Conspiracy : Lowered Expectations

[regular_john]

That is the most erronious part of the whole MON is to blame myth.

Lerner supplied the money, not MON. Martin spent it to try get success on the pitch, we got moderate success and not the Champions League we required. Lerner is responsible for supplying the money and pursuing the gamble to achieve Champions League. Made worse by the fact every penny spent was only money loaned to the club by himself. He intended to be repayed it once the club reach the promised land fo Champions League.

Martin O'Neill was just the manager, he is only responsible for football matters. NOT, read the word NOT responsible for running the finances of the club. Like any manager he'll covet players and be frustrated if a deal falls through due to finances. But that is a fact of life for a manager. He is not responsible for the mess the club is in.

Randy Lerner and his mis management of club finances is. He loaned all the money to the club in a gamble to get Champions League, it failed and now we suffer the consequences of that. Made worse by the fact we need to repay him for hos own fail gamble. Sickening. the only small golden lining is he isn't a bank wanting their bigger interest payments and set timeline for repayment. Lerner will get his money back when he can.

All you need to do is looks at Harry and Levy at Spurs, Harry wants to spend money and get players, Levy needs to run the club sensibly. That's how it works, Harry takes the blame for football matters, Levy for financial matters. That are their respective jobs.

You're missing a MAJOR piece of the puzzle - the overlap between finances and football matters i.e. the requirement to get good value for money on players bought and sold.

Lerner did his job (provide money for the manager) perfectly, it's the manager's job to sign good players with the money made available to him - a job that MON failed horrendously at. By limiting himself to almost exclusively signing British players, he guaranteed we'd always be paying over the odds for what more often than not turned out to be very average signings.

We're in this financial mess because MON frittered away Lerner's money on players with little to no resale value, not because Lerner stumped up the cash to begin with.

[Kiwivillan]

I do think that McLeish was a scapegoat, and that his appointment was always to be a short one. The wage limits needed reseting, but the only way to take all the blame for a poor season away from the board for lack of investment, was to appoint a poor manager that would accept lowering wages, and appear to have a decent squad, but do poorly with them.

I think the only problem was that relegation came a little too close for comfort, and I think the decision to remove McLeish was taken on the Sunday before the Stoke game.

To be honest, I don't see the current squad as good as some make out.

In fact, when it comes to majority of seniors, it's ratshit.

One could make the hypothetical argument that the core players we have are so bad that if we didn't have as defensive minded a manager as McLeish we would have lost many of the games we drew and got relegated.

Now we're all glad that this horrible experiment is over, but it's only Part 1. Part 2 is getting rid of the detritus that MON accumulated to play his awful brand of football.

The worst part is that rather than taking 1 season to transition, we've been through 2 and will go through a 3rd.

Like any medicine, MON should come with this disclaimer as a potential side-effect of his managerial appointment.

[John]

How about this as another potential conspiracy theory?

We appointed Big Eck to act as a sponge for fan criticism during a season of “transition” at Villa Park and in the knowledge that continuing to sell our best players without replacing them adequately and aiming at the same time to move on players who were on a wage that was above what we are now prepared to pay would be very likely to have a negative impact on first team results. We appointed him because he unlike Martinez was prepared to take the job without money being made available to him during that “transitional” season.

At the end of a season that went worse than anyone at the club had imagined possible Big Eck whose position had by now become untenable asked for money to bring in players in the knowledge it would be refused and that gave both him and the club an opportunity to by “mutual agreement” part company with the club having again paid to keep a departing manager quiet.

This would produce a temporary feel good factor and could sell some season tickets on the back of a more popular managerial appointment being made and the hope of a pot of gold for that manager to spend.

We then play out like déjà vu wish lists of candidates we would like to see come to the club and links are made to Martinez and other managers who when they hear that there is no significant money to spend and cost cutting remains the primary concern publicly turn down our approaches. Our expectations are then lowered and some frightening proposition is mentioned (for McClaren last year read the ex-Wolves boss now) and we then appoint another manager who is prepared to take the job under the constraints that he would be working under such as say the current Small Heath boss or a former one in Bruce in the knowledge that if we found ourselves in a similar position next season they would be the primary target for criticism.

History could not repeat itself could it?

:eek:

[TRO]

I do think that McLeish was a scapegoat, and that his appointment was always to be a short one. The wage limits needed reseting, but the only way to take all the blame for a poor season away from the board for lack of investment, was to appoint a poor manager that would accept lowering wages, and appear to have a decent squad, but do poorly with them.

I think the only problem was that relegation came a little too close for comfort, and I think the decision to remove McLeish was taken on the Sunday before the Stoke game.

To be honest, I don't see the current squad as good as some make out.

In fact, when it comes to majority of seniors, it's ratshit.

One could make the hypothetical argument that the core players we have are so bad that if we didn't have as defensive minded a manager as McLeish we would have lost many of the games we drew and got relegated.

Now we're all glad that this horrible experiment is over, but it's only Part 1. Part 2 is getting rid of the detritus that MON accumulated to play his awful brand of football.

We have too many bridesmaids....too many clearouts from other clubs who have ambitions greater than ours. we have taken too many easy options.

we need to get back to spotting our own up and coming players and try to get more success out of it than we have.

[TRO]

That is the most erronious part of the whole MON is to blame myth.

Lerner supplied the money, not MON. Martin spent it to try get success on the pitch, we got moderate success and not the Champions League we required. Lerner is responsible for supplying the money and pursuing the gamble to achieve Champions League. Made worse by the fact every penny spent was only money loaned to the club by himself. He intended to be repayed it once the club reach the promised land fo Champions League.

Martin O'Neill was just the manager, he is only responsible for football matters. NOT, read the word NOT responsible for running the finances of the club. Like any manager he'll covet players and be frustrated if a deal falls through due to finances. But that is a fact of life for a manager. He is not responsible for the mess the club is in.

Randy Lerner and his mis management of club finances is. He loaned all the money to the club in a gamble to get Champions League, it failed and now we suffer the consequences of that. Made worse by the fact we need to repay him for hos own fail gamble. Sickening. the only small golden lining is he isn't a bank wanting their bigger interest payments and set timeline for repayment. Lerner will get his money back when he can.

All you need to do is looks at Harry and Levy at Spurs, Harry wants to spend money and get players, Levy needs to run the club sensibly. That's how it works, Harry takes the blame for football matters, Levy for financial matters. That are their respective jobs.

You're missing a MAJOR piece of the puzzle - the overlap between finances and football matters i.e. the requirement to get good value for money on players bought and sold.

Lerner did his job (provide money for the manager) perfectly, it's the manager's job to sign good players with the money made available to him - a job that MON failed horrendously at. By limiting himself to almost exclusively signing British players, he guaranteed we'd always be paying over the odds for what more often than not turned out to be very average signings.

We're in this financial mess because MON frittered away Lerner's money on players with little to no resale value, not because Lerner stumped up the cash to begin with.

When you start trading at 11.50pm on the last day of a transfer window you do start to get the feeling that something ain't quite right. its like going up the meat market late on a saturday afternoon for a prime cut of steak.....don't think so.

[TRO]

How about this as another potential conspiracy theory?

We appointed Big Eck to act as a sponge for fan criticism during a season of “transition” at Villa Park and in the knowledge that continuing to sell our best players without replacing them adequately and aiming at the same time to move on players who were on a wage that was above what we are now prepared to pay would be very likely to have a negative impact on first team results. We appointed him because he unlike Martinez was prepared to take the job without money being made available to him during that “transitional” season.

At the end of a season that went worse than anyone at the club had imagined possible Big Eck whose position had by now become untenable asked for money to bring in players in the knowledge it would be refused and that gave both him and the club an opportunity to by “mutual agreement” part company with the club having again paid to keep a departing manager quiet.

This would produce a temporary feel good factor and could sell some season tickets on the back of a more popular managerial appointment being made and the hope of a pot of gold for that manager to spend.

We then play out like déjà vu wish lists of candidates we would like to see come to the club and links are made to Martinez and other managers who when they hear that there is no significant money to spend and cost cutting remains the primary concern publicly turn down our approaches. Our expectations are then lowered and some frightening proposition is mentioned (for McClaren last year read the ex-Wolves boss now) and we then appoint another manager who is prepared to take the job under the constraints that he would be working under such as say the current Small Heath boss or a former one in Bruce in the knowledge that if we found ourselves in a similar position next season they would be the primary target for criticism.

History could not repeat itself could it?

:eek:

you little tinker, thats all a bit cynical John

They wouldn't have thought of that would they?....would they?

perhaps the brighter fans amongst us will wait and see who the new appointment is before they put their trust in a board that appointed McLeish.

I would suspect that after appointing McLeish, they really have some catching up to do in terms of football Nous.

we will see

[briny_ear]

Great.

Another thread where people can play out the whole futile "MON was responsible for wasting Randy Lerner's money" vs "Randy Lerner bit off more than he could chew financially" debate.

All over again.

Just what we **** need at this juncture in the club's history.

At some point someone is going to have to start looking to the future rather than constantly obsessing about an imagined account of the past which, due to lack of facts, can be constructed however the author chooses.

The only truth that can be established is that Randy Lerner is the living embodiment of the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted".

[TRO]

Great.

Another thread where people can play out the whole futile "MON was responsible for wasting Randy Lerner's money" vs "Randy Lerner bit off more than he could chew financially" debate.

All over again.

Just what we **** need at this juncture in the club's history.

At some point someone is going to have to start looking to the future rather than constantly obsessing about an imagined account of the past which, due to lack of facts, can be constructed however the author chooses.

The only truth that can be established is that Randy Lerner is the living embodiment of the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted".

The truth hurts Brin

but yes we do need to move on but the legacy of the futile player trading is there for all to see and despite 2 managers since inheriting a toxic situation and failing to improve things ...its hard to ignore the source.

are well ... lets see if he can do the same for Sunderland?

[nycVILLA]

A Great Coach will be far better money spent than a marquee mercenarie signing...

The past is the past, these are the tools in the toolbox.

What can you do Mr. X?

[Valhalla]

This is a conjecture fest.

[b6bloke]

RL has to do a lot more in my opinion and don't trust him! He played the fans a treat by ignoring protests and I think it worked as there was little to know anti manager chants throughout! Now look at some of people's posts! "nobody expects champions league football just to be able to compete" even some of the managers ideas are so below what we should expect but one year of AM and our expectations are rock bottom and RL will save millions!