Martin O'Neill

[Genie]

15 hours ago, rodders0223 said:

Nigel Reo-Coker £8.5m

Four year deal at...erm... let's be kind on Martin and go for £35,000 = £7.2m plus bonuses (lol) and we will make it an even £8m.

Never a regular under O'Neill, who in last season in charge played him in 10 league games. 10.

Nigel Reo-Coker sold for £0.00.

 

So just the £16.5m loss on that one...and that is just one example.

 

...but he made the profit on the old player. Brilliant.  **** Martin O'Neill.

You can do this with any manager, they all have a percentage of players bought for good money that turned out to be duds / terrible value. 

[Zatman]

I never understood freezing out Sorensen when Carson was having nightmare time i goal

[villa4europe]

18 hours ago, Withnail said:

The one thing I do remember.  He never used the bench.  Granted there might not have been much there but you bought them.  Make a change and play them.  I was a wee bit frustrated with that.

yeah i can remember him once saying something along the lines of he judged making subs by their ability, frustrated the **** out of me that comment because to to me it meant that he wasn't basing his substitutions on how poorly the 11 on the pitch were playing (he went far more in depth and really riled me)

[rodders0223]

12 hours ago, bobzy said:

The manager doesn't sanction how funds are spent. I'm always staggered when people say "they" spent <x>.

I always believed that O'Neill had pretty much free reign during his time here to do whatever he liked. Obviously Randy signed off at the end but I would have expected a man of O'Neill's experience to be a bit more careful with the funds provided.

[Zatman]

3 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

I always believed that O'Neill had pretty much free reign during his time here to do whatever he liked. Obviously Randy signed off at the end but I would have expected a man of O'Neill's experience to be a bit more careful with the funds provided.

He did damage at Celtic, bobo balde 40k a week. He had form

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, Michael118 said:

I thought our most instrumental players during that period were by far Laursen, Barry and Milner followed by Gabby. All O'Leary signings or players who came in through the youth system. Young, Carew, Bouma (O'Leary signing), Petrov, Friedel and others were important as well but the real key players were for the most part already there when O'Neil took over. 

Milner was signed by O'Neill, wasn't he? I'm not giving O'Leary credit for loaning him 3 years prior to that.

[Michael118]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Milner was signed by O'Neill, wasn't he? I'm not giving O'Leary credit for loaning him 3 years prior to that.

I didn't realise it was that long between when we loaned him and when we signed him permanently. 

There's a possibility we were interested in him all along and he wasn't either of their targets or we signed him permanently because he impressed when he was on loan. Out of the two, I'd still give O'Leary more credit for being the first to sign him when his value was lower but O'Neil gets some credit for signing him permanently.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Michael118

[DCJonah]

10 hours ago, maqroll said:

I look at Spurs, playing at the Bernabeu, and I can't help think that it should have been Real Madrid v Aston Villa. We were arguably on the right path with MON. Is he bound by contract to not talk about the Lerner flame out? I'd really love to hear the details of that.

We looked on the right path but really it turned out that Lerner had no plan to ensure we were able to consistently challenge. 

[DCJonah]

2 hours ago, rodders0223 said:

I always believed that O'Neill had pretty much free reign during his time here to do whatever he liked. Obviously Randy signed off at the end but I would have expected a man of O'Neill's experience to be a bit more careful with the funds provided.

He's the manager. We have an owner and a CEO and other members on the board that should have been more financially clued in to the club. To suggest it should all fall on MON is ridiculous. 

[bobzy]

2 minutes ago, Michael118 said:

I didn't realise it was that long between when we loaned him and when we signed him permanently. 

There's a possibility we were interested in him all along and he was neither of their targets or we signed him permanently because he impressed when he was on loan. Out of the two, I'd still give O'Leary more credit for being the first to sign him when his value was lower but O'Neil gets some credit for signing him permanently.

You can give credit wherever you want - you originally said that Milner was an O'Leary signing.  He wasn't.

[DCJonah]

17 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I do remember those times fondly. The Lerner/Mo'N honeymoon period is by far the best few years of supporting Villa, as a fan under the age of 30 or so.

It's slightly tarnished by the way the clearing in the woods walked out just before the season, and the realisation of how much he wasted the opportunity when Lerner's money and interest ran out.

 

...and Emile **** Heskey.

I'm really surprised people still feel angry at this. Look at the **** disgraceful way Lerner ran the club and the state we are in now. You're basically angry for MON seeing it coming before the rest of us. 

[rodders0223]

7 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

He's the manager. We have an owner and a CEO and other members on the board that should have been more financially clued in to the club. To suggest it should all fall on MON is ridiculous. 

We did and when they tried to reign it in, the second they said no to him...he walked.

 

[Michael118]

43 minutes ago, bobzy said:

You can give credit wherever you want - you originally said that Milner was an O'Leary signing.  He wasn't.

He was an O'Leary loan signing.

I classed him as an O'Leary signing because he was the first to sign him and because I was under the impression that we signed him permanently at most 12 months after the loan ended and it seemed more likely that he was rated by O'Leary than O'Neil. Fwiw, a fee of £‎4m was agreed for him when the loan ended which broke down at the last minute. 

Maybe O'Neil and O'Leary both rated him. It's not really clear-cut.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Michael118

[Dr_Pangloss]

Chasing top 4, so who do you call? Emile Heskey.

[Michael118]

I liked Heskey but was totally the wrong player for us at the wrong time. 

[omariqy]

Things he did right

Young - giving him the freedom and belief
Gabby - getting the best out of him
Milner - moving him to CM
Carew - making him the focal point for everything we did
Barry - giving him the freedom to get forward more
Petrov - helping him to get back after a mediocre beginning
Laursen - making sure we used his assets up top as well as at the back
Playing a counter attacking style in his 2nd season that saw us score plenty
Getting the best out of players
Making us relevant again
The cup runs

Things he did wrong

Routledge - not utilising an obvious talent
Cahill - so much better than Davies or Knight
Davis - probably would have been our 3rd best midfielder if he stayed
Davies - spent far too much on him
Spending big wages on NRC, Heskey, Beye, Dunne and Sidwell etc
Carson - terrible keeper
Shorey - terrible buy
Mellberg - wasted at right back
NRC - on too much money and probably better players we couldve got for the same price
Europa Cup fiasco
Buying Heskey instead of someone like Bent
Not buying players from abroad
Not adapting our style from counter attacking to a team who could break teams down
Sneijder - not buying him

Probably plenty more either side.

[BG_Villa_Fan]

Remember his time here very fondly - couldn't wait for the games, a lot of very likable players, some great results, some exciting football.

Of course, he did have a glass ceiling, but he was far better than anyone we've had since he was sacked. Just watching Ireland play with such a passion reminds me of what we've missed so much. Clear identity, plan and ability to raise the team performance way beyond the individual abilities - would love some of this in the current Villa but we're a million miles away right now. 

[DCJonah]

3 hours ago, rodders0223 said:

We did and when they tried to reign it in, the second they said no to him...he walked.

 

I very much doubt it was as simple as trying to reign it in. We certainly didn't reign it straight after he left so I would be surprised. 

And why wouldn't he walk? He's got his career to think about and now we all got to see the sort of owner Lerner was. MON being on the inside got to see it sooner and could see where this club was heading. Why stick around for that? 

[VillaChris]

On 10/17/2017 at 12:46, Michael118 said:

I didn't realise it was that long between when we loaned him and when we signed him permanently. 

There's a possibility we were interested in him all along and he wasn't either of their targets or we signed him permanently because he impressed when he was on loan. Out of the two, I'd still give O'Leary more credit for being the first to sign him when his value was lower but O'Neil gets some credit for signing him permanently.

We signed him in summer 2008, he finished his loan in 2006 so two year gap. IIRC we were going to sign him on last day of 2006 window but Newcastle changed things at the last minute.

[VillaChris]

On 10/17/2017 at 16:54, DCJonah said:

I very much doubt it was as simple as trying to reign it in. We certainly didn't reign it straight after he left so I would be surprised. 

And why wouldn't he walk? He's got his career to think about and now we all got to see the sort of owner Lerner was. MON being on the inside got to see it sooner and could see where this club was heading. Why stick around for that? 

There were certainly instructions that summer to start to move on the likes of Young (L), Shorey, Sidwell, NRC and others floating around on the periphery earning a shed load but movement was slow as obviously if you don't play those players there won't be a queue of clubs wanting them.

I was always under the impression that once he did the club would let him sign replacements. Likes of McGeady and Scott Parker were mooted that summer.

Of course you also had the Milner deal right at the end of his reign. I do wonder who actually identified and pursued Stephen Ireland in all that as to me there was no way he was going to fit into a 4-4-2 (not that he really fitted into any of our other formations). Could've been a case of Man. City just offered him to us at boardroom level and that tipped MON over the edge to actually walk.