Martin O'Neill resigns

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

Jeebus you can talk some sh*te.

Cheers for that.

Villa were still on an upward curve last year in my estimation anyways. They were in the fight for 4th up until they lost to Man City in the 2nd last week of the season. They managed to get to a Cup final where they lost to Manchester United and the FA Cup semi-final where they lost to Chelsea.
This all after losing Gareth Barry who was considered their best player by a lot of people. He lost Laursen to retirement, Curtis Davies on a long term injury. At the start of last season Luke Young lost his father and was in a very bad state over it.
He brought in Dunne, Collins and Warnock last season and they were three quarters of the 4th stingiest defense in the league.
He brought in Stewart Downing who was injured when he bought him and came into the team around Christmas and really improved as the season wore on. He looked to the future by bringing in Fabian Delph.
These were all good signings, he did spend 3.5 mill on Habib Beye which didn't work out but overall he did brilliantly in hindsight.
He put Milner in the centre of the park and he was immense for them. His only problem last year was a consistent top level goalscorer and maybe a bit of depth.

Anybody saying that Villa had stalled is absolutely nuts.

He's a good manager as I said, but not half as good as people would have you think. In spite all of the big investment you have pointed to above the net gain was 2 points in the league. They collapsed to a pretty bad degree after Christmas, just like the season before. What you call progress, I call stagnation - and at a MAJOR cost to the owner while he was at it.

LuckyLloyd

Dempsey wrote: »

That was Ferguson's reasoning at the time, United may or may not play Real Madrid in Europe, they definitely will play Liverpool at least twice in a season. Big difference.

You are making assumptions with the Fabregas situation. The banks could be influencing decisions by next season for all we know. Also, Fabregas is being held to his contract, the fact that it has years to run keeps Arsenal in the dominant position over the player's future.

No it isnt cut and dry, I know that but the principle point is that Lerner is selling players, his prize assets, to a club that he is direct competition and still expects the manager to compete for 4th. That strategy has some serious flaws in it and MON most likely walked because of it.

To avoid us going around in pure circles, let me ask you this:

Milner and Barry have both chosen to walk on Villa when an argument could be made (whether I or you would make it is moot for the purposes of this) that their chances of CL qualification and bigger things is as good at Villa for reasons like stability, sustainability, progress like EE is claiming above. In both cases, the players have been the main men in the dressing room when they've made their decision known. Surely there is a lot of food for though in O'Neill's inability to convince them of the vitality of the Villa project and its long term potential?

Nailz

Exactly, any manager who was able to bring Villa to Wembley, sustain their league position whilst having a significantly smaller budget to the teams who have over taken you, and to be honest, a inferior looking team 'on-paper' and still drag out an improved season over the previous one (albeit a small one) speaks volumes. Bravo to Martin O'Neill I say!

Dempsey

Melion wrote: »

Wind your neck in there. You said his style was the same in Scotland. I said he plays long ball, thats a fact, sorry if you cant see that. I didnt put down the SPL or Celtic.

Finishing 6th isnt succesful im afraid.

I wouldnt class MON's style as long ball, I would call it direct but its certainly not the style of play that the likes of Jack Charlton used so thats where I'd make the distinction.

6th isnt successful? It would depend on expectations, no?

I suppose Tottenham finishing 4th is also unsuccessful by your logic.

MON's style of play has had notable success in Scotland, England and Europe. To say otherwise is just silly.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

I understand that but there were two more clubs spending a whole pile of cash last season. Redknapp spent big at Tottenham in his first 18 months there and City spent a fortune last summer too.

To end up with the same number of points with two squads that were well behind you the season before means that Villa had to improve last season. They did that and ended up with 2 points more and had two excellent cup runs.

There is an element of semantics to this I think. You say it like that above, it sounds great. You say it like:

'two seasons in a row where the squad spent long stretches of the season in position to finish in the top four and tailed off at the crunch each time, not to mention being deserved losers on both trips to Wembley'

it don't sound as good.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

To avoid us going around in pure circles, let me ask you this:

Milner and Barry have both chosen to walk on Villa when an argument could be made (whether I or you would make it is moot for the purposes of this) that their chances of CL qualification and bigger things is as good at Villa for reasons like stability, sustainability, progress like EE is claiming above. In both cases, the players have been the main men in the dressing room when they've made their decision known. Surely there is a lot of food for though in O'Neill's inability to convince them of the vitality of the Villa project and its long term potential?

But you can say the same thing about Ferguson(Ronaldo) and Benitez(Alonso), Wenger(Hleb, Adebayor).

Melion

Dempsey wrote: »

I wouldnt class MON's style as long ball, I would call it direct but its certainly not the style of play that the likes of Jack Charlton used so thats where I'd make the distinction.

6th isnt successful? It would depend on expectations, no?

I suppose Tottenham finishing 4th is also unsuccessful by your logic.

MON's style of play has had notable success in Scotland, England and Europe. To say otherwise is just silly.

With the net spend at Villa, a sustained challenge for 4th place should be the minimum expectation IMO.

Lukker-

flahavaj wrote: »

Cheers for that.


He's a good manager as I said, but not half as good as people would have you think. In spite all of the big investment you have pointed to above the net gain was 2 points in the league. They collapsed to a pretty bad degree after Christmas, just like the season before. What you call progress, I call stagnation - and at a MAJOR cost to the owner while he was at it.

I'm not MON biggest fan, but you have to look at where the club were after David O'Leary left. It wouldn't have suprised me then if they were relagated within a season or two. MON's arrival sort of changed everything. While you may see there progress as stalling look what they were competing with. Man City have unlimited funds to spend, Spurs have spent massive sums in the transfer market aswell. Now they are even competing with Liverpool and you can throw Everton into that mix shows why the PL is the most competitive in the world. They may have stagnated but IMO MON has gotten the best out of the current squad and to make the next step would need investment alá City or Spurs.

m@cc@

eagle eye wrote: »

I
To end up with the same number of points with two squads that were well behind you the season before means that Villa had to improve last season.

Only if they had the same results against those two teams. How they perform against the other 17 is irrelevant.

flahavaj

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There is an element of semantics to this I think. You say it like that above, it sounds great. You say it like:

'two seasons in a row where the squad spent long stretches of the season in position to finish in the top four and tailed off at the crunch each time, not to mention being deserved losers on both trips to Wembley'

it don't sound as good.

Its also worth poiting out how eagle eye is conviently overlooking O' Neill's substantial net spend at Villa, while emphasising that at other clubs.

Mr Alan

where did Villa come in O'Learys second last season?

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There is an element of semantics to this I think. You say it like that above, it sounds great. You say it like:

'two seasons in a row where the squad spent long stretches of the season in position to finish in the top four and tailed off at the crunch each time, not to mention being deserved losers on both trips to Wembley'

it don't sound as good.

But thats not true. They were 7 points off 4th spot at the end of March but got level with Spurs(who had a game in hand) at the end of April.

They got beat the the top two sides in British football in the Cups.

anonymous_joe

Mr Alan wrote: »

where did Villa come in O'Learys second last season?

People have decided O'Leary was a bad manager, you're not allowed threaten that notion.

flahavaj

Lukker- wrote: »

I'm not MON biggest fan, but you have to look at where the club were after David O'Leary left. It wouldn't have suprised me then if they were relagated within a season or two. MON's arrival sort of changed everything. While you may see there progress as stalling look what they were competing with. Man City have unlimited funds to spend, Spurs have spent massive sums in the transfer market aswell. Now they are even competing with Liverpool and you can throw Everton into that mix shows why the PL is the most competitive in the world. They may have stagnated but IMO MON has gotten the best out of the current squad and to make the next step would need investment alá City or Spurs.

Melion wrote: »

With the net spend at Villa, a sustained challenge for 4th place should be the minimum expectation IMO.

.

Lukker-

Mr Alan wrote: »

where did Villa come in O'Learys second last season?

10th in his second last, 16th in his last AFAIK.

Dempsey

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

To avoid us going around in pure circles, let me ask you this:

Milner and Barry have both chosen to walk on Villa when an argument could be made (whether I or you would make it is moot for the purposes of this) that their chances of CL qualification and bigger things is as good at Villa for reasons like stability, sustainability, progress like EE is claiming above. In both cases, the players have been the main men in the dressing room when they've made their decision known. Surely there is a lot of food for though in O'Neill's inability to convince them of the vitality of the Villa project and its long term potential?

MON was on a rolling 1 year contract, convincing anyone of staying long term was going to be hard.

The players that have gone to Man City in recent seasons are absolute mercenaries and things like "vitality of the villa project" dont mean **** when they could be earning more elsewhere.

Contracts work both ways, players will hold clubs to their terms when it suits and look to break them when it suits. Clubs can do the same.

Lerner allowed prize assets to be sold to rivals and didnt think much of the consequences. Its his fault that the manager has walked away

eagle eye

flahavaj wrote: »

Its also worth poiting out how eagle eye is conviently overlooking O' Neill's substantial net spend at Villa, while emphasising that at other clubs.

Bollocks. I'm not overlooking anything, we are talking about whether the club was progressing here and I fully believe that they were.

Dempsey

Melion wrote: »

With the net spend at Villa, a sustained challenge for 4th place should be the minimum expectation IMO.

Not when you are selling prize assets to a new, up coming rival like Man City. All you can expect is to drop league position.

Lukker-

What's MON's net spend over the last four years compared to City's or Spurs arguably his two biggest competitors?

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

Bollocks. I'm not overlooking anything, we are talking about whether the club was progressing here and I fully believe that they were.

You're using Spurs and City's spending power as a reason why Villa had difficulty finishing higher in the table. Which is a valid enough point - but equally you have to acknowledge that Lerner has consistently handed O' Neill significant funds to spend in the transfer market. What I'm saying is that their progress should have been greater given this significant backing.

Mr Alan

Lukker- wrote: »

What's MON's net spend over the last four years compared to City's or Spurs arguably his two biggest competitors?

I'd imagine substantially more than Spurs, Liverpool, Everton. Substantially less than City.

CSF

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'd imagine substantially more than Spurs, Liverpool, Everton. Substantially less than City.

Important to factor the wage cap into any such discussion. If he'd been able to match the transfer fees with the wages the first 2 mentioned can give out, he'd most likely have fared much better in competing with them. Not that he had any problems competing with the Pool last year.

eagle eye

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'd imagine substantially more than Spurs, Liverpool, Everton. Substantially less than City.

I remember looking up and comparing Villa and Spurs over the last five years and they were pretty much neck and neck.

Over the past three years though Villa have spent £10 miilion net more than Spurs, but that includes the sale of Berbatov.

everdead.ie

CSF wrote: »

Important to factor the wage cap into any such discussion. If he'd been able to match the transfer fees with the wages the first 2 mentioned can give out, he'd most likely have fared much better in competing with them. Not that he had any problems competing with the Pool last year.

Spurs wage bill came in 10m less then villa's last season so wages shouldn't be a problem for villa to compete with it as they have been outspending spurs.

eagle eye wrote: »

I remember looking up and comparing Villa and Spurs over the last five years and they were pretty much neck and neck.

Over the past three years though Villa have spent £10 miilion net more than Spurs, but that includes the sale of Berbatov.

We never wanted to sell Berba it was a step back for the club he was and I believe still is a top quality Forward verging on world class at times

eagle eye

flahavaj wrote: »

You're using Spurs and City's spending power as a reason why Villa had difficulty finishing higher in the table. Which is a valid enough point - but equally you have to acknowledge that Lerner has consistently handed O' Neill significant funds to spend in the transfer market. What I'm saying is that their progress should have been greater given this significant backing.

He only really spent big one season, and that was the season before last.

Other than that he has spent well under £20 million in any season.

CSF

everdead.ie wrote: »

Spurs wage bill came in 10m less then villa's last season so wages shouldn't be a problem for villa to compete with it as they have been outspending spurs.

Have you a source for this?

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

He only really spent big one season, and that was the season before last.

Other than that he has spent well under £20 million in any season.

As others have pointed out he hasn't really been significantly outspent by any of his rivals for fourth bar City obviously.

So bang goes that line of argument.

everdead.ie

CSF wrote: »

Have you a source for this?

Our own accounts have our wage bill at £61m The villa wage bill as has been mentioned on this thread is £71m I don't have the sources' off hand but I'll look for them now.

Mr Alan

Villa having a higher wage bill is correct. It was discussed at length in the Villa thread when it became common knowledge.

Dempsey

flahavaj wrote: »

You're using Spurs and City's spending power as a reason why Villa had difficulty finishing higher in the table. Which is a valid enough point - but equally you have to acknowledge that Lerner has consistently handed O' Neill significant funds to spend in the transfer market. What I'm saying is that their progress should have been greater given this significant backing.

But they werent out spending the 'top 4' so progress was always going to slow down when they got nearer. Villa never spend big money on an individual player, the clubs above and around them did

everdead.ie

http://astonvillacentral.com/2010/08/the-case-of-the-swollen-wage-bill-aston-villa-vs-tottenham/

I know non playing staff contribute to both wage bills but to be honest I don't know the extent of that reading that article would have you believe the Villa non playing staff are on huge money

Mr Alan

Dempsey wrote: »

But they werent out spending the 'top 4' so progress was always going to slow down when they got nearer. Villa never spend big money on an individual player, the clubs above and around them did

They were outspending Arsenal and Liverpool. Who are the top 4 you're referring to?

eagle eye

flahavaj wrote: »

As others have pointed out he hasn't really been significantly outspent by any of his rivals for fourth bar City obviously.

So bang goes that line of argument.

What argument?

You mentioned the money that was spent. I said they progressed last season.

In the 18 months since Harry Redknapp arrived at Spurs Martin O'Neill spent £16.5 million net, in the same period Tottenham have spent £40 million net.

I couldn't even be bothered trying to see if City spent £200 million in that time.:pac:

Dempsey

Mr Alan wrote: »

They were outspending Arsenal and Liverpool. Who are the top 4 you're referring to?

Under Gilette and Hicks, Liverpool have spend alot more on players than Lerner has at Villa

Arsenal have spend £100M over the last 5 years, I know they have made all of that back but they are still spending alot

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

What argument?

You mentioned the money that was spent. I said they progressed last season.

In the 18 months since Harry Redknapp arrived at Spurs Martin O'Neill spent £16.5 million net, in the same period Tottenham have spent £40 million net.

I couldn't even be bothered trying to see if City spent £200 million in that time.:pac:

You mentioned Spurs and City's spending power first here! http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67367276&postcount=301. You brought it up.

The 18 months Redknapp was in charge is simply a time period thats convenient to you, its not particularly relevant here. O' Neill's net spend while at Villa (the guy we're actually discussing) is more relevant in all fairness.

Mr Alan

Dempsey wrote: »

Under Gilette and Hicks, Liverpool have spend alot more on players than Lerner has at Villa

Arsenal have spend £100M over the last 5 years, I know they have made all of that back but they are still spending alot

I don't have figures to hand, but i'm pretty darn sure Lerners spending dwarfs that of G&H.

L'prof

Dempsey wrote: »

Under Gilette and Hicks, Liverpool have spend alot more on players than Lerner has at Villa

Arsenal have spend £100M over the last 5 years, I know they have made all of that back but they are still spending alot

How much have Villa spent in that period so?

LuckyLloyd

Dempsey wrote: »

Under Gilette and Hicks, Liverpool have spend alot more on players than Lerner has at Villa

Arsenal have spend £100M over the last 5 years, I know they have made all of that back but they are still spending alot

NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET

eagle eye

flahavaj wrote: »

You mentioned Spurs and City's spending power first!

The 18 months Redknapp was in charge is simply a time period thats convenient to you, its not particularly relevant here. O' Neill's net spend while at Villa (the guy we're actually discussing) is more relevant in all fairness.

Yes I did and that is the case is it not? I've just shown you whats happened since Redknapp arrived at Spurs which is very relevant. I said that there were other clubs who were spening big money last year.

If you want to go all the way back to when O'Neill took over then you have to look at the squads of other teams at that time too and take into account any moneys accrued by them in sales of players from that squad compared to any moneys taken it by Villa for players that were sold. This would give you a clear picture of exactly how much he has spent in comparison to other clubs.

Its too easy to just say net spend but you have to understand that he was not starting out on an equal footing with these clubs.

Mr Alan

eagleeye, who do you think is a better manager, O'Neill or Big Sam?

eagle eye

Mr Alan wrote: »

eagleeye, who do you think is a better manager, O'Neill or Big Sam?

If you explain the relevance of that and I find it acceptable I might give you an answer.:)

CrackisWhack

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ain't xenophobia grand! No English owner has ever done wrong by an English football club.

Bit harsh there, and don't see the reason you qouted the Bradley post? He has no european club level experience, he would be a massive risk.


At least most english owners have a love of the game, then you have the arabs and russian oligarchs, who also love the game, and want the prestigiousness of owning the European champions.

Then the American business me, who don't really give a sh!te about football, and started appearing when the new TV deals were announced, and the sport started growing in Asia, Africa and the middle east(and to some degree in the U.S.)

Mr Alan

i think it may demonstrate that you have a habit of defending and holding a overly inflated opinion of average-good managers.

SlickRic

Dempsey wrote: »

Under Gilette and Hicks, Liverpool have spend alot more on players than Lerner has at Villa

Arsenal have spend £100M over the last 5 years, I know they have made all of that back but they are still spending alot

nice to see these little myths still perpetuate amongst fans.

so, one more time...

when we talk about the amount owners put into the club, and how much has been invested in the squad, net spend is entirely essential to take into account.

sources like Sky and such forget to mention that because it obviously becomes a less sensational figure to report on, but in discussions like these, we really need to remember it.

i can spend €200 on a phone, but if i sell my old phone for €200, i've actually invested f*ck all.

CrackisWhack

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET

Villa have had a ne transfer spend of roughly £80 million in MON's 4 years, he has completely rebuilt the team in that time.

eagle eye

SlickRic wrote: »

nice to see these little myths still perpetuate amongst fans.

so, one more time...

when we talk about the amount owners put into the club, and how much has been invested in the squad, net spend is entirely essential to take into account.

sources like Sky and such forget to mention that because it obviously becomes a less sensational figure to report on, but in discussions like these, we really need to remember it.

i can spend €200 on a phone, but if i sell my old phone for €200, i've actually invested f*ck all.

I think what I've just pointed out a moment ago has to be taken into account too.

Its easy to say net spend but I think if you are comparing managers then the difference in moneys accrued from players they sold who were at the club when they arrived has to be taken into account.

Mr Alan

so a net spend of 20m a season, that's pretty hefty. I'd imagine only City have beaten that in the last 4 years.

Mr Alan

eagle eye wrote: »

I think what I've just pointed out a moment ago has to be taken into account too.

Its easy to say net spend but I think if you are comparing managers then the difference in moneys accrued from players they sold who were at the club when they arrived has to be taken into account.

Didn't MON inherit a squad which finished 6th a couple of seasons previous?

CrackisWhack

Liverpools net spend 2004-2009 = approx £130 million


and Benitez inherited a better side.

eagle eye

Mr Alan wrote: »

i think it may demonstrate that you have a habit of defending and holding a overly inflated opinion of average-good managers.

Well thats not nearly good enough of a reason to give you an answer.

Tell me who you rate better Benitez or O'Neill

The guy whose team got more points in the league last year than the year before or the guy whose team got 23 points less?