Martin O'Neill resigns

Neil3030

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.

That's true, but net spend also has its shortcomings as a metric. It fails to factor in the starting point, when comparing spending at two different clubs, for example. O'Neill's net spend was huge because when he took over, there were no players of any sizeable value to sell on. This is going to grossly inflate his net spend when comparing to clubs that could sell a Berbatov or Rooney for 30+ million.

CrackisWhack

Mr Alan wrote: »

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

3 seasons previous, they finished 6th, followed by 10th, followed by 16th. A team in decline? we were actually a shambles in 2006.

Chucky the tree

MONs net spend is actually closer to -£100m then -£80m.

Mr Alan

eagle eye wrote: »

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?

Benitez, easily. The guy whose team got less. Newsflash-one season does not always tell a full story, kinda like people saying MON inherited a ****e squad because they'd come off the back of a particularly poor season, simply that is not the case. The squad he inherited was good enough to finish 10th the season previous, and 6th the season before.

CrackisWhack

Mr Alan wrote: »

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.

Well i'd say Chelsea have spent more also, Spurs sold Berba for £30 mil, United sold Ronaldo for £80 mil bringing their net spend down.

CrackisWhack

Chucky the tree wrote: »

MONs net spend is actually closer to -£100m then -£80m.

link?

Chucky the tree

CrackisWhack wrote: »

link?

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/aston-villa/transfers/verein_405.html

CrackisWhack

Chucky the tree wrote: »

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/aston-villa/transfers/verein_405.html

:pac:I would have to question the figures given on that website, we did not pay 11.25 million for Reo Coker, we didnt pay £9 million for petrov, and we didnt pay 13.5 million for Milner

Helix

Chucky the tree wrote: »

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/aston-villa/transfers/verein_405.html

those figures are embarrassinlgy wide of the mark

check out soccerbase for more accurate representations of our spending

rossie1977

eagle eye wrote: »

Tell me who you rate better Benitez or O'Neill

i know one thing for sure there won't be any current champions of europe banging on MONs door to make him their manager this year or within the next 10 years

eagle eye

Mr Alan wrote: »

Benitez, easily. The guy whose team got less. Newsflash-one season does not always tell a full story, kinda like people saying MON inherited a ****e squad because they'd come off the back of a particularly poor season, simply that is not the case. The squad he inherited was good enough to finish 10th the season previous, and 6th the season before.

So I can take it then that if you look over the last four years that Liverpool finishing 2nd was a fluke and that O'Neill getting progressively closer to Liverpool is what I should be looking at?

Helix

matrim wrote: »

You honestly can't be that happy about this. I know you wanted MON out, but for it to happen 5 days before the start of the season, with it looking like Milner still leaving but Ireland not coming in is leaving us and the new manager with a lot of problems

short of me having to rape o'neills pet terrier, id have been up for anything that got rid of him

Jazzy

very surprised to see him go right now. thought he'd be there at least another season. im annoyed for villa fans as O Neill seemed to promise a lot and in the end he walks out with less then a week to go until a very very important season. I suppose if he didnt want to be there then its better this way instead of inheriting a squad down on themselves at xmas trying to salvage their season. at least villa are still left with some time before the market closes

herbieflowers

Mr Alan wrote: »

Benitez, easily. The guy whose team got less. Newsflash-one season does not always tell a full story, kinda like people saying MON inherited a ****e squad because they'd come off the back of a particularly poor season, simply that is not the case. The squad he inherited was good enough to finish 10th the season previous, and 6th the season before.

That's silly, an assertion based on a misconception that the league is static every season. Football doesn't stand still. It's similar to saying Benitez did no better than Houllier because he never finished any higher than second during his tenure.

Surprised at O'Neill's departure. He definitely improved Villa and he made some very astute signings: Friedel, Dunne, Young, Milner, bringing along Agbonlahor, etc. Indeed the latter two's value has sky-rocketed.

JPA

Some weird stuff being said in this thread, and all from a certain group. :eek:


Villa have progressed every season under MON, to even use the word stagnated is bizarre, the 64 points we got last season was the highest for something like 14 years coupled with a final and semi final appearance. Why that is being debated I don't know. And yes he inherited a rubbish squad, a squad he couldn't make any money off hence the highish net spend.
The biggest sale was Barry and the upcoming Milner sale would have made a huge dent in the net spend as well. Compare that to Spurs who have been wheeling and dealing in large transfer fees for a number of years.
If he had stuck around we would have seen the net spend balancing out after the initial period of substantial investment.



Of course MON has huge and obvious flaws as a manager.
Style of play at times, questionable signings, fallouts with players, I could go on but I won't.

Bounty Hunter

It was mentioned once or twice in this thread aswell that Villa have become a selling club since there is all this talk of sell to buy. Well imo that is b*llocks and is only being said due to the Barry and Milner deals. Villa refused to sell Barry when we didnt want to and then when he only had a year left on his contract and would most likely leave anyway got a great priice from City for him. Meanwhile the Milner deal if it had gone through as widely speculated seemed to be widely considered great business by Villa (Ireland + 16m). We need to trim the wage budget and get rid of some of the deadwood (Harewood & Shorey are gone so far) but we arent cash strapped and atleast MONs Villa stance had been you can f*ck right off if you want our best players unless you are stupid and willing to pay similar to what the best players in the world cost.

The Volt

They should get Allardyce, Villa's players fit his style nicely.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

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?

lol, one season syndrome huh?

Straight up, you're claiming O'Neill is a better manager than Benitez? Simple yes or no answer please, because it will let me know whether to stick you on perma ignore or not.

The Rooster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol, one season syndrome huh?

Straight up, you're claiming O'Neill is a better manager than Benitez? Simple yes or no answer please, because it will let me know whether to stick you on perma ignore or not.

Well O'Neill left when Villa were in 2nd place in the league!

Villain

An awful lot of crap been posted, net spend over x years is a fecking useless stat unless you look at what was at the at club before that period.

e.g. Man City could have a 20m net Spend for the next 4 years and Wolves could have a 120m net spend for the same time and going by peoples logic here Wolves should be finishing ahead of City!!

Do people actually have any idea of the size and quality of the squad before MON took over.

Some bloody ignorant posters in this thread, do a bit of bloody research ppl

invinciblePRSTV

JPA wrote: »

Some weird stuff being said in this thread, and all from a certain group. :eek:

Indeed, by and large it's a certain coterie of bitter posters who still can't let go of the fact O' Neill called out their joke shop club and former managers silly ways. At least we can thank O' Neill for their continued amusing bitter ramblings.

Keep it up lads, i'm laughing here at the rewriting of Villas recent history.

Dempsey

Mr Alan wrote: »

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

I had the figures at hand when posting, no your pretty darn wrong

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET

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 was looking at the figures that villa spend and recouped, same for Arsenal Man United & Liverpool when I made my post and I'll stand by what I said.

The Villa supporters have explained to you why the net spend is high but you lot continue to live in statistics land.

If Milner's transfer was completed, the net spend would be moderate and your arguments would be out the window :rolleyes:

Frisbee

Dempsey wrote: »

If Milner's transfer was completed, the net spend would be moderate and your arguments would be out the window :rolleyes:

And if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

Talking about what MON would have done if such and such had happened is irrelevant. He's a decent but limited manager who seems a little too headstrong. I'd certainly take Benitez over him.

Mr Alan

Dempsey, were the figures you had to hand net figures?

Dempsey

Mr Alan wrote: »

Dempsey, were the figures you had to hand net figures?

They were totals for spend and received, I could work out the net for myself

Net Spends
Liverpool under G&H - ~£200M
Villa under Lerner - ~ £140M

whatawaster

Benitez purchases = £231m

http://www.lfchistory.net/stats_transfers_by_manager.asp?list=Get&manager_id=20&InOut=1&submit1=Submit


Benitez sales = £161m

http://www.lfchistory.net/stats_transfers_by_manager.asp?list=Get&manager_id=20&InOut=0&submit1=Submit

Rafa's net spend in 6 years as Liverpool manager was £70m. An average of £11m a season.

There is so much sh*te being posted here it's unreal. Someone said his net spend was 100m+, obviously without checking their facts
Martin O'Neill isn't in the same class as Benitez. He's not even in the class below imo.

whatawaster

Dempsey wrote: »

They were totals for spend and received, I could work out the net for myself

Net Spends
Liverpool under G&H - ~£200M
Villa under Lerner - ~ £140M

B*LL*X

Mr Alan

Dempsey wrote: »

They were totals for spend and received, I could work out the net for myself

Net Spends
Liverpool under G&H - ~£200M
Villa under Lerner - ~ £140M

Why are you making **** up?

Dempsey

Mr Alan wrote: »

Why are you making **** up?

http://astonvillacentral.com/2010/04/net-transfer-spend-were-still-playing-catch-up/

Show me where that article is inaccurate please

The Volt

I'm sure Sven will be in the mix, would be the start of his 3 jobs a season whilst picking up a ridiculous compensation package!!

Bet Mark Hughes is pissed off!!

mike65

Even I can see 200 NET is laughable, where did you pluck that from.

whatawaster

Dempsey wrote: »

http://astonvillacentral.com/2010/04/net-transfer-spend-were-still-playing-catch-up/

Show me where that article is inaccurate please

Look at the links i posted above for Benitez' net spend and point out the innacuracies there please.

Now i know G&H's and Benitez' times at the club didn't begin at the same time, but no way did Rafa have a net spend of 130m in the couple of years he worked under Moores

Dempsey

whatawaster wrote: »

Look at the links i posted above for Benitez' net spend and point out the innacuracies there please.

Now i know G&H's and Benitez' times at the club didn't begin at the same time, but no way did Rafa have a net spend of 130m in the couple of years he worked under Moores

I read your post and those links

I think the figures in the article I've link is player investment totals (transfer fees + contracts)

ntlbell

whatawaster wrote: »

Martin O'Neill isn't in the same class as Benitez. He's not even in the class below imo.

Yet with "lesser" players finished above liverpool. Right.

Mitch Connor

whatawaster wrote: »

In one season only. And he finished one point ahead. Why should O'Neill have lesser players when he was spending more than Liverpool and indeed most teams in the league.

1) Martin O'Neill outspent Benitez, and his average spend per season is significantly higher

2) Benitez averaged 72 points a season at Liverpool, O'Neill averaged 59 a season at Villa.

3) Taking out each of their first seasons (where both rebuilt heavily and did poorly in the league) and Benitez averaged 75 points a season, and O'Neill averaged 62.

Villa is a tougher job than Liverpool though.

Takes a lot more to rebuild a Villa side than a liverpool one because it is easier to get players to come to Liverpool due to the stock of the club.

mike65

Shortie from Guardian (whole article)

Lerner learns from losses

Martin O'Neill's resignation as Aston Villa manager will not have come as a surprise to those who read football clubs' annual accounts. The US billionaire Randy Lerner has long been held up as a model club owner, but his and O'Neill's stewardship has not been allied to prudent financial husbandry. In the 12 months to May last year Villa lost £30.1m after wages accounted for almost 84% of the club's £84.2m turnover. That wage bill did not even feature Stewart Downing, Richard Dunne, James Collins or Stephen Warnock – none of whom is paid peanuts.

Over the course of those 12 months Lerner pumped in £220m of fresh capital into the club's parent, on top of the near-£140m he had already injected. Without the success to justify the investment, something at some point had to give. Whether that might be a demand from Lerner to shrink the wage bill or to recover funds from the transfer market, O'Neill's departure seems inevitably to have flowed from those numbers.

Helix

Voltwad wrote: »

Hughes is pissed off!!

If talksport are to be believed, he might not be lol

ntlbell

whatawaster wrote: »

In one season only. And he finished one point ahead. Why should O'Neill have lesser players when he was spending more than Liverpool and indeed most teams in the league.

1) Martin O'Neill outspent Benitez, and his average spend per season is significantly higher

2) Benitez averaged 72 points a season at Liverpool, O'Neill averaged 59 a season at Villa.

3) Taking out each of their first seasons (where both rebuilt heavily and did poorly in the league) and Benitez averaged 75 points a season, and O'Neill averaged 62.

MON joined Aston villa in 2006 at the height of the financial boom.

Prices for players for the years he has been there went through the roof.

The team he inheritied would have needed a lot more work.

etc etc...

stats my arse.

daithijjj

mike65 wrote: »

Shortie from Guardian (whole article)

Lerner learns from losses

Martin O'Neill's resignation as Aston Villa manager will not have come as a surprise to those who read football clubs' annual accounts. The US billionaire Randy Lerner has long been held up as a model club owner, but his and O'Neill's stewardship has not been allied to prudent financial husbandry. In the 12 months to May last year Villa lost £30.1m after wages accounted for almost 84% of the club's £84.2m turnover. That wage bill did not even feature Stewart Downing, Richard Dunne, James Collins or Stephen Warnock – none of whom is paid peanuts.

Over the course of those 12 months Lerner pumped in £220m of fresh capital into the club's parent, on top of the near-£140m he had already injected. Without the success to justify the investment, something at some point had to give. Whether that might be a demand from Lerner to shrink the wage bill or to recover funds from the transfer market, O'Neill's departure seems inevitably to have flowed from those numbers.

Lerner can have no complaints about the balance sheet, he signed off on any outgoings. Villa didnt win a trophy but they came damn close.

I think o'neill is basically a man who wants to be at a club that keeps its best players and be sucessfull, any manager worth his salt would be like that. Its a classic case of 2 men viewing different horizons. Will villa be a better team without o'neill?, not imo. Lerner probably has the 'itch' and is quite happy to spend significantly less and finish mid table. I cant see many of the first xi wanting o'neill to leave, for many of them, last season was the closest they have come to winning a trophy.

Villain

Net spend net spend blah blah.

So if McCarthy has a net spend higher than Sir Alex for the next two years wolves should finish higher than Utd yea?

That's what ppl seem to be saying or have they no knowledge of where Villa were when MON took over???

Helix

We'll be far better off long term without a manager who fell out with players, played them out of position, didnt use subs, didnt understand that 'squad' doesnt mean 'buy players, put them on crazy wages, then dont use them', persists with emile heskey, had a predictable game plan he didnt know how to change mid game, thinks he's the messiah, abuses the fans regularly with pathetic passive aggressive nonsense, has zero knowledge of or willingness to sign players from abroad, puts out a reserve team in europe, plays injured players and employs a hoofball style

Delighted hes gone

Helix

Villain wrote: »

That's what ppl seem to be saying or have they no knowledge of where Villa were when MON took over???

A false position after a season of behind the scenes turmoil and player revolt?

Dol wouldve done as much as mon with the money mon had. John barnes prob wouldve ffs

The Rooster

Nailz wrote: »

I've nothing to say. Just wanna show off my cool new sig.

FYP

Savman

Threads like this bring out the worst of the soccer forum tbh, I cringe for some of the thinly veiled insults and jibes between posters under the illusion they are having some kind of educated discussion.

The topic is Martin O Neill's resignation, the reasons therein and the implications for his career and Aston Villa's season. Some of the posters here might be better served as roadkill in the Thunderdome, perhaps release some tension.

Moving swiftly on, in the cold light of day, my disappointment has turned to O'Neill landing us in it the week of the new season. Big admirer of the man, but this was a poorly timed move and will sour the memory of his time at Villa. I do think he's done himself no favours with the bigger clubs watching this carry on, sincerley doubt he'll ever get the Man U job but maybe him and the England team deserve each other

Helix

Would you have trusted him to spend 100m? I wouldnt, and I dont think randy did

Jazzy

Helix wrote: »

John barnes prob wouldve ffs

ah now come on! theres no need to bring up the great man that is John Barnes here.

when MoN took over he was out of the game a few years and he was taking over from O Leary who in my eyes was losing focus with every passing season. I thought he did well to get them back up to a competitive level again but MoN will always be one of those guys who just cant get over the line. His record in Scotland cant be taken seriously if you are looking for a PL manager who is going to a club as big as Villa. look at mcleish at city, hes a good manager for their level but no higher, he'd drown at any club with big(ish) expectations.
for as long as ive followed football (early/mid 90s) villa have always been the nearly men, and when MoN joined in 06 I knew nothing would change under his tenure in the big picture (cl qualification and maybe a cup would be what I imagine to be the main goals). if you look at your immediate rivals (spurs), they have taken the biggest gambles but through thick and thin (from juande ramos' tenure to harry redknapps cl qualified team) they have finally achieved. what do you think it will take for villa to get there ?

Villain

Helix wrote: »

A false position after a season of behind the scenes turmoil and player revolt?

Dol wouldve done as much as mon with the money mon had. John barnes prob wouldve ffs

Our squad was tiny FFS and the league table never lies were a bottom half team, in 4 years MON took us to a top 6 team.

Helix

Savman wrote: »

I do think he's done himself no favours with the bigger clubs watching this carry on

Villa are the biggest club he'll ever manage. Hes not fit for anything higher up, thats blatantly clear from the last few years

Helix

Villain wrote: »

Our squad was tiny FFS and the league table never lies were a bottom half team, in 5 years MON took us to a top 6 team.

What mon did was the absolute minimum not to be deemed a complete disaster based on what he spent

And you may have noticed, our squad is STILL tiny

mike65

Frankly I'm surprised the mods have let this run so long, must be on RTE type holidays