Martin O'Neill

[Big_John_10]

So because spent recklessly in the years after he left (Ireland, Given etc) that must mean he didn't leave us in a state?

Strange logic.

Strange logic?

If he'd left us in such a financial mess then how were we able to afford to continue spending money and offering big contracts? Explain that one.

I notice you've ignored my question again. Shock.

 

Who says we could afford those kind of deals? Judging by the current spending cutbacks it seems we couldn't.

 

Your question was irrelevant.

 

Hahahaha brilliant. My question was irrelevant? Haha because we both know what your answer would be.

Err..... We spent the money. When MoN left we still spent money on transfers and high wages for two more years. How did we do that if we were in such a mess.

[Big_John_10]

its grand you ignored my question so we shouldnt have any problems when Mantis ignores yours

Must have missed it.

Ask again and I'll happily give an answer.

[Mantis]

 

 

So because spent recklessly in the years after he left (Ireland, Given etc) that must mean he didn't leave us in a state?

Strange logic.

Strange logic?

If he'd left us in such a financial mess then how were we able to afford to continue spending money and offering big contracts? Explain that one.

I notice you've ignored my question again. Shock.

 

Who says we could afford those kind of deals? Judging by the current spending cutbacks it seems we couldn't.

 

Your question was irrelevant.

 

Hahahaha brilliant. My question was irrelevant? Haha because we both know what your answer would be.

Err..... We spent the money. When MoN left we still spent money on transfers and high wages for two more years. How did we do that if we were in such a mess.

 

It was irrelevant though. It's all hypotheticals. You seem to think that because the club has been poorly run since he left then that must mean he didn't leave us in a state.

 

So? It's been clear since he left that we needed to trim the wage bill. Just because we've handed out stupid contracts since then to some players doesn't mean he didn't leave us in a mess.

 

[Big_John_10]

Answer the question.

Since he left we've spent around £70 million on transfer fees and compensation to managers.

We've also given (rough guess) these contracts

Given - £50,000

Hutton - £30,000

Makoun - £25,000

Vlaar - £25,000

Nzogbia - £40,000

Ireland - £70,000

Bent - £70,000

So in total for those 7 players we were able to give out contracts around £310,000 per week. Between those players that's an average contract of about £44,000 a week.

So your definition of a mess is a club that just finished with its highest points total in years who were then able to spend around £70 million and offer 7 new players contracts of around £44,000 per week.

Haha

How many clubs would like to be in that state? And I think it's quite clear that had Lener made the right appointment we'd be absolutely no where near the bottom 3 right now.

Funnily enough the severe spending cuts came 2 years after MoN left. Funny that, given he was the one who left us in a state.

[Mantis]

You're still not getting it. Just because the club have made some ridiculous spending decisions in the past 2 and a half years doesn't mean the club wasn't already in a state. You only have to look at some of the players and their contracts we had leftover after he left (Beye, Sidwell, Heskey, Reo-Coker etc).

[MrDuck]

I suspect Big Johns point is that the club made ridiculous spending decision with or without MON. Ergo - looking at it with the benefit of hindsight - the man most deserving of blame is probably Lerner.

 

Still, I'm pretty sure you two can get this thread to 200 pages without ever agreeing on anything

[Morpheus]

No problem 'MrDuck' especially if i get involved.

[Pelle]

Answer the question.

Since he left we've spent around £70 million on transfer fees and compensation to managers.

We've also given (rough guess) these contracts

Given - £50,000

Hutton - £30,000

Makoun - £25,000

Vlaar - £25,000

Nzogbia - £40,000

Ireland - £70,000

Bent - £70,000

So in total for those 7 players we were able to give out contracts around £310,000 per week. Between those players that's an average contract of about £44,000 a week.

So your definition of a mess is a club that just finished with its highest points total in years who were then able to spend around £70 million and offer 7 new players contracts of around £44,000 per week.

Haha

How many clubs would like to be in that state? And I think it's quite clear that had Lener made the right appointment we'd be absolutely no where near the bottom 3 right now.

Funnily enough the severe spending cuts came 2 years after MoN left. Funny that, given he was the one who left us in a state.

 

Where do you get those figures from? And I have to say that £25k for Vlaar isn't that much. But I also think that Zog might earn more than £40k. Just curious.

[AVFCforever1991]

But you also have to factor in what each player has done for the club and how much its worth e.g. Bent's goals kept us in the premier league.

[Genie]

This is football. Not every signing is a gem. Not every contract is value for money. EVERY club has players who they are paying too much to versus there contribution to the first team. Its not a phenomenon specific to Aston Villa / Randy Lerner / MoN.

[Pelle]

This is football. Not every signing is a gem. Not every contract is value for money. EVERY club has players who they are paying too much to versus there contribution to the first team. Its not a phenomenon specific to Aston Villa / Randy Lerner / MoN.

 

Very true.

[kevangrealish]

Gotta take BJ10's side on some of this. I think that aswell as all this it was Lerner who continuously gave MON blank checks and faulkner gladly allowed him to have free reign.

 

We know what MON is like and how ridiculous the money he spends on pure British based players but also you have got to consider who was allowing him to keep spending. Then finally they say no you've spent too much we have to take a lot of the money from the milner transfer he has a hissy fit and leaves.

 

It doesn't surprise me considering MON and Lerner apparently wasn't on the best of terms before the Milner transfer saga happened anyway. Got to remember that before the MON saga we were down in the dumps, and as soon as he leaves we're down in the dumps. Say how amazing it would have been if we would have got a better manager in the first place and never had MON but we finished 6th a number of times and got two good cup runs. MON was stubborn which was no surprise when he through his toys out of the pram after the Milner saga.

 

However Zatman i agree with the other two you mentioned.

[Demitri_C]

""So your definition of a mess is a club that just finished with its highest points total in years who were then able to spend around £70 million and offer 7 new players contracts of around £44,000 per week.""

You could argue the mess relates to te kind of players he signed with poor resale value, high transfer fees and when you consider some of the ages of some of the players he signed age wise it was idiotic. scarewood was 29 i think heskey 31, l young 29 etc

[Eames]

The simple fact is that MON and Lerner are equally to blame for the carnage that has been the last 3 seasons.

 

MON identified the players he wanted and his turning the team from 16th to 11th to 6th over 2 seasons showed to Randy that here was a man who could make progress. So Randy backed him. MON delivered 6th place again and some decent cup runs but it looked like with another push was needed to break into the CL. So Randy backed him again. MON got 6th again.  

 

The problems with MON however were now there for all to see. Players knackered by March due to an inability to rotate. Appalling man management of some, and an appalling overestimation of the worth of others (in terms of wages, fees and ability). Plus the scandal in the Uefa Cup.

 

Given all that Randy pulled the plug and said no to MON. Hence the hissy fit that saw him walk out.

 

Randy backed a manager he shouldn't have for longer than he should have. We didn't care because we were "successful" but in hindsight the mistakes are pretty clear for all to see - and we are still paying for it now. Problem is, Randy has gone too far the other way, he now won't invest for fear of getting that badly burnt again.

[Zatman]

The simple fact is that MON and Lerner are equally to blame for the carnage that has been the last 3 seasons.

 

MON identified the players he wanted and his turning the team from 16th to 11th to 6th over 2 seasons showed to Randy that here was a man who could make progress. So Randy backed him. MON delivered 6th place again and some decent cup runs but it looked like with another push was needed to break into the CL. So Randy backed him again. MON got 6th again.  

 

The problems with MON however were now there for all to see. Players knackered by March due to an inability to rotate. Appalling man management of some, and an appalling overestimation of the worth of others (in terms of wages, fees and ability). Plus the scandal in the Uefa Cup.

 

Given all that Randy pulled the plug and said no to MON. Hence the hissy fit that saw him walk out.

 

Randy backed a manager he shouldn't have for longer than he should have. We didn't care because we were "successful" but in hindsight the mistakes are pretty clear for all to see - and we are still paying for it now. Problem is, Randy has gone too far the other way, he now won't invest for fear of getting that badly burnt again.

 

Id agree with 100% this though walking out so close to start of season was also added to the carnage

[VillaForever1970]

Been chatting..

O’Neill: “I believe I saved the club from relegation last year and I felt that opportunity should have been afforded to me [this season].”

[PieFacE]

The simple fact is that MON and Lerner are equally to blame for the carnage that has been the last 3 seasons.

 

MON identified the players he wanted and his turning the team from 16th to 11th to 6th over 2 seasons showed to Randy that here was a man who could make progress. So Randy backed him. MON delivered 6th place again and some decent cup runs but it looked like with another push was needed to break into the CL. So Randy backed him again. MON got 6th again.  

 

The problems with MON however were now there for all to see. Players knackered by March due to an inability to rotate. Appalling man management of some, and an appalling overestimation of the worth of others (in terms of wages, fees and ability). Plus the scandal in the Uefa Cup.

 

Given all that Randy pulled the plug and said no to MON. Hence the hissy fit that saw him walk out.

 

Randy backed a manager he shouldn't have for longer than he should have. We didn't care because we were "successful" but in hindsight the mistakes are pretty clear for all to see - and we are still paying for it now. Problem is, Randy has gone too far the other way, he now won't invest for fear of getting that badly burnt again.

Great post. 

[VillaForever1970]

Martin O'Neill says he should have been given more time at Sunderland

• 'You can lose your job if your tie doesn't fit your suit'

• Manager still keen to be involved in football

The Guardian, Friday 5 April 2013 15.12 BST

Martin O'Neill says Sunderland were 'pretty much on their knees' when he took over. Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA

Martin O'Neill has said he thought he should have been given more time to save Sunderland from relegation in the wake of his sudden sacking on Saturday night.

"With the experience I've had, when I came into the club and it was pretty much on its knees and I think I saved the club from relegation, I think I should've been given more of an opportunity," he told Radio 5 Live.

He said that he accepted the sacking was the prerogative of the owner Ellis Short, but that he was "pretty disappointed and frustrated as much as anything else".

He added: "I'm in a business now where I think very little shocks you about professional football. I think you can lose your job if your tie doesn't fit your suit."

He insisted, though, that he was still in love with the game at the age of 61, emphasising that he still has the same drive to succeed he had when he took over Wycombe Wanderers 21 years ago – which suggests that he is still open to another job in management.

O'Neill had taken over at Sunderland in December 2011 when they were 16th in the table. They finished that season in 13th.

link

[villa_shere]

RL was silly for letting MON (and subsiquent managers) to buy players unchallanged.

 

MON is not a good manager, even when we were flying high, our position in the league was great but quite often our football was not. For the money he spent we didnt perform any higher than expected. We spent champions league style money and finished 5th with one season of a cup run.

 

He common know flaws where picking the same team week in week out, playing players out of position, letting decent players leave. The inability to sign a striker. Buying majority GB based players on high wages.

[Zatman]

from elsewhere on the Guardian

 

O'Neill reportedly told Ellis Short, the club's chairman, that Sunderland possess only five senior players capable of pushing the team into the top 10.

 

 

among them was Lee Cattermole   

Edited April 5, 2013 by Zatman