Neill also pissed Mellberg off by playing him at right back. So as well as pissing off one of our best ever servants, he let our most promising young defender in years go, while spending a fortune on some absolute donkeys, who he then had to replace wholesale 12 months later due to the utter ineptitute they displayed. And that's without mentioning Nicky Shorey and paying massively over the odds for Luke Young. When it came to defenders, O'Neill was an absolute fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 The Cahill one makes me cry. Even my Gran could tell he was going to be a top defender yet one the most highly rated managers in UK at the couldn't see it! I will never understand. This is just rewriting history, Cahill was a raw youth in 2006/7 and certainly not good enough to hold down a regular place in a premier league team that was trying to challenge for top 4. He had been brought into the first team too early due to the failure of the previous chairman to provide adequate funds for transfers and quite understandably wanted to go on playing at that level. He had run out of short term loan opportunities and selling him to Bolton was a good way of helping him get what he wanted - he went to a lesser side whose main concern was avoiding relegation and he was able to learn his trade there. He was pretty inconsistent in his first seasons with Bolton. In my view he is actually still inconsistent and his game has flaws but with the experience he has gained, and surrounded by a starry Chelsea side costing billions of pounds, it doesn't show up so much. Oh, and £5m was a pretty good price for him considering the stage of his development. Not all youth team players get to flourish at the club the were apprenticed to. No it isn't rewriting of history, it was a stupid idea then, only made worse by the passage of time. O'Neill inherited a defence that had Laursen, Mellberg and Cahill as central defenders. He then spent over £20m on Curtis Davies, Carlos Cuellar and Zat Knight. Yes that's right kids, Curtis Davies, Zat Knight, and Carlos Cuellar. Cahill may have been a raw youth, but he was already better than Curtis Davies, and much, much better than Zat Knight. O'Neill also pissed Mellberg off by playing him at right back. So as well as pissing off one of our best ever servants, he let our most promising young defender in years go, while spending a fortune on some absolute donkeys, who he then had to replace wholesale 12 months later due to the utter ineptitute they displayed. And that's without mentioning Nicky Shorey and paying massively over the odds for Luke Young. When it came to defenders, O'Neill was an absolute fool. I am really annoyed at this rewriting of history by Risso. MON inherited a central defence of OM, ML, GC and Liam Ridgwell; how could he forget him... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biskitt Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 The Cahill one makes me cry. Even my Gran could tell he was going to be a top defender yet one the most highly rated managers in UK at the couldn't see it! I will never understand. This is just rewriting history, Cahill was a raw youth in 2006/7 and certainly not good enough to hold down a regular place in a premier league team that was trying to challenge for top 4. He had been brought into the first team too early due to the failure of the previous chairman to provide adequate funds for transfers and quite understandably wanted to go on playing at that level. He had run out of short term loan opportunities and selling him to Bolton was a good way of helping him get what he wanted - he went to a lesser side whose main concern was avoiding relegation and he was able to learn his trade there. He was pretty inconsistent in his first seasons with Bolton. In my view he is actually still inconsistent and his game has flaws but with the experience he has gained, and surrounded by a starry Chelsea side costing billions of pounds, it doesn't show up so much. Oh, and £5m was a pretty good price for him considering the stage of his development. Not all youth team players get to flourish at the club the were apprenticed to. No it isn't rewriting of history, it was a stupid idea then, only made worse by the passage of time. O'Neill inherited a defence that had Laursen, Mellberg and Cahill as central defenders. He then spent over £20m on Curtis Davies, Carlos Cuellar and Zat Knight. Yes that's right kids, Curtis Davies, Zat Knight, and Carlos Cuellar. Cahill may have been a raw youth, but he was already better than Curtis Davies, and much, much better than Zat Knight. O'Neill also pissed Mellberg off by playing him at right back. So as well as pissing off one of our best ever servants, he let our most promising young defender in years go, while spending a fortune on some absolute donkeys, who he then had to replace wholesale 12 months later due to the utter ineptitute they displayed. And that's without mentioning Nicky Shorey and paying massively over the odds for Luke Young. When it came to defenders, O'Neill was an absolute fool. I am really annoyed at this rewriting of history by Risso. MON inherited a central defence of OM, ML, GC and Liam Ridgwell; how could he forget him... And spent approx £50m on Davies, Cuellar, Dunne, Knight, Shorey, Warnock, Young, Beye. How much did we get back from that lot, couple of million ? No wonder we're in the shit now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Was over the moon with £5.5m for Cahill at the time. I don't care if he plays for Chelsea and England, he still looks average to me. Yes, he's better than Clark and Herd, but he wasn't better than Laursen, Mellberg, and no not even Curtis Davies. It wasn't inexperience which made him make a lot of errors, it was arrogance, arrogance still costing him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 its not the point that he looks average its the fact we lost him for 5 million and bought dud replacements for a lot more money. Gary Cahill left foot is better than anything Carlos Cuellar would ever become and we spent more money on him than we got for Cahill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts