Martin O'Neill

[Zatman]

Yeah but IMO if mon tells randy he wants a rb who will be 2.5m and 60k per week who is randy to say no?

It's not randys fault he played all of 3 times in 2 years

for Randy was Catch 22. He says no to this signing he is interfering with manager job if says yes he is putting club in financial jeopardy

[briny_ear]

the whole things screams director of football, everything that's happened since does too

Well, Comolli is free now. He's shown how well the DoF idea works at Spurs and Liverpool. Seems an ideal Lerner/Faulkner appointment. :winkold:

[Big_John_10]

for Randy was Catch 22. He says no to this signing he is interfering with manager job if says yes he is putting club in financial jeopardy

What a load of shit.

What do you think other clubs do?

Every owner just says yes yes yes?

I love how it's become accepted that MON was in full control or demanded that level of control. Is there actually any proof that was the case while he was here?

[ml1dch]

for Randy was Catch 22. He says no to this signing he is interfering with manager job if says yes he is putting club in financial jeopardy

I love how it's become accepted that MON was in full control or demanded that level of control. Is there actually any proof that was the case while he was here?

Well, only that the first time he was asked to make do with what he had, he upped and left rather than getting on with it.

It's not proof, but it's a fairly strong pointer, no?

[Big_John_10]

for Randy was Catch 22. He says no to this signing he is interfering with manager job if says yes he is putting club in financial jeopardy

I love how it's become accepted that MON was in full control or demanded that level of control. Is there actually any proof that was the case while he was here?

Well, only that the first time he was asked to make do with what he had, he upped and left rather than getting on with it.

It's not proof, but it's a fairly strong pointer, no?

If you believe the general then yes.

[ml1dch]

Or if you just use your own eyes and brain.

[Big_John_10]

I did thanks. And I still don't buy the PR bullshit.

I also look back at other clubs he's managed where he's had to work under restrictions and again now at Sunderland it's the same.

I don't see much proof that he was in complete financial control of our club like many make out.

[ml1dch]

So, without wanting to go round in circles for the umpteenth time - why did he leave then?

You clearly have an alternative theory if you're not believing the most likely explanation.

[Big_John_10]

I believe there was some falling out behind the scenes, probably to do with the Milner money, lack of ambition and the direction the club was going. I believe the fact he left so close to the start of the season shows something must of gone on and changed as i don't buy the idea he did it on purpose.

The general claimed MoN was not prepared to help address the wage issue yet he sold shorey and accepted bids for Luke young and Steve Sidwell. That to me looks like he was prepared to sell players and common sense tells me if he was prepared to sell those then he would have allowed players like Davies and NRC to leave. And as the general has been shown to be a pr exercise, and a poor one at that, I don't really believe the shit he posted.

In terms of MON having full financial control of the club I don't see much evidence to suggest that's the most likely scenario. It just seems a way for blame to be moved from Lerner to MON. Like I said he was working under restrictions in previous jobs and now in his current job.

[Keyblade]

I doubt he's really restricted at Sunderland. They bought like 10 players over the summer with Steve Bruce at the helm, so I'm sure MON will be given ample cash to sign more Kyrgiakos's.

[PieFacE]

I believe there was some falling out behind the scenes, probably to do with the Milner money, lack of ambition and the direction the club was going.

I believe this also.

I think MON wanted to spend the Milner money, not just the transfer fee but the wages too. I think he wanted to replace Milner with McGeady, and I also think that Randy told MON that wages needed to be lowered further before he could spend again, and then MON said something a long the lines of "I'm losing Milner, Young and Shorey so we've lowered wages"... unfortunately I don't think that was enough for Randy, then there was some kind of argument and MON walked. Claiming that the conditions in which he's allowed to work under have changed. Which is then why it went to court.

The reality is, we needed to lower the wages much more then that. Maybe Randy didnt communicate that to MON properly, maybe MON couldnt grasp what Randy meant by lowering the wage bill, who knows... but I think both partys are at fault.

As for lack of ambition, that pretty much means not able to spend much more money untill lowering the wage bill, right? Well maybe MON shouldnt have filled the squad with high earners, sitting on the bench if he still wanted to spend. Again, Randy should have done more in controlling that but MON should be smart enough to know that putting Habib Beye on a 40k a week contract for 3/4 years is incredibly stupid.

That could all be complete bullshit, but that's how I think it happened anyway.

[ml1dch]

I believe there was some falling out behind the scenes, probably to do with the Milner money, lack of ambition and the direction the club was going. I believe the fact he left so close to the start of the season shows something must of gone on and changed as i don't buy the idea he did it on purpose.

So, a roundabout way of saying "he left because he wasn't allowed to spend more money".

Which is fine, he's within his rights to leave. But let's not dress it up as noble.

My original point that you disagreed with was that he decided to leave when told to make do with what he had. You said that was incorrect, but it's merely paraphrasing what you have written above.

[briny_ear]

Well, only that the first time he was asked to make do with what he had, he upped and left rather than getting

on with it.

It's not proof, but it's a fairly strong pointer, no?

he worked all summer with Lerner and Faulkner under the new sell to spend regime so it was hardly the "first time".

Much stronger pointers are that the story changed at the last minute over how much of the Milner money he could spend. Also possibly he was overruled on an individual signing - Scott Parker - and that was maybe the final straw (hence the reported "if you think you can do better..." comment to Faulkner.

[Big_John_10]

My original point that you disagreed with was that he decided to leave when told to make do with what he had. You said that was incorrect, but it's merely paraphrasing what you have written above.

No your original point was that him leaving after being asked to make do was proof that he was in full financial control before when really it doesn't show that at all.

[ml1dch]

When we are dealing with nothing more than flaky newspaper reports and unreliable inside-information I don't think there will ever be proof of anything. I'd say that him resigning is 'evidence' rather than 'proof'.

I think that it's pretty obviously though that anyone claiming that one side was fully at fault isn't looking at the whole picture.

[coda]

Caesar O'Neill didn't like being reined in so he left. It didn't fit with his God complex.

[TrentVilla]

To be honest I'm really past caring about O'Neill, he isn't even our ex manager any more he is our ex ex manager. We will probably never know the truth of what went on and there is literally nothing new left to be said.

I'm more interested in us adding McLeish to the list of ex managers and which muppet our clueless chairman hires next.

[CI]

As posted yesterday, Closure hopefully comes next weekend, then threads like this become redundant

He did well, he got us competing, he spent a small fortune, some signings were good many were poor, he left horribly, we need closure

[coda]

There'll never be "closure" (awful word) whilst groups of fans blame O'Neill, Lerner or both for our current predicament.

[CI]

"closure" bad word ?? Not as toe curlingly embarrasing as "I'd have Lambert here in a "heartbeat""