Big_John_10 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I just think its strange that a man with no history of doing anything like it before walks out on a club 5 days before a season out of spite and to **** them over. *cough* Norwich *cough* You should get a doctor to check that cough out for you. Did he walk out of norwich to screw them over? I don't know the situation in detail but after doing a bit of reading it doesn't seem like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 apparently he left because he didnt get his way with the board which sounds worryingly familiar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Not the board, but the chairman over a broken promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I just think its strange that a man with no history of doing anything like it before walks out on a club 5 days before a season out of spite and to **** them over. *cough* Norwich *cough* You should get a doctor to check that cough out for you. Did he walk out of norwich to screw them over? I don't know the situation in detail but after doing a bit of reading it doesn't seem like that. I personally don't believe the reason for his leaving Aston Villa five days prior to the commencement of the season was singularly to '**** the club over'. I believe Martin O'Neill perpetuated a situation over a course of five months or so where it became difficult for him to operate under the conditions he would like to operate under. Yes, Randy may have moved the goalposts between years' four and five of the 'five year plan'® but there would have been extensive discussion on this very topic between the club and the former manager prior to MON agreeing to manage the team for another season. I personally believe a gross investment of approximately £40m in the summer of 2010 would have kept Milner at the club. I believe we were a striker away from breaking the top four. We were so close on points for those last two seasons it was painfully obvious to see. If we could have shifted out £10-15m of deadwood (Beye/Heskey/Sidwell/Davies/Shorey/**Reo-Coker**) we could have signed Bent for around £12-14m, a play-maker like Parker for around £8-10m and a some cover for the defence we would have strolled into that top four. As it was, MON was apparently looking at Aiden McGeady for phenomenal money. I'm not sure I would have trusted MON to buy the right players to take us to the promised land though. From his transfer history, I would have expected him to buy about 6 or 7 players and pay them all around £50k/week. Which he then would have failed to play. I think MON was fully aware of where Randy stood on the money issue before he agreed to manage the team for the 2010-11 season. If he didn't understand it - he was a fool. He was throwing his toys out the pram - and left the club [with the public/media perception] that it was because the owner had refused to fund transfers. Leaving before the season had commenced made it look like he had tried everything possible to get money from Lerner but the club had let him down. It also created the impression he was leaving for the benefit of the club, so that the season would be unaffected by an early managerial departure. He was played by the media (his chums) as a martyr. He abso-****-lutely was not a martyr for that. ** FWIW, I didn't think Reo-Coker was deadwood, but if MON was not going to play him we may as well have cashed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 13, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 13, 2012 Its all well and good everyone giving their experiences of employment tribunals but he wasn't going to one of those, he was going to a footballing tribunal, organised by the FA. It's a totally different thing. Villa's board decided to settle during the arbitration phase before the tribunal proper. Can anyone think why they might do that? More managers should take the press to court but they won't because there's too many Harry Redknapps and not enough Martin O'Neills out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Disagree with that Bicks. A tribunal for x is much the smart in principle for y. And the lawyers would have been all over it given the level of cash involved. Tribunals cost money, arbitration doesn't. The truth of the Mon situation is that there was probably fault on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 For once we agree on something 'TrentVilla.' Absolutely hate what O'Neill did to our club. What exactly did he do apart from leave because of a fallout with the owner? No one really knows why O'Neill left. There have been rumours but nothing substantiated. If it had been a personal fallout then fair enough but if it was due to the funding being withdrawn, or not signing the players MON wanted then my issue with O'Neill is this. O'Neill built his reputation on being able to motivate his players into giving performances above or at 100% of their ability on a consistent basis. If that is so, why didn't he then stay with us after losing our better players and show what he could do with limited resources? Thats what he built his reputation on wasn't it, rather than throwing his rattle out of the pram at the first sign of Lerner not giving him 100% backing in the transfer market. If indeed that was the case? In my opinion the Lerner O'Neill relationship started to break down when O'Neill wanted to sign McGeady and wasn't given the money to do so! My other issues with MON were with some of the players that he signed and the subsequent wages they were given and then not using those players as he had obviously decided they weren't good enough, yet expecting Lerner to fund more signings before selling. I believe these are some of the contributing factors which have left us where we are at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Reason I lost my respect for MON and maybe Randy did as well was that ridiculous decision to bring a reserve team to Moscow after playing the full team in 1st leg. Another thing IIRC our next game after the 1st leg was 0-1 defeat to Chelsea(who we were above at time), if he didnt take UEFA cup serious why use their legs in that game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Well that decision shows he was taking it serious. It was just a case of picking challenge for 4th or uefa cup as priority for the 1st team. The thinking was that hopefully the first team would get us into a lead that the reserves could hold on to in the 2nd leg. The hatred towards MON really leads people to ignore what actually is happening with other clubs. Spurs, a team that can attract better players than us, a team that have had a long period of consistent investment had to do a similar thing and play reserve players in the uefa cup. But that gets ignored because MON is a prick for failing to build a squad in 3 years capable of challening for champions league and uefa cup glory at the same time. Just like the constant spending of spurs and the huge spending of city gets ignored when MON is shit again for not taking a team from 16th to 4th in 4 years. There is nothing in recent history to suggest the funds given to MoN was enough to build a team good enough to finish top 4 and challenge for the uefa cup. So MoN went with what he thought he had the best chance at. Our 1st team had lost at home to CSKA so he clearly felt our chances in the 2nd leg were slim and to concentrate on fighting for 4th spot. If we were sitting 9th in the league do you think the reserves would have played the 2nd leg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 But if you do surrender in a cup competition to concentrate on the league, you have to make sure you don't make yourself look like a bit of a tool by failing to win at home to Stoke the game after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 The thinking was that hopefully the first team would get us into a lead that the reserves could hold on to in the 2nd leg. do you really believe that? CSKA a team who were probably better than us man for man would have been brushed aside at VP and then our reserves would go to Russia a notoriously difficult country to play football in winter and hold out for a result. Either shows a lot of naivety or distinct lack of knowledge on European football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 So MoN went with what he thought he had the best chance at. Our 1st team had lost at home to CSKA so he clearly felt our chances in the 2nd leg were slim and to concentrate on fighting for 4th spot. 1st leg was a 1-1 draw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 But if you do surrender in a cup competition to concentrate on the league, you have to make sure you don't make yourself look like a bit of a tool by failing to win at home to Stoke the game after. Yep, can't argue with that. Just putting forward that he had to make a choice. I think its ridiculous to complain that we didn't have the squad to finish 4th and challenge for the uefa cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 The thinking was that hopefully the first team would get us into a lead that the reserves could hold on to in the 2nd leg. do you really believe that? CSKA a team who were probably better than us man for man would have been brushed aside at VP and then our reserves would go to Russia a notoriously difficult country to play football in winter and hold out for a result. Either shows a lot of naivety or distinct lack of knowledge on European football No it shows he had to make a choice like i said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 So MoN went with what he thought he had the best chance at. Our 1st team had lost at home to CSKA so he clearly felt our chances in the 2nd leg were slim and to concentrate on fighting for 4th spot. 1st leg was a 1-1 draw I stand corrected with the score. Top 4 would clearly be more benificial to the club if we could achieve it over challenging in a uefa cup round. He went for the competition that he felt was most important. IMO trying to get top 4 was more important than trying to win the uefa cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Well we didnt beat stoke anyway so MONs decision was wrong After the Moscow debacle the whole mood and results began to change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Top 4 would clearly be more benificial to the club if we could achieve it over challenging in a uefa cup round. MON will never manage a team into the top 4. He is incapable of building a squad that can sustain 38 premier league games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesWithe Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I wonder if Sunderland got any boo`s today?? The O Neill myth is soon to be unveiled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaGoMarching Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 poor result a draw at home to the worst team in the league, probably same problem as we had at home, didn't know how to break down teams who sat off us and let us have the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 14, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 14, 2012 Villa's board decided to settle during the arbitration phase before the tribunal proper. Can anyone think why they might do that They didn't. The tribunal had started, it was into the 4th day, IIRC. And to turn your question round, Martin O'Neill decided to drop his case and instead settle for (we're told) half what he was claiming, during the tribunal. Can anyone think why he might do that and why he was so chuffed It could be anywhere from just wanting to move on, rather than rake over old coals, or maybe he was content to get some money and therefore many people would think he'd "won" without having to go through another week or two of it. Maybe he was playing poker and got something from a poor hand? Maybe the club wanted to close it all down. People seem so polarised that it's either MO'N was totally in the right, or the Club was. It doesn't look that simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts