McLeish and Villa are done! Solskjaer heavily rumoured

AgileMyth

Borat_Sagdiyev wrote: »

Yeah but one of the biggest problems is that he pays those same limited players too much.

EDIT: Heskey's wages are ridiculous and his goals ratio doesn't even come close to justifying them.

Any club that allows a manager that level of control, without supervision, deserves the worst. Villa fans can blame O'Neill all they like. Why was he allowed give players whatever they wanted?

Raekwon

Borat_Sagdiyev wrote: »

Yeah but one of the biggest problems is that he pays those same limited players too much.

True. MON paid Wigan £3.5m for Emile Heskey and handed him a three and a half year contract worth £65k per week. That's £15.4m in total for 9 goals in 90 games. Bargain!

Savman

Dempsey wrote: »

You dont know much about football, do you? Maybe you should do abit of research on someone/something you dont know anything about before informing the internet of your ignorance.

Football based around League One, er no, thankfully I don't know and I don't care. Good players do not always make good managers, there are countless examples of this and Mr Lambert is a very, very new name on the managerial merry go round. I don't remember reading any threads about him until now, all of a sudden the told-you-so brigade are out in force trying to convince everyone that every up and coming manager is the next Mourinho. And you call me ignorant

Mr Lambert may be a good coach, but his story is a flash in the pan simply because the sh*trags choose to make him flavour of the month. So he kept Norwich in the Premier League, the man is clearly a god amongst insects.

Anyway, it's all probably irrelevant as it looks like this may not be happening after all. I, for one, am glad he won't be next Villa manager simply because I want someone with a proven track record in the Premiership, Europe or ideally both. Lambert does not fit this criteria (neither goes OGS but that's for another thread).

Thanks for the footballing education btw, if he's as good as you make out I'd say it's only a matter of time before he's bound for the Nou Camp. :rolleyes:

Borat_Sagdiyev

AgileMyth wrote: »

Any club that allows a manager that level of control, without supervision, deserves the worst. Villa fans can blame O'Neill all they like. Why was he allowed give players whatever they wanted?

That's a fair point, but he still should've kept things at a manageable level. It is part of his job. A manager shouldn't need to have someone looking over his shoulder checking that his figures add up.

Dempsey

Savman wrote: »

Football based around League One, er no, thankfully I don't know and I don't care. Good players do not always make good managers, there are countless examples of this and Mr Lambert is a very, very new name on the managerial merry go round. I don't remember reading any threads about him until now, all of a sudden the told-you-so brigade are out in force trying to convince everyone that every up and coming manager is the next Mourinho. And you call me ignorant

Mr Lambert may be a good coach, but his story is a flash in the pan simply because the sh*trags choose to make him flavour of the month. So he kept Norwich in the Premier League, the man is clearly a god amongst insects.

Anyway, it's all probably irrelevant as it looks like this may not be happening after all. I, for one, am glad he won't be next Villa manager simply because I want someone with a proven track record in the Premiership, Europe or ideally both. Lambert does not fit this criteria (neither goes OGS but that's for another thread).

Thanks for the footballing education btw, if he's as good as you make out I'd say it's only a matter of time before he's bound for the Nou Camp. :rolleyes:

You should get a nappy for your face tbh

Lambert took Norwich from the bottom of league 1 to the EPL in 2 years and then kept them there with ease. All I pointed out that he's coaching background is German

premierstone

Savman wrote: »

Football based around League One, er no, thankfully I don't know and I don't care. Good players do not always make good managers, there are countless examples of this and Mr Lambert is a very, very new name on the managerial merry go round. I don't remember reading any threads about him until now, all of a sudden the told-you-so brigade are out in force trying to convince everyone that every up and coming manager is the next Mourinho. And you call me ignorant

Mr Lambert may be a good coach, but his story is a flash in the pan simply because the sh*trags choose to make him flavour of the month. So he kept Norwich in the Premier League, the man is clearly a god amongst insects.

Anyway, it's all probably irrelevant as it looks like this may not be happening after all. I, for one, am glad he won't be next Villa manager simply because I want someone with a proven track record in the Premiership, Europe or ideally both. Lambert does not fit this criteria (neither goes OGS but that's for another thread).

Thanks for the footballing education btw, if he's as good as you make out I'd say it's only a matter of time before he's bound for the Nou Camp. :rolleyes:

So much fail in this its hilarious but my particular favourite is the highlighted bit, it would appear that the new criteria for determining a managers ability is whether or not Savman has read a thread on boards about them, priceless If you were on a stage you would be making a fortune

premierstone

Raekwon wrote: »

True. MON paid Wigan £3.5m for Emile Heskey and handed him a three and a half year contract worth £65k per week. That's £15.4m in total for 9 goals in 90 games. Bargain!

Name me a manager who hasn't had at least one transfer that went pear shaped?? There isnt one, and MON has made far more good signings than bad, and besides MON is not an accountant he is a manager and can only spend what the Cahirman agrees to.

Helix

premierstone wrote: »

MON has made far more good signings than bad

that's why 16 of his 23 (iirc) signings at villa left on free transfers is it?

Helix

lerner's gone back to the states and OGS is gone back to norway which suggests this is all done and dusted. OGS will take charge of molde's game on sunday, and id say there's a fair chance he'll stay in charge til the euros to give them a chance to replace him properly over the break

AgileMyth

Borat_Sagdiyev wrote: »

That's a fair point, but he still should've kept things at a manageable level. It is part of his job. A manager shouldn't need to have someone looking over his shoulder checking that his figures add up.

I agree with you to an extent, O'Neill is obviously not the strongest negotiator in the business. But he had demonstrated this prior to joining Villa and was still allowed spend silly money on wages, seemingly without any supervision whatsoever. O'Neill is a football man, not a business man.

Hope Sunderland have learned from Villa's mistake, cause in terms of actually getting a team to perform O'Neill is as good as anyone.

Helix

AgileMyth wrote: »

Hope Sunderland have learned from Villa's mistake, cause in terms of actually getting a team to perform O'Neill is as good as anyone.

to a certain extent that's true, however his lack of flexibility, tactical nous, substitution use, overreliance on a group of untouchables and poor transfer market knowledge, he's got a very clear glass ceiling that'll prevent him from ever being a top manager

OneColdHand

premierstone wrote: »

Name me a manager who hasn't had at least one transfer that went pear shaped?? There isnt one, and MON has made far more good signings than bad, and besides MON is not an accountant he is a manager and can only spend what the Cahirman agrees to.

This is completely untrue. For every good signing you can list any villa fan could list 2.

premierstone

Helix wrote: »

that's why 16 of his 23 (iirc) signings at villa left on free transfers is it?

That figure is a complete fabrication anyway, off the top of my head Petrov and Cuellar are still at the club, Millner and Young were sold for a profit, Maloney was sold back to Celtic, Zak Knight was sold to Fulham. As I said thats just off the top of my head Im sure there are plenty of other's.

Also alot of the oines that did leave on free transfer was not because they were failures but because the board felt they need to cut the wage bill, Friedel and Reo-Coker are examples of this.

Borat_Sagdiyev

AgileMyth wrote: »

I agree with you to an extent, O'Neill is obviously not the strongest negotiator in the business. But he had demonstrated this prior to joining Villa and was still allowed spend silly money on wages, seemingly without any supervision whatsoever. O'Neill is a football man, not a business man.

Hope Sunderland have learned from Villa's mistake, cause in terms of actually getting a team to perform O'Neill is as good as anyone.

There is no doubting his ability to motivate teams and get them punching above their weights.

As for the bolded part, part of being a manager is offering contracts - you need to keep on top of what your overall spend is. It's not enough to say "sure I don't know about that because I'm concentrating on the football". Meanwhile the club is being run into the ground with debt.

Pighead

Have no idea on the circumstances regarding the sale but on the face of it, selling Gary Cahill to Bolton for €4m and replacing him with Curtis Davis for €8m wasn't O'Neills finest hour.

premierstone

OneColdHand wrote: »

This is completely untrue. For every good signing you can list any villa fan could list 2.

He has managed other teams aside form Villa :rolleyes: how did he have Villa in the top 6, 3 seasons running with all these bad signings considering he took over at team lanquishing in 16th..........fcuk he's a better manager than I was giving him credit for so!

OneColdHand

Pighead wrote: »

Have no idea on the circumstances regarding the sale but on the face of it, selling Gary Cahill to Bolton for €4m and replacing him with Curtis Davis for €8m wasn't O'Neills finest hour.

Davies was closer to 10m!

OneColdHand

premierstone wrote: »

He has managed other teams aside form Villa :rolleyes: how did he have Villa in the top 6, 3 seasons running with all these bad signings considering he took over at team lanquishing in 16th..........fcuk he's a better manager than I was giving him credit for so!

Didn't realise you were talking about his other clubs.

In that case, your point is completely untrue in relation to Villa.

He has us in the top 6, as he spent absolutely tonnes of money. Anything less that top 6 would have been a complete failure. His biggest strength is that he get the most out of players. He bought a bunch of really average players, got the most out of them, and that was good enough for 6th. Not complicated.

Dempsey

Villa should have rang Celtic about his accountancy skills

premierstone

OneColdHand wrote: »

Didn't realise you were talking about his other clubs.

In that case, your point is completely untrue in relation to Villa.

He has us in the top 6, as he spent absolutely tonnes of money. Anything less that top 6 would have been a complete failure. His biggest strength is that he get the most out of players. He bought a bunch of really average players, got the most out of them, and that was good enough for 6th. Not complicated.

No no, he's nett spend in over 4 years was £80m, in no way shape or form is £20m a ''tonne of money'' and certainly would not get you from 16th to 6th on its own.

Helix

premierstone wrote: »

That figure is a complete fabrication anyway, off the top of my head Petrov and Cuellar are still at the club, Millner and Young were sold for a profit, Maloney was sold back to Celtic, Zak Knight was sold to Fulham. As I said thats just off the top of my head Im sure there are plenty of other's.

Also alot of the oines that did leave on free transfer was not because they were failures but because the board felt they need to cut the wage bill, Friedel and Reo-Coker are examples of this.

complete fabrication you say?


Petrov - retiring through illness - money recouped: £0
Agathe - released - money recouped £0
Sutton - released - money recouped £0
Carew - released - money recouped £0
Young - sold - money recouped £16m
Maloney - released on a free to return to scotland - money recouped £0
Reo Coker - released - money recouped £0
Harewood - released - money recouped £0
Knight - sold - money recouped £3.5m
Salifou - released - money recouped £0
Routledge - sold - money recouped £600k
Davies - sold - money recouped £2.5m
Sidwell - released - money recouped £0
Friedel - released - money recouped £0
Guzan - being released - money recouped £0
Shorey - released - money recouped £0
L Young - sold - £1m
Cuellar - released - money recouped £0
Milner - sold - £16m
Heskey - being released - money recouped £0
Downing - sold - money recouped £18m
Delph - still at club
Beye - released - money recouped £0
Warnock - still at club - likely to be sold this summer
Collins - still at club - likely to be sold this summer
Dunne - still at club - likely to be sold this summer

summary:

players signed by martin o'neill: 26
players signed who left for free/are leaving for free: 15
players signed who left for profit: 3
players signed who left for less than paid/same as paid: 3
players still at club: 4

if you want to make for even more shameful reading, i could add in how much those players cost both in terms of transfer fee and their wags while at the club?

Helix

premierstone wrote: »

No no, he's nett spend in over 4 years was £80m, in no way shape or form is £20m a ''tonne of money'' and certainly would not get you from 16th to 6th on its own.

his total spend was over a quarter of a billion, including transfer fees and wages

net doesnt come into it

just because you sell 10m of players and buy 10m of players doesnt mean you've spent nothing. it still means you've spent 10m on players

premierstone

Helix wrote: »

complete fabrication you say?


Petrov - retiring through illness - money recouped: £0
Agathe - released - money recouped £0
Sutton - released - money recouped £0
Carew - released - money recouped £0
Young - sold - money recouped £16m
Maloney - released on a free to return to scotland - money recouped £0
Reo Coker - released - money recouped £0
Harewood - released - money recouped £0
Knight - sold - money recouped £3.5m
Salifou - released - money recouped £0
Routledge - sold - money recouped £600k
Davies - sold - money recouped £2.5m
Sidwell - released - money recouped £0
Friedel - released - money recouped £0
Guzan - being released - money recouped £0
Shorey - released - money recouped £0
L Young - sold - £1m
Cuellar - released - money recouped £0
Milner - sold - £16m
Heskey - being released - money recouped £0
Downing - sold - money recouped £18m
Delph - still at club
Beye - released - money recouped £0
Warnock - still at club - likely to be sold this summer
Collins - still at club - likely to be sold this summer
Dunne - still at club - likely to be sold this summer

summary:

players signed by martin o'neill: 26
players signed who left for free/are leaving for free: 15
players signed who left for profit: 3
players signed who left for less than paid/same as paid: 3
players still at club: 4

if you want to make for even more shameful reading, i could add in how much those players cost both in terms of transfer fee and their wags while at the club?

Well Im not a Villa fan and cant refute all of them, but I know for a fact there was a transfer fee paid by Celtic for Maloney, Petrov is still at the club, balming MON for leukimia seem a tad harsh :rolleyes: And also using the term released is very misleading, some of those left on their own accord, not by choice of the club.

premierstone

Helix wrote: »

his total spend was over a quarter of a billion, including transfer fees and wages

net doesnt come into it

just because you sell 10m of players and buy 10m of players doesnt mean you've spent nothing. it still means you've spent 10m on players

Nett doesnt come into it?? I sthat because it doesnt fit your arguement, of course Nett spend is the true reflection on what he spent on players. For the record he spent £120m and recouped £45m.

Helix

petrov will be retiring, im not leaving him out of the list just because he's got cancer. it's a list of all mons signings - good, bad and indifferent

afaik we definitely released maloney to go back to scotland as he wasn't settled - if there was a fee then i stand corrected, but it wouldve been nominal

released isn't misleading at all. their contracts either ran out and they werent offered a new one (with the exception of friedel) or they were paid off to leave the club/transferred to another team for nothing to get rid of them

Dempsey

A quick check shows that Villa got a fee for Sidwell too, undisclosed but you got something for him.

Helix

premierstone wrote: »

Nett doesnt come into it?? I sthat because it doesnt fit your arguement, of course Nett spend is the true reflection on what he spent on players. For the record he spent £120m and recouped £45m.

no, net does not come into it. if you bring in £100m on sales, and then spend £100m on crap, you've still spent £100m on crap. those players dont cease to exist because they were paid for by the sales of other players

mon spent £133.65m on transfer fees
mon (while at villa) recouped £4.1m on those signings

he sold some assets he already had at the club, the only notable one (fee wise at least) being barry, but they don't fall under his signings

Helix

Dempsey wrote: »

A quick check shows that Villa got a fee for Sidwell too, undisclosed but you got something for him.

we got a £250k loan fee for him, then he joined them on a free transfer that summer

Dempsey

Helix wrote: »

we got a £250k loan fee for him, then he joined them on a free transfer that summer

It wasnt a loan, it was a permanent transfer with clauses

Samich

Players have to be looked at too. N'Zogbia was good at Wigan, shocking at Villa. Why so?

As a Utd and Ole fan I hope he doesn't go there, can only go down imo.

OneColdHand

premierstone wrote: »

No no, he's nett spend in over 4 years was £80m, in no way shape or form is £20m a ''tonne of money'' and certainly would not get you from 16th to 6th on its own.

Oh yeah? My understanding is that the only team to spend more than this in the same 4 year period is Man City. And that's nett, since that's what you want to discuss.

We spent more, nett, that Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool, Spurs and everyone else, in that 4 year period. So yes, it is a tonnes of money in my opinion. And in certain it's a tonne of money in terms of the return we got for it (ie. nothing).

IvySlayer

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has won more games at Villa Park than Alex McLeish.

Dempsey

Considering MON's starting point, you were always going to be spending more on players to make inroads on the top 6 where the majority have been steadily investment substantially more than Villa over a longer period of time.

MON has a habit of buying players with little resale value and its usually down to the wages offered. Celtic also racked up a huge debt because of MON and his control over transfer and contract negotiations. Lerner should have known this from his time at Celtic and acted accordingly. Celtic made changes after MON, nobody will ever get the control he had again.

plasmaguy

Regarding MON, take Sunderland.

He bought no players, just rejigged the squad, dropped some players, gave others a chance, no increase in wages, nothing, and he completedly turned around their season.

It's a bit simplistic to say he's not a good manager because he always spends big. He turned sunderland around without spending anything.

Helix

plasmaguy wrote: »

Regarding MON, take Sunderland.

He bought no players, just rejigged the squad, dropped some players, gave others a chance, no increase in wages, nothing, and he completedly turned around their season.

It's a bit simplistic to say he's not a good manager because he always spends big. He turned sunderland around without spending anything.

the problem is when he starts spending

plasmaguy

Helix wrote: »

the problem is when he starts spending

Well then Liverpool would be ideal for him so as from the sounds of it, he'd have little or no say over transfers.

Helix

plasmaguy wrote: »

Well then Liverpool would be ideal for him so as from the sounds of it, he'd have little or no say over transfers.

he'd still keep playing the same 11 every game anyway, with a central midfielder or centre back playing at full back. the big man up front would suit him though.

OneColdHand

plasmaguy wrote: »

Regarding MON, take Sunderland.

He bought no players, just rejigged the squad, dropped some players, gave others a chance, no increase in wages, nothing, and he completedly turned around their season.

It's a bit simplistic to say he's not a good manager because he always spends big. He turned sunderland around without spending anything.

Sunderlands results weren't great towards the end of the season though, and this is very similar to the trend at villa. He played the same players week in week out (as Helix pointed out) and they just end up knackered.