Denis_B Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 George Ramsay managed Villa for 42 years Is that some sort of record And I bet he is spinning in his grave at the moment, and what on earth William McGregor thinks gawd only knows :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrim Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Brian Little's team and both managers won something and deserve more credibility. I think both managers are highly rated by villa fans. You're right about the points but more games. So he inherited a squad who achieved lowest points in a 38 game season And left a squad that achieved highest points total in a 38 game season. I don't think points total should be ignored. So he inherited a squad that was seriously under-invested, that already included the two best players of his coming reign. He went on a spending spree unavailable to any Villa manager previously or since. And a he left an over-age, overpaid, overrated and entirely underwhelming (in terms of talent) squad. What I don't get is, if we are to believe that O'Neill did such a marvellous job, where is the credit to Randy Lerner for facilitating this? And whether he did a good job or not, the football, particularly at VP, was largely shit. Correct. I'd let O'Neills many failings go if he wasn't so unjustifiably lionised by some fans and media. I found his remarks about the squad he left particularly galling. After squandering such a large amount of money and getting very little value in most of his dealings I cant believe he has the cheek to claim he left such a wealth of talent when he left a huge financial **** (which is largely Randys fault for buying into the myth so readily). He is a better self-publicist than manager, that's for sure. He certainly has no need of Max Clifford or whoever. He is Teflon incarnate: nothing sticks to him. And yes, the football at VP was largely shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 He looked thoroughly **** off yesterday and it struck me that perhaps he's not enjoying managing Sunderland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 He looked thoroughly **** off yesterday and it struck me that perhaps he's not enjoying managing Sunderland How did you come to that conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Just his general demeanour in the post match interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Maybe he was taken aback by the boos from those fans who don't know the full story of his firing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Just his general demeanour in the post match interview I'd also take that due to his reception and also he felt they had a perfectly good goal disallowed - who knows maybe some of his old squad weren't too pleased to see him either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Just his general demeanour in the post match interview He looked like a manager who thought how the **** have I not managed to beat a team in the English Premier League managed by that pratt. It was I believe the first time in English football that O'Neill has not beaten a team managed by McLeish. A draw is always well celebrated in the McLeish household but given the above this one was most likely celebrated a little harder and I am sure Mr and Mrs McLeish are nursing hangovers this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 Maybe he was taken aback by the boos from those fans who don't know the full story of his firing? He wasn't fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 Maybe he was taken aback by the boos from those fans who don't know the full story of his firing? He wasn't fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Maybe he was taken aback by the boos from those fans who don't know the full story of his firing? He wasn't fired. Speculation. We will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 Maybe he was taken aback by the boos from those fans who don't know the full story of his firing? He wasn't fired. Speculation. We will never know. People don't bring claims for constructive dismissal when they have been fired. We already do know just some refuse to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Maybe he was taken aback by the boos from those fans who don't know the full story of his firing? He wasn't fired. Speculation. We will never know. People don't bring claims for constructive dismissal when they have been fired. We already do know just some refuse to accept it. As some just refuse to accept that there may be a different story. And some don't get their theories fogged up as fact.... We will never know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Agree 100%, constructive dismissal does not equal a sacking, more like he felt the job was made impossible for him, by whatever reason... player sales when he didn't want to, being asked to trim the squad by Faulkner.. he would then claim for CD because he felt this was affecting his ability to do his job to his best ability. So definitely no sacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 You can have as many theories as you want but there are plenty of facts to support the theory he quit due to the actions of Lerner resulting in a claim for constructive dismissal. Not least the fact its stated on the website of the person who represented O'Neill and was clearly stated by the club following his departure something O'Neill himself has never disputed despite being more than happy in the past to pursue legal recourse when done wrong in the press. Plus there is the word of O'Neill himself following the game; When asked about the fans' reaction, O'Neill said: "I think it's a very natural reaction considering I've been gone two years and they've never known my reasons for leaving. It is very natural, I was expecting it and I got it." He added: "With the idea that I left them in the lurch, I apologise maybe for leaving five days before the start of the season. But I came to this football club a fortnight before the season started with a team that had almost been relegated the previous year. Now Lerner may well be responsible for forcing O'Neill into his decision, it certainly seems that way but he didn't sack him. There is absolutely nothing to support the theory that he was sacked other than something you claim to have heard Ellis shout. "I apologise maybe for leaving five days before the start of the season" hardly the words of someone who was sacked. The only thing that goes against this is what you claim to have heard from Ellis, a man who amongst other things has claimed to have been on Tranmere's books, discovered Dwight Yorke and invented the bicycle kick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Well, either O'Neill was forced out OR Randy Lerner is even more foolish than we give him credit for, for paying out compensation to a man who has resigned from him job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 there wasn't compensation was there? It was a settlement, which is paid when you have two forces who will not budge, facing a long drawn out situation, with a manager who wants to get back to work and somebody else who wants to move on (probably) but both are stubborn and do not believe they are wrong. So, a settlement was paid to end the dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 there wasn't compensation was there? It was a settlement, which is paid when you have two forces who will not budge, facing a long drawn out situation, with a manager who wants to get back to work and somebody else who wants to move on (probably) but both are stubborn and do not believe they are wrong. So, a settlement was paid to end the dispute. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 there wasn't compensation was there? It was a settlement, which is paid when you have two forces who will not budge, facing a long drawn out situation, with a manager who wants to get back to work and somebody else who wants to move on (probably) but both are stubborn and do not believe they are wrong. So, a settlement was paid to end the dispute. But if O'Neill had resigned then why would they need to settle anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 there wasn't compensation was there? It was a settlement, which is paid when you have two forces who will not budge, facing a long drawn out situation, with a manager who wants to get back to work and somebody else who wants to move on (probably) but both are stubborn and do not believe they are wrong. So, a settlement was paid to end the dispute. But if O'Neill had resigned then why would they need to settle anything? Because O'Neill was bringing a claim of constructive dismissal. There are lots of reasons why he could have decided to settle 1) He thought he was going to lose 2) He didn't want the hassle of the case 3) He didn't want his dirty washing aired in public 4) It was the cheapest option 5) He realised he was in the wrong There are lots of potential reasons he could have opted to reach an agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts