thetrees Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Can I add we shouldn't forget Faulkner's role in the recent demise. An interesting original posting, and the addition of Faulkner into the mix. Faulkner was the guy who got rid of O'Neill, which makes him evil in the eyes of many, or astute in the eyes of some. As I stated before, Faulkner may well have saved Mr Lerner and the club from O'Neill. It remains to be seen whether he can save Mr Lerner from himself. What hell does that mean ? Can 'Faulkner save Lerner from himself' Far to clever for me to understand As many on here think that Mr Lerner cannot make a decent appointment, and McLeish was a bizarre one, he might need saving from himself for the next one, that's all. Particularly if he goes over old ground :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 In the beginning there was the '5-year plan'. We were fighting fit and heading in the right direction, finding ourselves in the top 4 in March for O'Neill's last two seasons. But - due to O'Neill's strange transfer policy of signing squad players, we never had the strength in depth in the squad to make critical substitutions/rotations when the first choice XI were universally tiring. At this point, we needed another CM that was better than Sidwell and we needed a striker. We really needed a striker. And we signed one that has a long record of NOT scoring goals. I cannot begin to understand O'Neill. He spent £120m (gross) and his net spend on strikers was £0. If we had signed Darren Bent in January 2009 or January 2010, I am confident we would have achieved that coveted top four spot at the cost of Liverpool or maybe even Arsenal. The extra income for achieving that top four spot would have given us the opportunity to sign another CM and strengthen the squad, while trimming the fat. Or not signing Habib Beye. We would have also kept hold of Barry, which could have been the catalyst to keeping Milner, then inevitably Young and Downing, who I still firmly believe would be a good enough midfield four to maintain top four. Ultimately - I believe not having the strength in depth in the squad in the last 18 months on O'Neill's tenure reduced the quality of the squad. We were so close, I think O'Neill and Lerner thought we would be able to get past the post with that XI. But no XI is going to get you anywhere in this league. This is a massively more physical game that the 14 players we used in out last league-winning season, and I could not see, for O'Neill's last 18 months, O'Neill himself recognising that the players were tiring around March. This could not be better demonstrated than by reviewing O'Neill's record for games played in March during his tenure. We needed that CM and a striker to add a different dimension to the team when we were tiring or becoming predictable. Instead it was an embarrassing descent we witnessed, two seasons back to back. And this is where it started to go wrong. The five year plan has been seemingly abandoned. The most frustrating thing about this is that there is no backup plan. Nothing at all. It is generally accepted that When the Arabs bought Man City the rules of the game were changed. However, I firmly believe that this is also bollocks. SPURS: At the same time we were on the rise, Spurs were doing the same thing with the same efficiency. The difference there is that they bought a balanced squad and less squad fillers who were not good enough for even cameo appearances. Hate him or hate him, candleface has made wise additions to a balanced squad at Spuds. LIVERPOOL: The club were a total laughing stock in the latter days of the Hicks/Gillett era, and we had finished above them that season. They were there for the taking, yet we failed to grasp it. I have to question Lerner for not recognising and acting on this opportunity. ARSENAL: Some questionable signings, some Arsenal fans calling for Wenger to be sacked, they have now been, for about three seasons, a team there for the taking. They have stagnated badly and are not nailed on for top four finishes any more. So, the five year plan was replaces with nothing. We have gone from a team that could have been a very serious challenger for the top four/six to a team that looks like it is going to stagnate. Man City moved the goalposts as far as being able to buy success, yet the balance was already shifting from two of the regular top four teams. I believe if we had signed a striker like Darren Bent instead of Ivanhoe, we would have secured the coveted top four spot, maintained the squad and established ourselves as Spuds have done. Unfortunately I believe as a result of O'Neill's actions/inaction, we are seeing the domino effect of losing our best players season after season, and the steady disarrangement of what was a plan for success. Employing McLeish is a decision I don't think any of us will ever understand and is heading in exactly the opposite direction of where we should be going. A manager with a proven record for relegation is not a manager that would get such a high profile job in any other industry. An absolute joke. I will not forgive him for the line-up/formation for the Spuds game, playing to keep the score down. He should have been sacked for that alone. It's a good job there are a lot of shit teams in the league this year because it may be the only thing that stops us getting relegated. However, we are not clear yet. We need at least three more wins this season, yet our performances are so unpredictable I can't see where they are going to come from. So, we have gone from 'the five year plan', 'proud history, bright future' to nothing. Communication has failed. Results are failing. The future looks pretty shit from where I'm sitting. I'm not an O'Neill fan, I believe he was one-dimensional, predictable and limited, but we have undone 4 years (of the 5 year plan) of fairly good work in 18 months. Good work Randy. /thread /forum /internet Everyone go home. All that has to or will ever need to be said has just been said above. (With just a wee note to say that O'Neill's spend on strikers during his tenure was actually around £8m combined on Heskey and Harewood) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03butpau Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 One of the best posts i´ve seen on villa talk MMfy bravo! It´s so depressingly true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve-67 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Tremendous post from MMfy, I agree with all of it. I wonder if the demise of Villa coinsides with the appointment of Paul Faulkner? Not sure, but there does seem to be an air of can't be bothered any more about the whole club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2012 All that has to or will ever need to be said has just been said above. Agreed it exactly how I see things. [(With just a wee note to say that O'Neill's spend on strikers during his tenure was actually around £8m combined on Heskey and Harewood) He said net. I presume (because I've not checked the figures) that what he spent on strikers was balanced by what he recouped through sales for the likes of Luke Moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 brilliant post MMfy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Cracking post MMFy. If only Mr. Lerner could take a look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOne Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 That's a good post I agree. He has been here for over 5 years and hasn't learnt a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I presume (because I've not checked the figures) that what he spent on strikers was balanced by what he recouped through sales for the likes of Luke Moore. Ooh, you've piqued my curiousity now. [table] [mrow color=indigo:00e368e1f0]In[mcol color=indigo:00e368e1f0]Fee (£m)[col color=indigo:00e368e1f0][mcol color=indigo:00e368e1f0]Out[mcol color=indigo:00e368e1f0]Fee (£m) [row]John Carew[col](swap)[col color=indigo:00e368e1f0][col]Milan Baroš[col](swap) [row]Chris Sutton[col](free)[col color=indigo:00e368e1f0][col]Juan Pablo Ángel[col](free) [row]Marlon Harewood[col]4.8[col color=indigo:00e368e1f0][col]Kevin Phillips[col]0.9 [row]Emile Heskey[col]3.3[col color=indigo:00e368e1f0][col]Luke Moore[col]3.3 [row color=black:00e368e1f0][col color=black:00e368e1f0][col color=indigo:00e368e1f0][col color=white:00e368e1f0]Alan Brazil[col color=white:00e368e1f0](free) [row color=black:00e368e1f0][col color=black:00e368e1f0][col color=indigo:00e368e1f0][col color=white:00e368e1f0]Chris Sutton [col color=white:00e368e1f0](retired) [row color=black:00e368e1f0][col color=black:00e368e1f0][col color=indigo:00e368e1f0][col color=white:00e368e1f0]Sam Williams[col color=white:00e368e1f0](free) [mrow color=indigo:00e368e1f0]TOTAL[mcol]8.1[col][mcol]TOTAL[mcol]4.2 [/table] There we go, the magic number is around £3.9m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesWithe Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Fantastic post. We went for broke and to get the glory with Martin at the helm without any back up plan whatsoever...How very dinstinctly American!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copey11 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 great post MMFy, and I agree with most, but not quite all, and other things seem to be unclear rather than factually stated. The part I can't necessarily agree with is that even if we achieved 4th with Bent, and the departed staying around, I am not so sure it was sustainable. Granted we would have the increased revenue from the CL, that would have allowed us to buy players or increase wages (though I am not sure it would be enough to do both), the players bought and style MON would have played seems to be unsuccessful in staying in the champions league places. When I think about those years and the style we played, it was completely different to the existing contenders. We lacked possession and were direct (nothing wrong with that), or counterattacking depending on the pundit of the day, defended valiantly if not composed, and were mainly English based (again, nothing wrong with that). We had difficulty with teams that defended us deep, especially at home, as we were not great on the deck or in possession, nor did we have any one player that could unlock a defense. All things the top teams have/had at the time. Even when we would turn one of those top teams over it was due to a force of will rather than a thorough domination - we wanted it more, but weren't a better team, and that is tough to replicate year in and year out. Spurs got top 4 playing direct football, but with players that could also possess and unlock defenses (Modric, VDV), and they didn't get back right away, reloaded, and are making another run again playing great football in the process. I think they know the type of football that will get you there and keep you there, and are trying to build a team to do that. As for having no plan going forward, to me this is unclear - not necessarily fact. Whilst I don't understand the AMC appointment, it is clear that the wage bill must come down or be rationalized to the value of the players as soon as possible, and it is something that cannot be done overnight (length of contracts, high wages making it difficult to unload some players), and that is part of the plan. The rest of the plan? Not sure about it because Randy doesn't say anything about it, which is par for the course. so I think to say there is no plan (and then insult Americans with that "fact" - I am looking at you JamesWithe), is premature. Just my two cents. Great post MMFy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The problem is that by the time Lerner realised O'Neill had pissed up a big chunk of his money up the wall, our wages to turnover ratio was in a dire straight and the club was posting record losses. The best players have been picked off by the other clubs and the residue are too highly paid to be moved on. There is a plan B. We are reducing our wage bill and blooding our academy players into the first team. Once the deadwood has been cut adrift, I think we will spend money again but this time more sensibly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2012 I presume (because I've not checked the figures) that what he spent on strikers was balanced by what he recouped through sales for the likes of Luke Moore. Ooh, you've piqued my curiousity now. [table] [mrow color=indigo:fd313d588e]In[mcol color=indigo:fd313d588e]Fee (£m)[col color=indigo:fd313d588e][mcol color=indigo:fd313d588e]Out[mcol color=indigo:fd313d588e]Fee (£m) [row]John Carew[col](swap)[col color=indigo:fd313d588e][col]Milan Baroš[col](swap) [row]Chris Sutton[col](free)[col color=indigo:fd313d588e][col]Juan Pablo Ángel[col](free) [row]Marlon Harewood[col]4.8[col color=indigo:fd313d588e][col]Kevin Phillips[col]0.9 [row]Emile Heskey[col]3.3[col color=indigo:fd313d588e][col]Luke Moore[col]3.3 [row color=black:fd313d588e][col color=black:fd313d588e][col color=indigo:fd313d588e][col color=white:fd313d588e]Alan Brazil[col color=white:fd313d588e](free) [row color=black:fd313d588e][col color=black:fd313d588e][col color=indigo:fd313d588e][col color=white:fd313d588e]Chris Sutton [col color=white:fd313d588e](retired) [row color=black:fd313d588e][col color=black:fd313d588e][col color=indigo:fd313d588e][col color=white:fd313d588e]Sam Williams[col color=white:fd313d588e](free) [mrow color=indigo:fd313d588e]TOTAL[mcol]8.1[col][mcol]TOTAL[mcol]4.2 [/table] There we go, the magic number is around £3.9m. It's a little known fact that when we swapped Carew and Baros, we had to pay Liverpool a sell on fee. It was (IIRC) about 3.7 million quid. It doesn't alter the point and I must admit I'd not realised that about MO'N and strikers. Staggering really, when you think about it. There's a lot of the MMfy post that I agree with as well, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I presume (because I've not checked the figures) that what he spent on strikers was balanced by what he recouped through sales for the likes of Luke Moore. Ooh, you've piqued my curiousity now. [table] [mrow color=indigo:baea35b00f]In[mcol color=indigo:baea35b00f]Fee (£m)[col color=indigo:baea35b00f][mcol color=indigo:baea35b00f]Out[mcol color=indigo:baea35b00f]Fee (£m) [row]John Carew[col](swap)[col color=indigo:baea35b00f][col]Milan Baroš[col](swap) [row]Chris Sutton[col](free)[col color=indigo:baea35b00f][col]Juan Pablo Ángel[col](free) [row]Marlon Harewood[col]4.8[col color=indigo:baea35b00f][col]Kevin Phillips[col]0.9 [row]Emile Heskey[col]3.3[col color=indigo:baea35b00f][col]Luke Moore[col]3.3 [row color=black:baea35b00f][col color=black:baea35b00f][col color=indigo:baea35b00f][col color=white:baea35b00f]Alan Brazil[col color=white:baea35b00f](free) [row color=black:baea35b00f][col color=black:baea35b00f][col color=indigo:baea35b00f][col color=white:baea35b00f]Chris Sutton [col color=white:baea35b00f](retired) [row color=black:baea35b00f][col color=black:baea35b00f][col color=indigo:baea35b00f][col color=white:baea35b00f]Sam Williams[col color=white:baea35b00f](free) [mrow color=indigo:baea35b00f]TOTAL[mcol]8.1[col][mcol]TOTAL[mcol]4.2 [/table] There we go, the magic number is around £3.9m. Ironic how the only decent striker he brought in was non-British and from a foreign club. MON's insistence on buying British was a huge mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Totally agree that losing Barry was a massive blow and the beginning of the end. I hate the tramps for it as they initially unsettled him particularly Stevie Meee and FSW MON signing Heskey instead of a proper striker was a sad day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The problem is that by the time Lerner realised O'Neill had pissed up a big chunk of his money up the wall, our wages to turnover ratio was in a dire straight and the club was posting record losses. The best players have been picked off by the other clubs and the residue are too highly paid to be moved on. There is a plan B. We are reducing our wage bill and blooding our academy players into the first team. Once the deadwood has been cut adrift, I think we will spend money again but this time more sensibly I am in agreement with the running man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 There is a plan B. We are reducing our wage bill and blooding our academy players into the first team. Once the deadwood has been cut adrift, I think we will spend money again but this time more sensibly If we plan to spend again firstly why appoint Mcleish? And if we were going to spend again why did only Mcleish want the job? We will spend enough to survive, I see nothing to suggest Lerner plans on getting us challenging the top 6 anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Problem is, It could take another 2/3 years before the books are balanced ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 There is a plan B. We are reducing our wage bill and blooding our academy players into the first team. Once the deadwood has been cut adrift, I think we will spend money again but this time more sensibly If we plan to spend again firstly why appoint Mcleish? And if we were going to spend again why did only Mcleish want the job? We will spend enough to survive, I see nothing to suggest Lerner plans on getting us challenging the top 6 anytime soon. agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Imo lerner will invest just enough to keep us up every season from now on with midtable being a bonus which is sad for a club with history such as ours He signalled this with his unambitious management selection I fail to see how we will win anything or achieve anything under the current regime the boat has sailed and we have missed it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts