Did we get rid of the wrong lot?

[TRO]

It would appear that in that time there was nobody really keeping a grip on things. So I would say it was a good job Paul Faulkner was appointed.

Paul Faulkner, represented a necessary evil.

Had we bought prudently, the prospect of a financial crises at the club, may never have been made.

I still have reservations of what has been learned, because I still do not see players coming(regularly/consistently)with the technical skills to make the difference and turn us around.there again the odd exception, no consistency.

Clubs like Swansea, have.

There are some things us fans ( on the whole) know nothing about.. I.e. balance sheets and finances. Why would we we are football people.... What we can tell you is that a player bought for 8 mill and on 40 k per week wages that can' t give you much on the park.....is going to cause the club a problem eventually.

We have had too many of them for too long.

Edited March 3, 2013 by TRO

[Big_John_10]

TRO, whether things were rosy under MON or not is totally irrelevant in the light of the complete ****-up the owner, chief executive and a succession of useless managers have made of the club since he left. I fail to see the point of writing long analyses of how useless the manager of two or three seasons ago was, and how his three sixth places in a row were not "believable" (?), when we are facing relegation now and the collective forces of the club are struggling to get us out of the hole.

 

Suppose you managed to convince the world at large that your least favourite manager was useless in his time at Villa and all the poor results we are having now are entirely down to him? How would that help us get even an inch nearer safety and future viabilty as a club?

 

 

I can remember way back in December 2010 when we were struggling under Houllier TRO was blaming Mon for our woes. I can remember telling him then that it would be a dangerous game for the club and fans to blame a man that could no longer do **** all about things and that it was time for those at the club now to take responsibility. I honestly can't still believe that someone who left almost 3 years ago, who in relative terms we did OK under, is still getting the blame for our struggles now. It is even more remarkable when you consider that come the end of this season when Dunne and Stan will be out of contract that only one player he signed will remain, Delph, and he has been given a contract extension since O'Neill left.

 

 

The point is as you say 'we did OK'!! We should have gone to places no other Villa team has gone on the back of the money that was spent. Not just done OK.

Really?

We spent enough to honestly say we should have taken over any of the sky 4?

We spent enough to honestly say we should have finished above spurs and city?

[Mantis]

Under a better manager yes we may have done that.

 

That isn't half the issue to me. The issue is the state O'Neill left this club in. A better manager may not have necessarily done much more than him in the league but he would have left us with better players and/or a lighter wagebill.

[markavfc40]

"only one player he signed will remain".

 

says it all Mark, you kinda said it for me.

 

 

I agree it does. We shouldn't have sold Downing, Ash, Jimmy and maybe a few others.

 

This has gone way off topic but in terms of O'Neill and our spending under him my view has always been and will remain this. Both he and Randy arrived at the club at a time when we had just finished 16th and been on the slide for a while. When O'Neill left after 4 years under him we had a net spend of approx 70 - 80 mill, less if you take into account the Milner money who was sold days after he left. For that net spend we got 11th, 6th, 6th and 6th place finishes, we regularly played in Europe, we got to Wembley a couple of times in a final and semi and we, as should be the least of our ambitions, ruled the roost over all our local rivals finishing above all of  them every season and never losing a derby game whilst O'Neill was manager. We also regularly held our own and some against what were considered the big 4. The cost in terms of wages for the 3 sixth place finishes was having the 8th, 6th and 6th highest wage bill.

For me under O'Neill we got a fair return. We didn't over achieve and we didn't under achieve. He signed some right crap and we paid some of that crap way too much in wages. He also made some very good signings who we made a pretty penny on. We also had a number of players under him who subsequent managers failed to get anything like the same level of performance out of. Is that O'Neills fault? personally I don't think it is. Whilst manager it was his job to buy the players he believed he could get the best out of and work with in the system he wanted to play.

The bottom line in all this though is that we could waffle on about O'Neill till we are blue in the face, some saying he was useless others saying he did OK. It really doesn't matter now though does it. It has been almost three seasons since he left and come the beginning of next season only one of his signings will remain. The club for too long spent time wallowing in the fact he had left some blaming him for any problems that arose after and others longing for the days when he was here. The facts are though there is no point focusing any attention on a man that has been able to do **** all about the here now since the minute he left. Those that remained at the club when he left and those that have come since are the ones that took on the combined responsibility of running this club and they are the ones that have failed and continue to do so.

Edited March 3, 2013 by markavfc40

[Big_John_10]

Under a better manager yes we may have done that.

 

That isn't half the issue to me. The issue is the state O'Neill left this club in. A better manager may not have necessarily done much more than him in the league but he would have left us with better players and/or a lighter wagebill.

Minus James Milner he left a squad that had just achieved the best season this club had had in years.

Its not his fault Houllier destroyed all the good things about the squad.

[DamsonwoodVillan]

Well I know I'm in a minority but I do think that the club would have turned a bit of a corner under Houllier had his health not let him down.

 

Like others have said the club that GH took over was in a state and I do think he had a rocky time, but I think he could have slowly slowly turned us into a good team with his knowledge and approach.

 

But... what is the point in debating MON, Houllier? And although McLeish is obviously more recent, there isn't really a point to debating him either.

 

I argued the same about this time last year that the problem may not be so much the manager, but that the players just have not performed at all and really let the club down, and I would say the same again this year to an extent. Now this may be down to bad management, bad signings, bad tactics etc etc but at the end of the day the players are the ones out on the pitch trying to win the game.

 

A team containing Guzan, Benteke, Bent, Agbonlahor, Ireland, N'Zogbia et al should be capable of getting more points, particularly as the Premiership is not at its strongest point in terms of teams' strength in depth. The players (I mean our recognised, big players) have been dreadful at times this season.

[Big_John_10]

Like others have said the club that GH took over was in a state

The team had just finished a season with 64 points.

Conceded 39 goals all season.

Scored 52 goals

Had a goal difference of +13

Got to an fa cup semi final

And a league cup final.

And that's classed as a squad in a state?

Wow, what would our current squad be classed as then?

[DamsonwoodVillan]

I meant more the down feeling and psychology surrounding the club was a state when MON left just before the start of the season.

 

Lerner had clearly decided in that Spring and Summer that he wanted to change the policy/direction that had led us to relative success on the pitch for 2 and half seasons or so.

 

Yes we'd had a good season on paper, but the down feeling was well and truly kicking in after the Chelsea semi final, that our challenge to the big boys was coming to an end and they were marching on over the hill away from us again. Lerner had a change of heart around this time, just when he realised how much it would cost to stay on the heels of Spurs/Man City/Arsenal/Chelsea, and consequently that was also the time that MON chose to leave.

 

So yes, I would argue, in spite of the fact we'd done well on the pitch the previous season, psychologically we were in a state when GH took over.

 

Our current squad would be classed as what it is... Young, cheap and bottom 5 potential. If we manage to stay up and then in the summer let go of Given, Bent, Dunne, Petrov and Ireland, and get a good price for Benteke, then that would be the ideal scenario for Lerner to sell and leave the club. Which is what I have a feeling will happen.

[Mantis]

Under a better manager yes we may have done that.

 

That isn't half the issue to me. The issue is the state O'Neill left this club in. A better manager may not have necessarily done much more than him in the league but he would have left us with better players and/or a lighter wagebill.

Minus James Milner he left a squad that had just achieved the best season this club had had in years.

Its not his fault Houllier destroyed all the good things about the squad.

So? Just because a group of players are good one season don't mean they'll be as good the next. You say a squad but really it was about 12 players, Milner being the best of that bunch and also the most important. We also didn't strengthen that summer (which is partially O'Neill's fault). Wasn't it O'Neill himself who said that you have to strengthen just to stay still?

 

Even then, most of the players he left were on wages well above what they were actually worth.

 

Houllier "destroyed" all the good things about the squad? What a load of rubbish. If the players were really that good in the first place they wouldn't just lose all that ability in a few months. Most of them didn't have that much ability to begin with.

[Big_John_10]

We went from a team able to defend to a pretty piss poor defensive team. Nothing to do with the manager?

We went from a team that could come back after going behind to a team that rolled over and died once going behind, nothing to do with the manager?

So? Just because a group of players are good one season don't mean they'll be as good the next

Possibly the worst argument I've read on here for quite awhile.

[Big_John_10]

I meant more the down feeling and psychology surrounding the club was a state when MON left just before the start of the season.

 

Lerner had clearly decided in that Spring and Summer that he wanted to change the policy/direction that had led us to relative success on the pitch for 2 and half seasons or so.

 

Yes we'd had a good season on paper, but the down feeling was well and truly kicking in after the Chelsea semi final, that our challenge to the big boys was coming to an end and they were marching on over the hill away from us again. Lerner had a change of heart around this time, just when he realised how much it would cost to stay on the heels of Spurs/Man City/Arsenal/Chelsea, and consequently that was also the time that MON chose to leave.

 

So yes, I would argue, in spite of the fact we'd done well on the pitch the previous season, psychologically we were in a state when GH took over.

 

Our current squad would be classed as what it is... Young, cheap and bottom 5 potential. If we manage to stay up and then in the summer let go of Given, Bent, Dunne, Petrov and Ireland, and get a good price for Benteke, then that would be the ideal scenario for Lerner to sell and leave the club. Which is what I have a feeling will happen.

I don't think you can defend houllier and claim he inherited a squad that was in a state because of poor feelings.

[Mantis]

We went from a team able to defend to a pretty piss poor defensive team. Nothing to do with the manager?

We went from a team that could come back after going behind to a team that rolled over and died once going behind, nothing to do with the manager?

 

So? Just because a group of players are good one season don't mean they'll be as good the next

Possibly the worst argument I've read on here for quite awhile.

The cracks in the defence were already there. We lost 7-1 to Chelsea under O'Neill and then lost 6-0 to Newcastle a few months later just after he left (but before Houllier arrived).

 

O'Neill was a good motivator I'll give him that but that's one of the only things he is good at.

 

Why?

[Big_John_10]

A big part of the Newcastle defeat was Andy Carroll bullying Clark. Don't see that as evidence of mon's defence cracking. And also how can you blame a manager who wasn't even there? Throughout the history of the prem there have been players who performed well under certain managers and not the same under others. It's not Mon's fault that houllier couldn't get decent performances from then.

The Chelsea game was a poor defensive show but how can you ignore the other 37 games and the overall defensive record. Ridiculous to pick a freak game at the end of the season to claim the cracks what showing.

Your other argument was ridiculous.

Might as well give no praise to lambert for signing Benteke because so? Just because he's good this season doesn't mean he'll be good next.

Using your logic in the summer we could have moaned at fergie for signing RVP, because so? Just because he was good the previous year doesn't mean he'll be good the next.

It's ridiculous.

[briny_ear]

It would appear that in that time there was nobody really keeping a grip on things. So I would say it was a good job Paul Faulkner was appointed.

Yes, he's done a fantastic job in the areas of managerial appoinrments, longer term strategy and fulsome communication with the fans. We're lucky to have him.

[Mantis]

A big part of the Newcastle defeat was Andy Carroll bullying Clark. Don't see that as evidence of mon's defence cracking. And also how can you blame a manager who wasn't even there? Throughout the history of the prem there have been players who performed well under certain managers and not the same under others. It's not Mon's fault that houllier couldn't get decent performances from then.

The Chelsea game was a poor defensive show but how can you ignore the other 37 games and the overall defensive record. Ridiculous to pick a freak game at the end of the season to claim the cracks what showing.

Your other argument was ridiculous.

Might as well give no praise to lambert for signing Benteke because so? Just because he's good this season doesn't mean he'll be good next.

Using your logic in the summer we could have moaned at fergie for signing RVP, because so? Just because he was good the previous year doesn't mean he'll be good the next.

It's ridiculous.

I wasn't blaming O'Neill for the debacle at Newcastle, I was just pointing out that the cracks in this supposedly great defence were already there.

 

I don't know why that comment has offended you so much. The years following O'Neill's departure have shown that most of his purchases aren't actually that good.

[Woodytom]

It would appear that in that time there was nobody really keeping a grip on things. So I would say it was a good job Paul Faulkner was appointed.

Yes, he's done a fantastic job in the areas of managerial appoinrments, longer term strategy and fulsome communication with the fans. We're lucky to have him.

 

 

Did I say he had done a fantastic job and that we were lucky to have him. Or did I just say it was a good job he was appointed to stop the ridiculous shambles Lerner/O'neill were running.

[DamsonwoodVillan]

Ok, possibly I can't defend Houllier over the bad psychology surrounding the club at the time. I admit he had a crap first 6 months and beyond even after signing Bent, before we went on a decent run in the Spring and finished in the top half.

 

My point was I had a feeling Houllier was slowly re-shaping the team and we would get better. Just a feeling. Who knows what would have happened if Houllier had had a couple more transfer windows, and seasons? It's all completely academic now!

 

I don't think Faulkner's appointment has had any impact on the club really. What Lerner says goes. Regardless of the apparent 'shambles' of the O'Neill era. Lerner had faith that MON would deliver Champions League football and trophies. MON bought some good players/some that didn't work out and we made a couple of big cup games and made some progress in the league and in Europe. I don't think he made the best tactical and man-management decisions and ultimately he didn't achieve the dream targets. I think I go with what somebody said in another thread, with MON what we achieved was probably about right overall.  

 

Faulkner I can't see has made any big contribution really. I have a feeling he probably had a say in McLeish leaving thank goodness, but that's about it. He'll leave whenever Lerner sells and I don't think anyone will notice he's gone.

[briny_ear]

 

It would appear that in that time there was nobody really keeping a grip on things. So I would say it was a good job Paul Faulkner was appointed.

Yes, he's done a fantastic job in the areas of managerial appoinrments, longer term strategy and fulsome communication with the fans. We're lucky to have him.

 

 

Did I say he had done a fantastic job and that we were lucky to have him. Or did I just say it was a good job he was appointed to stop the ridiculous shambles Lerner/O'neill were running.

He's just substituted a different form of ridiculous shambles. Houllier, McLeish, Ireland, Bent, Makoun - how are they all doing at the Villa now?

[Big_John_10]

A big part of the Newcastle defeat was Andy Carroll bullying Clark. Don't see that as evidence of mon's defence cracking. And also how can you blame a manager who wasn't even there? Throughout the history of the prem there have been players who performed well under certain managers and not the same under others. It's not Mon's fault that houllier couldn't get decent performances from then.

The Chelsea game was a poor defensive show but how can you ignore the other 37 games and the overall defensive record. Ridiculous to pick a freak game at the end of the season to claim the cracks what showing.

Your other argument was ridiculous.

Might as well give no praise to lambert for signing Benteke because so? Just because he's good this season doesn't mean he'll be good next.

Using your logic in the summer we could have moaned at fergie for signing RVP, because so? Just because he was good the previous year doesn't mean he'll be good the next.

It's ridiculous.

I wasn't blaming O'Neill for the debacle at Newcastle, I was just pointing out that the cracks in this supposedly great defence were already there.

 

I don't know why that comment has offended you so much. The years following O'Neill's departure have shown that most of his purchases aren't actually that good.

Why because other managers have failed to get the same performances from them? How is that his fault?

You say supposedly great defence like it wasn't that good. Go and have a look how many teams conceded less goals than us that season.

[Mantis]

 

A big part of the Newcastle defeat was Andy Carroll bullying Clark. Don't see that as evidence of mon's defence cracking. And also how can you blame a manager who wasn't even there? Throughout the history of the prem there have been players who performed well under certain managers and not the same under others. It's not Mon's fault that houllier couldn't get decent performances from then.

The Chelsea game was a poor defensive show but how can you ignore the other 37 games and the overall defensive record. Ridiculous to pick a freak game at the end of the season to claim the cracks what showing.

Your other argument was ridiculous.

Might as well give no praise to lambert for signing Benteke because so? Just because he's good this season doesn't mean he'll be good next.

Using your logic in the summer we could have moaned at fergie for signing RVP, because so? Just because he was good the previous year doesn't mean he'll be good the next.

It's ridiculous.

I wasn't blaming O'Neill for the debacle at Newcastle, I was just pointing out that the cracks in this supposedly great defence were already there.

 

I don't know why that comment has offended you so much. The years following O'Neill's departure have shown that most of his purchases aren't actually that good.

Why because other managers have failed to get the same performances from them? How is that his fault?

You say supposedly great defence like it wasn't that good. Go and have a look how many teams conceded less goals than us that season.

His teams are based around motivation. He makes the players he buys perform above their level. That's a good quality but when you're poor in the transfer market like he is and only go for mediocre overpriced British players it means the next few managers have got an almighty mess to clean up.

 

I'm aware of the stats, I think they've been repeated by the same few posters five dozen times over.