Paul33 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 O'Neill is the only scum that I view below McLeish. He had no issues in screwing us over and setting us up for relegation and he'll delight in seeing us go down this season. Should be booed - along with McLeish !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJ83 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Please come back Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedge Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 We should boo both the cnuts in the dug-outs on Saturday equally but for different reasons. Unfortunately the Irish cnut is a better manager than the Scottish cnut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 We should boo both the cnuts in the dug-outs on Saturday equally but for different reasons. Unfortunately the Irish word removed is a better manager than the Scottish word removed. Well, thats what you call blunt and straight to the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 O'Neill is the only scum that I view below McLeish. He had no issues in screwing us over and setting us up for relegation and he'll delight in seeing us go down this season. Should be booed - along with McLeish !!! Odd view. As if it was O'Neill's fault that Lerner appointed Houllier and Mcleish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 O'Neill is the only scum that I view below McLeish. He had no issues in screwing us over and setting us up for relegation and he'll delight in seeing us go down this season. Should be booed - along with McLeish !!! Odd view. As if it was O'Neill's fault that Lerner appointed Houllier and Mcleish! Also Lerner forced O'Neill out. If O'Neill had just left on his own accord, we wouldn't have had to pay him millions in compensation to settle out of court like we did. MON had an idea of where to take Villa and Lerner clamped down on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmarsha_926 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Who gives the likes of Beye, Sidwell and Heskey over 40k a week in wages and did not play them. MON and Lerner gambled to make the Champions League. MON failed and now we are paying the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HongKongVillan Posted April 19, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 19, 2012 MON walked out on us but something in my mind says we are not getting the entire picture. To this day I am still baffled as to why we needed to pay combo to MON if it was his own decision to stand down. I wouldnt cheer for him but definitely not going to boo him either. I have no problem with slagging of McLeish though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted April 19, 2012 Administrator Share Posted April 19, 2012 AVFC didn't "need" to pay anything. The claim was settled. No fault on either party can be implied from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 19, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 19, 2012 My guess would be that when MON joined the club he got some sort of verbal "gentleman's agreement" that he'd have a transfer budget every year, or something like that. Randy told him he didn't have one at the start of last season and he needed to sell players and cut back financially (which we now know he HAD to). MON wasn't happy, so he walked. And the going back on the original agreement was cited as constructive dismissal or something along those lines I have no source for this, just my own musings. Either way, I think it was definitely both sides at fault. I hate this view that it was either Randy's fault or MON's fault. Why can't it be a combination of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 My guess would be that when MON joined the club he got some sort of verbal "gentleman's agreement" that he'd have a transfer budget every year, or something like that. Randy told him he didn't have one at the start of last season and he needed to sell players and cut back financially (which we now know he HAD to). MON wasn't happy, so he walked. And the going back on the original agreement was cited as constructive dismissal or something along those lines I have no source for this, just my own musings. Either way, I think it was definitely both sides at fault. I hate this view that it was either Randy's fault or MON's fault. Why can't it be a combination of things?That's pretty much exactly how I see it. It was unsustainable so Randy had to pull the plug. If O'Neill had any decency he would've stayed and worked under these new constraints. Lerner is culpable for letting the situation get to this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 AVFC didn't "need" to pay anything. The claim was settled. No fault on either party can be implied from this. THIS x infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20, 2012 AVFC didn't "need" to pay anything. The claim was settled. No fault on either party can be implied from this. THIS x infinity. You can't imply fault at any degree of certainty. But I would assume (and an assumption is all it is) that if the club felt they needed to pay MON to settle the claim, they didn't see themselves as completely faultless. Similarly, the fact that MON accepted the settlement and didn't see out the procedure to the end would imply that he wasn't sure he was totally in the right either. No, you can't say any of that with any degree of certainty, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 My guess would be that when MON joined the club he got some sort of verbal "gentleman's agreement" that he'd have a transfer budget every year, or something like that. I think that you need to be a gentleman to enter into a "gentleman's agreement", in which case O'Neill would probably fail on the first count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 If we boo O'Neill and then boo McLeish having booed Houllier before we boo Lerner having booed Ellis and booed O'Leary and booed Graham Taylor I'm not sure anyone is going to take us very seriously. Sorry. Let's just focus on the word removed that matters. McLeish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20, 2012 My guess would be that when MON joined the club he got some sort of verbal "gentleman's agreement" that he'd have a transfer budget every year, or something like that. I think that you need to be a gentleman to enter into a "gentleman's agreement", in which case O'Neill would probably fail on the first count. You really hate O'Neill. We get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 AVFC didn't "need" to pay anything. The claim was settled. No fault on either party can be implied from this. Then why did they decide to pay him if there was no obligation to? Keep him quiet about something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 AVFC didn't "need" to pay anything. The claim was settled. No fault on either party can be implied from this. Then why did they decide to pay him if there was no obligation to? Keep him quiet about something? If there was no fault on the club, they wouldn't have paid him. Simple as that. The agreement to pay came during the tribunal hearing when the facts about the case were being put by QCs on either side. There are only two reasonable interpretations of this to my mind. (a) the club didn't want to pay up (or pay as much as they finally did) but realised during the hearing the game was up or ( The club had already made an offer that MON was disputing but during the hearing he realised he would get no more than was already on the table Either way, the club paid up and that means they accepted that he was due some payment on his terminated contract - something that the early ramblings of dear old Greneral Krulak suggested the club didn't accept. BTW, looking at earlier posts, I am waiting with excitement to see how people are going to boo both managers and make clear they are booing each of them for different reasons. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I'm not at the game but I would have clapped MON Increasingly it looks like Lerner is a Clearing and so I can understand why MON walked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Who gives the likes of Beye, Sidwell and Heskey over 40k a week in wages and did not play them. MON and Lerner gambled to make the Champions League. MON failed and now we are paying the price. You might ask yourself if the business side of the club actually were doing that good a job at increasing revenue. Questions like; “why did we have such a crap deal with Nike?” Maybe Lerner thought we could make more money on these things, in which case maybe this deserves a little more criticism? Basically Lerner had a plan A; give MON a ‘free’ reign. And thats about it. No plan b. No plan c, no continual investment. Just a brief period and then a shrug of the shoulders, a quick flight back to wherever and we are in this mess. We liked it when Lerner et al talked big. But when we reached the first sign of trouble, well they were found sorely lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts