Big_John_10 Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Well the articles says - 'Paul Gilroy has a particular interest in sports-related litigation. He recently successfully acted for Martin O’Neill in his wrongful dismissal claim against Aston Villa before the FA Premier League Tribunal' So I don't need to be careful with my use of words do I? Very interesting and will no doubt be ignored. Also backs up what MON said when he joined Sunderland about never breaking a contract. And yet people still believe he walked out 5 days before the season started to try and **** the club over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2012 Well the articles says - 'Paul Gilroy has a particular interest in sports-related litigation. He recently successfully acted for Martin O’Neill in his wrongful dismissal claim against Aston Villa before the FA Premier League Tribunal' So I don't need to be careful with my use of words do I? Very interesting and will no doubt be ignored. Also backs up what MON said when he joined Sunderland about never breaking a contract. And yet people still believe he walked out 5 days before the season started to try and **** the club over. I think two men fell out about how they wanted to do things, maybe they didn't even fall out, maybe they just saw things differently - one didn't want to sack the other, he wanted him to walk, one didn't want to walk, he wanted to be pushed - both of those positions were about money, maybe also for Lerner there was the thing about not being seen as having been the man who sacked a manager who'd done well and was seen as a figurehead. I think Lerner then started to back Martin into a corner, cut off his cash supply, remove some of his supports and wait for him to go - in this sort of situation O'Neill will always leave - he's a very good manager of a football team, a decent manager of a football club, but he's an exceptional manager of brand O'Neill and he wouldn't have stuck around to dirty his reputation on a club in our position. O'Neill won. He got to leave, by the sounds of things he got to be pushed, or at least pushed hard enough that he got to keep his reputation and he got his money. Whether or not he also got to **** Lerner over for his troubles by walking out five days before the season started is a subject of conjecture - I think it's fair to say it wouldn't have caused him any discomfort. Ultimately, the two men both did the thing they've been good at for the last few years - Martin O'Neill looked after Martin O'Neill and left another club with mixed feelings. Randy Lerner made a poor decision and spent a lot of money that might have been more use elsewhere. Strangely, it would have worked out a lot better if he'd just sacked him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 It's almost like personal pride is now well and truly an obstacle to the decent running of AVFC An owner who can't admit he's wrong is a dangerous one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Well the articles says - 'Paul Gilroy has a particular interest in sports-related litigation. He recently successfully acted for Martin O’Neill in his wrongful dismissal claim against Aston Villa before the FA Premier League Tribunal' So I don't need to be careful with my use of words do I? Very interesting and will no doubt be ignored. Also backs up what MON said when he joined Sunderland about never breaking a contract. And yet people still believe he walked out 5 days before the season started to try and **** the club over. I think two men fell out about how they wanted to do things, maybe they didn't even fall out, maybe they just saw things differently - one didn't want to sack the other, he wanted him to walk, one didn't want to walk, he wanted to be pushed - both of those positions were about money, maybe also for Lerner there was the thing about not being seen as having been the man who sacked a manager who'd done well and was seen as a figurehead. I think Lerner then started to back Martin into a corner, cut off his cash supply, remove some of his supports and wait for him to go - in this sort of situation O'Neill will always leave - he's a very good manager of a football team, a decent manager of a football club, but he's an exceptional manager of brand O'Neill and he wouldn't have stuck around to dirty his reputation on a club in our position. O'Neill won. He got to leave, by the sounds of things he got to be pushed, or at least pushed hard enough that he got to keep his reputation and he got his money. Whether or not he also got to **** Lerner over for his troubles by walking out five days before the season started is a subject of conjecture - I think it's fair to say it wouldn't have caused him any discomfort. Ultimately, the two men both did the thing they've been good at for the last few years - Martin O'Neill looked after Martin O'Neill and left another club with mixed feelings. Randy Lerner made a poor decision and spent a lot of money that might have been more use elsewhere. Strangely, it would have worked out a lot better if he'd just sacked him. I read your post with interest and largely agree with it. To put a subject that we could go on about until midnight in to a few words. If the majority of the signings he made had come off....He would still be there. A large proportion of a Managers prowess is reliant on his ability to deal in the transfer market. .....bit of a sweeping statement i know.... but you can't avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 The warnings signs were there about 15 months earlier when MON walked out but was talked back by Lerner That story even broke on SSN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 The warnings signs were there about 15 months earlier when MON walked out but was talked back by Lerner That story even broke on SSN Can't remember, but if true not the kind of character you want running your club... You shouldn't have to talk a manager off the ledge, suggests they're unstable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 And yet people still believe he walked out 5 days before the season started to try and **** the club over. To be honest I don't think that anyone ever truly believed that. Whatever the circumstances of his departure, it is unlikely that deliberate timing was uppermost in his thoughts. Interesting that snippets are beginning to point to the theory that he was fired....perhaps the unguarded utterances of a venerable octogenarian are not as ridiculous as some thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Interesting that snippets are beginning to point to the theory that he was fired....perhaps the unguarded utterances of a venerable octogenarian are not as ridiculous as some thought. 'constructive dismissal', he resigned, but due to working constraints placed upon him... (having less money to spend?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaGoMarching Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 The warnings signs were there about 15 months earlier when MON walked out but was talked back by Lerner That story even broke on SSN I seem to remember one of the players 'Bannan' i think, backing up the story by saying it rife at the training ground that he would take the Liverpool job around the time of our humping at Stamford bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Funnily enough pretty much everything I have ever read about MON's tribunal case talks about a claim for constructive dismissal but lets face it none of us know what really happened and its all speculation and we all have our theories. The way I view it is very simple. The owner contrived to part company with his manager five days before the season started. Whether MON walked or was fired is actually irrelevant as Lerner allowed that situation to occur or created that situation and for that is he is culpable. He then follows it up with two bungled managerial appointments the net effect of the latter being we are teetering on the edge of relegation. All in all a shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 The warnings signs were there about 15 months earlier when MON walked out but was talked back by Lerner That story even broke on SSN I seem to remember one of the players 'Bannan' i think, backing up the story by saying it rife at the training ground that he would take the Liverpool job around the time of our humping at Stamford bridge. The rumour was he put himself in the frame for Liverpool job and that was only three months or so before he left as Dalglish was interim manager of Liverpool until they appointed Hodgson in July 2010. That supports the assertion that he was not happy well before he left the club in August but as I said above its all speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 A helluva lot of people with egg on their never-satisfied faces as it grows more and more clear that MON did not walk out. It was pretty clear to a lot of us a the time, and the abuse our most sucessful Manager - bar Saunders (and Barton ?) - since the war has been a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 our most sucessful Manager - bar Saunders (and Barton ?) - since the war Nah, Ron Aitkinson & Brian Little Both won things Also Sir Graham Taylor also almost won the league I regard each of the above three above MON John Gregory possibly too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2012 A helluva lot of people with egg on their never-satisfied faces as it grows more and more clear that MON did not walk out. I think people need to realise that constructive dismissal is not the same as being dismissed. What is constructive dismissal? Constructive dismissal is a form of dismissal. If you resign from your job because of your employer’s behaviour, it may be considered to be constructive dismissal. You would need to show that: Your employer has committed a serious breach of contract You felt forced to leave because of that breach You have not done anything to suggest that you have accepted their breach or a change in employment conditions Here Nothing that has come out in the last week has changed anything. He quit, then claimed constructive dismissal due to something he believed was in line with the above, we can all speculate as to what it was but nobody knows for sure. He wasn't sacked, he quit. He didn't win his case it was settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrim Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 our most sucessful Manager - bar Saunders (and Barton ?) - since the war. What absolute bollocks. He won - NOTHING. He's not even in or anywhere near the top 10 Villa managers since the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 our most sucessful Manager - bar Saunders (and Barton ?) - since the war has been a disgrace. You're joking, right? Both Atkinson and Little actually won something, and even Gregory had a better win ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 He wasn't sacked, he quit. He didn't win his case it was settled.He did win the case in effect because the club paid him and they wouldn't have done that if they weren't in the wrong. I don't know why people are still arguing the contrary so hard in the face of all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Settlement is not "winning" a case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2012 He did win the case in effect because the club paid him and they wouldn't have done that if they weren't in the wrong. I don't know why people are still arguing the contrary so hard in the face of all the facts. The fact is he didn't win the case. The fact is that he quit and claimed constructive dismissal. The fact is that Randy must have made changes that O'Neill believed made his job impossible to continue in. The fact is O'Neill walked out 5 days before the season. The fact is the case like many others was settled before its conclusion, many of which are done because its the cheapest option. I agree that O'Neill more than likely had a good case, I agree that he would likely have won but he didn't win. He wasn't sacked and he did quit. Those are the facts there really isn't much else to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 Other than MON walked out a few months before also but Lerner persuaded him back How did he do that? What did he promise MON and did he then not follow through ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts