Paul Lambert Quits As Norwich City Manager

Ormus

G.K. wrote: »

What, spend a ridiculous amount of money to improve results in the short term?

Then leave a squad of ageing, overpaid, dross?

MON did very well with Villa. He got a lot of average players playing well, spent big money on the likes of Young, Milner and Downing, all who left for much bigger money, bought some cheap experienced players like Dunne and Friedel, and managed the club to some of its highest league finishes in recent times.

Rekop dog

Ormus wrote: »

G.K. wrote: »

What, spend a ridiculous amount of money to improve results in the short term?

Then leave a squad of ageing, overpaid, dross?

MON did very well with Villa. He got a lot of average players playing well, spent big money on the likes of Young, Milner and Downing, all who left for much bigger money, bought some cheap experienced players like Dunne and Friedel, and managed the club to some of its highest league finishes in recent times.

There should be a stickied thread with a post in big bold writing highlighting the flaws in this argument. Seems to pop up on a weekly basis.

G.K.

And he did it completely unsustainably.

Ormus wrote: »

MON did very well with Villa. He got a lot of average players playing well, spent big money on the likes of Young, Milner and Downing, all who left for much bigger money, bought some cheap experienced players like Dunne and Friedel, and managed the club to some of its highest league finishes in recent times.

Of MON's 26 singings these are the only 3 Villa made a profit on (Talking transfer fees here).

A_Sober_Paddy

Ormus wrote: »

MON did very well with Villa. He got a lot of average players playing well, spent big money on the likes of Young, Milner and Downing, all who left for much bigger money, bought some cheap experienced players like Dunne and Friedel, and managed the club to some of its highest league finishes in recent times.

But he also ran up the wage bill at Villa...

One season when they finished 6th, and spurs finished ahead of them the villa wage bill was a nice bit bigger but the spurs squad was a lot better. I believe it was the season MON was complaining about the lack of depth in the squad. A squad that he built.

I remember reading it a few months back, there was a publication of the wages paid in the premier league and it covered a year by year for the past 5/6 seasons.

But just look at these 2 players and their apparent wages
Heskey 70k
Beye 35k

His a good manager, not as good as the English media would have you believe. But when it comes to building a squad his potentially one of the poorest around if I'm to be honest.

kensutz

Now it's official - Lambert has offered to resign.

Balls!

Ormus

G.K. wrote: »

And he did it completely unsustainably.



Of MON's 26 singings these are the only 3 Villa made a profit on (Talking transfer fees here).

He spent a lotta money for sure but he made 30 million profit on those 3 players, not to mention the Barry money.

The sustainability of a club is a matter for the Chairman or accountant or whoever.

Managers should squeeze as much as they can out of the chairman before he changes his mind. That is their role.

G.K.

That is ridiculous.

G.K.

Ormus wrote: »

He spent a lotta money for sure but he made 30 million profit on those 3 players, not to mention the Barry money.

Also, when we are including wages/outlay on purchasing players/money got from sales - the club spent ~1/4 billion quid. The 'barry money' doesn't really cover it.

I know the wages that were used in the calculations were approximate but that is ridiculous.

token56

kensutz wrote: »

Now it's official - Lambert has offered to resign.

Balls!

Offered to resign but its not being accepted

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/31052012/58/premier-league-norwich-refuse-lambert-resignation.html

What usually happens in these sort of situations?

premierstone

LMFAO at this thread, I honestly taught there was no one as deluded or stupid as Liverpool fans untill I started to read this thread and the Villa thread.

Neil3030

token56 wrote: »

Offered to resign but its not being accepted

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/31052012/58/premier-league-norwich-refuse-lambert-resignation.html

What usually happens in these sort of situations?

If the board don't accept the resignation and he nonetheless leaves to join another club, the new employers pay compensation.

Moneymaker

Thought he'd stay and see if he could crack on with Norwich. Done a marvellous job there. Shame its ending on a sour note.

GavRedKing

Neil3030 wrote: »

If the board don't accept the resignation and he nonetheless leaves to join another club, the new employers pay compensation.

Ya and the compensation would be fairly large in this instance as Norwich dont want to lose Lambert.

token56

Neil3030 wrote: »

If the board don't accept the resignation and he nonetheless leaves to join another club, the new employers pay compensation.

Would he be at any legal/financial risk personally or is it only the new employer?

kensutz

With Lambert he also has Ian Culverhouse and Gary Karsa with him the whole time. The resignation was rejected so it could cause problems with Culverhouse and Karsa going too. Which would make for an interesting compensation package.

the realpigiron

Ormus wrote: »

He spent a lotta money for sure but he made 30 million profit on those 3 players, not to mention the Barry money.

The sustainability of a club is a matter for the Chairman or accountant or whoever.

Managers should squeeze as much as they can out of the chairman before he changes his mind. That is their role.

G.K. wrote: »

That is ridiculous.

Actually I think that makes a lot of sense. The manager of a football club doesn't hold the purse strings.

O'Neill gets a lot of flak around here for his signing policy at Villa, he has managed other clubs you know, and has had lots of success at those clubs too.

A_Sober_Paddy

gavredking wrote: »

Ya and the compensation would be fairly large in this instance as Norwich dont want to lose Lambert.

Compensation would be a figure equal to what the manager would have earned for the remainder of his contract.

Now I'm open to correction on that, but this came up in a conversation I had with a mate last week and that's what he told me. He has a law degree and has worked all over Europe(including England) with his degree, so I'm going to trust him for now:)

LuckyLloyd

Ormus wrote: »

He spent a lotta money for sure but he made 30 million profit on those 3 players, not to mention the Barry money.

The sustainability of a club is a matter for the Chairman or accountant or whoever.

Managers should squeeze as much as they can out of the chairman before he changes his mind. That is their role.

lol!

It's a long time since I've encountered that opinion though it is pretty widespread amongst football fans funnily enough.

LuckyLloyd

token56 wrote: »

Offered to resign but its not being accepted

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/31052012/58/premier-league-norwich-refuse-lambert-resignation.html

What usually happens in these sort of situations?

He should be able to give his notice.

The terminology that gets used in football for these situations tends to be quite misleading. "Resignation" equates to "mutual immediate termination". Make no mistake, if he wants to walk he'll end up walking very soon.

Neil3030

token56 wrote: »

Would he be at any legal/financial risk personally or is it only the new employer?

I'm not actually 100% on this. As Lloyd said, he should be able to give notice. However there could be a minimum period specified in his contract. Therefore, he might be on the hook for breaching his contract in some way.

Regardless of the mechanics of the compensatory process, whatever money is paid will be by his new club, as is almost always the case. I am sure that he would only risk leaving were there a cast ironed agreement with a new employer that they would foot the bill of any legal repercussions.

Reekwind

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's a long time since I've encountered that opinion though it is pretty widespread amongst football fans funnily enough.

I think it makes perfect sense. You should never rely on an ex-footballer (!) to run a club's financials. That's what the chairman is for. A strong chairman (like Levy at Spurs) is hugely important in keeping a club financially sound

LuckyLloyd

Reekwind wrote: »

I think it makes perfect sense. You should never rely on an ex-footballer (!) to run a club's financials. That's what the chairman is for. A strong chairman (like Levy at Spurs) is hugely important in keeping a club financially sound

The manager should be thinking at all times "is player X worth transfer fee Y and wages Z".

the realpigiron

Reekwind wrote: »

I think it makes perfect sense. You should never rely on an ex-footballer (!) to run a club's financials. That's what the chairman is for. A strong chairman (like Levy at Spurs) is hugely important in keeping a club financially sound

I agree.

In fact it is increasingly the case that managers have less and less say over the finances of a club. In the old days a manager would make out a wish list and a chairman would then tell him how much funds there was available. These days with autocratic chairmen liken Abramovic, he sanctions multi million pound signings like Shevchenko and Torres, often against the managers wishes.

From a pure footballing fans point of view, you want a strong manager in charge of your club who - among other things - can get a board to work harder to provide funding to buy players.

Reekwind

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The manager should be thinking at all times "is player X worth transfer fee Y and wages Z".

... while working within the constraints set by the chairman. It's up to the latter to impose a wage structure and transfer regime on the footballing staff. So what the manager should be thinking is "I've got X amount of cash to play with, what can I get for that? Do I have to move anybody on to get Player A?"

Otherwise, as we can see in almost any club, the gut instinct of most managers is to accumulate players. This makes perfect (sort've) sense from a footballing perspective (better too much cover than too little), which is what you'd expect the manager to prioritise. But on the field success is not the same as long-term financial stability

the realpigiron wrote:

In fact it is increasingly the case that managers have less and less say over the finances of a club. In the old days a manager would make out a wish list and a chairman would then tell him how much funds there was available. These days with autocratic chairmen liken Abramovic, he sanctions multi million pound signings like Shevchenko and Torres, often against the managers wishes

Both are better than a weak/complicit chairman who gives the manager a free hand. Such as the Redknapp/Mandarić combination

Neil3030

Club statement from Norwich: http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~2793911,00.html

Dempsey

premierstone wrote: »

LMFAO at this thread, I honestly taught there was no one as deluded or stupid as Liverpool fans untill I started to read this thread and the Villa thread.

the realpigiron wrote: »

Actually I think that makes a lot of sense. The manager of a football club doesn't hold the purse strings.

O'Neill gets a lot of flak around here for his signing policy at Villa, he has managed other clubs you know, and has had lots of success at those clubs too.

Do you two forget the mess he left Celtic in? At both Celtic and Villa he contractually demanded a level of control whereby he can decide the wages, clauses and fees offered for a player with minimal accountability. IMO, he doesnt have the business acumen for that level of control. Its easy to be successful when you spend beyond your means and leave the cleanup job to someone else.

Neil3030

Dempsey wrote: »

he doesnt have the business acumen for that level of control. Its easy to be successful when you spend beyond your means and leave the cleanup job to someone else.

Sounds perfectly suited to politics.

IvySlayer

@andrewastewart
BREAKING : Police arrest a drunk middle-aged woman menacingly screaming "Where are you? Let's be aving you" outside Paul Lambert's house.

invinciblePRSTV

Dempsey wrote: »

Do you two forget the mess he left Celtic in? At both Celtic and Villa he contractually demanded a level of control whereby he can decide the wages, clauses and fees offered for a player with minimal accountability. IMO, he doesnt have the business acumen for that level of control. Its easy to be successful when you spend beyond your means and leave the cleanup job to someone else.

Premierstone was told this a few weeks ago, in a thread where he was banging on about how Lamberts "stock" is too high for Villa. He doesn't care, he has his opinions, to hell with facts and figures.

Considering this, its deeply amusing he's throwing around terms like 'deluded' and 'stupid' on this thread.

the realpigiron

Dempsey wrote: »

Do you two forget the mess he left Celtic in? At both Celtic and Villa he contractually demanded a level of control whereby he can decide the wages, clauses and fees offered for a player with minimal accountability. IMO, he doesnt have the business acumen for that level of control. Its easy to be successful when you spend beyond your means and leave the cleanup job to someone else.

I'm aware that he left us with an ageing squad on big wages. He did however bring pride back to Celtic. Under him we were in Europe after Christmas for the first time in 20 years. He made us a force to be reckoned with in Europe again, and we feared no-one when we took the field under his charge.

After he went Strachan went on to have relative success in the CL, qualifying out of the Group stages. It was on the foundations of what MON built - and to Strachan's credit - that Celtic continued to hold their own in Europe after he went. In that sense it was worth the money, when you think about the barren years in Europe in the 2 decades before he came.


He's readymade for the current set up at Liverpool btw. In my view without spending much he would turn what they have right now into a team that would qualify for the CL again. You get hammered around here for talking about MON's positive attributes as a manager for some reason.

Ormus

I'm surprised that people really believe that MON had that level of control at Villa or Celtic.

If any chairman was lunatic enough to appoint a football manager as the club accountant for footballing matters, he needs his head examined and is 100% to blame for his money being burnt up in whirlwind shopping sprees. Any manager (barring Wenger) would run amok if actually given the cheque book.

In reality, MON being given "full control" meant that nobody interfered with him on football matters and he was in charge of identifying what players to buy and when.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying MON is or was the messiah. He made some good signings and some bad signings and had a lotta money to spend.

Anyway, back to Lambert...

G.K.

Look at the facts. He did have full control. Do I really need to bring Helix in?

Ormus

G.K. wrote: »

Look at the facts. He did have full control. Do I really need to bring Helix in?

I'm not sure. I don't know who Helix is. I do fear him though.

Dempsey

the realpigiron wrote: »

I'm aware that he left us with an ageing squad on big wages. He did however bring pride back to Celtic. Under him we were in Europe after Christmas for the first time in 20 years. He made us a force to be reckoned with in Europe again, and we feared no-one when we took the field under his charge.

After he went Strachan went on to have relative success in the CL, qualifying out of the Group stages. It was on the foundations of what MON built - and to Strachan's credit - that Celtic continued to hold their own in Europe after he went. In that sense it was worth the money, when you think about the barren years in Europe in the 2 decades before he came.

That and a massive debt. Luckily this was during the middle of the credit bubble and not during the start of the recession a la Rangers. I enjoyed the success like every Celt but we were living dangerous financially speaking and it was stupid by the club considering what happening in the previous decade at the time.

After MON, Lawwell made sure he was in full control of transfer policy and the priority was selling the big earners at the first opportunity. Luckily, most went without a fight when their time came. Strachan took the job knowing this and had a mandate to find cheap alternatives. Success was used to reduce the debt. Thats not much of a foundation and its almost a miracle what Strachan achieved when one arm was tied behind his back. The downsizing happened without much of a fuss.

Ormus wrote: »

I'm surprised that people really believe that MON had that level of control at Villa or Celtic.

If any chairman was lunatic enough to appoint a football manager as the club accountant for footballing matters, he needs his head examined and is 100% to blame for his money being burnt up in whirlwind shopping sprees. Any manager (barring Wenger) would run amok if actually given the cheque book.

MON dictated contract negotiations and other aspects of transfer policy at Celtic. When Lawwell became CEO, he wasnt happy with what MON was doing and wanted things to change. MON's contract renegotiations at Celtic stalled over this and in the end the Celtic board gave him what he wanted to appease the fans etc. By the end of his time at Celtic he had handed out some ridiculous contracts to players that werent going to get better. After MON left, there was some radical changes to how things were done at Celtic.

Corholio

G.K. wrote: »

Look at the facts. He did have full control. Do I really need to bring Helix in?

Christ don't give him anymore ego boost :pac:

You can go and relax in the Leeds thread

K-9

Jaysus, I thought Liverpool fans were obsessed with Rafa!

djPSB

I can see Norwich going down next season if Lambert leaves.

Morzadec

People unable to see Villa as a step up from Norwich?? Seriously??

You'll be telling me that Rodgers is taking a sideways step going to Liverpool? Sure Liverpool only finished 5 points ahead of Swansea last season :rolleyes:

I think it's a good appointment for Villa. I assume Villa fans would be happy with anything over 47/48 points, and a solid mid-table finish/push for a top half place in his first season?

G.K.

Lambert's doing to Norwich what he did to Colchester - move to a bigger club who are down on their luck finanically and 'footballingly'.

the realpigiron

Dempsey wrote: »

That and a massive debt. Luckily this was during the middle of the credit bubble and not during the start of the recession a la Rangers. I enjoyed the success like every Celt but we were living dangerous financially speaking and it was stupid by the club considering what happening in the previous decade at the time.

After MON, Lawwell made sure he was in full control of transfer policy and the priority was selling the big earners at the first opportunity. Luckily, most went without a fight when their time came. Strachan took the job knowing this and had a mandate to find cheap alternatives. Success was used to reduce the debt. Thats not much of a foundation and its almost a miracle what Strachan achieved when one arm was tied behind his back. The downsizing happened without much of a fuss.

We were but there are times to push the boat out and gamble and with MON the gamble paid off in the sense that we regained respectable status on a European front. Also we didn't push the boat too far, after the UEFA Cup Final appearance the big signings stopped.

Celtic's record in Europe for two decades and more prior to his arrival was desperately poor and there was no confidence in the club when they played in Europe in those years. It was necessary to make a huge effort to instill some confidence again and the spend and gamble made sense on that level. I guess this is a conversation for the Celtic thread.

Anyway if Lambert gets the Villa job - as seems likely - I hope and think he'll do well.

Ape X

G.K. wrote: »

Lambert's doing to Norwich what he did to Colchester - move to a bigger club who are down on their luck finanically and 'footballingly'.

You just made that word up :mad:

G.K.

What, Colchester?

How should I define it? :pac:

ColeTrain

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol!

It's a long time since I've encountered that opinion though it is pretty widespread amongst football fans funnily enough.

What's there to laugh about?

It's a simple business structure. The chairman tells the manager how much he has to spend. The manager then spends it.

Do you honestly think MON went behind the chairmans back writing cheques? Every deal he did was approved by Aston Villa. Look at it from his perspective.
If the chairman said to MON, "here's 100 million to spend"..No manager is going to question it, it's not their job to go over the clubs books. They take what they're given.

If a club is in finanical difficulty then the chairman and board take full responsibility.

Dempsey wrote: »

That and a massive debt. Luckily this was during the middle of the credit bubble and not during the start of the recession a la Rangers. I enjoyed the success like every Celt but we were living dangerous financially speaking and it was stupid by the club considering what happening in the previous decade at the time.

After MON, Lawwell made sure he was in full control of transfer policy and the priority was selling the big earners at the first opportunity. Luckily, most went without a fight when their time came. Strachan took the job knowing this and had a mandate to find cheap alternatives. Success was used to reduce the debt. Thats not much of a foundation and its almost a miracle what Strachan achieved when one arm was tied behind his back. The downsizing happened without much of a fuss.

MON dictated contract negotiations and other aspects of transfer policy at Celtic. When Lawwell became CEO, he wasnt happy with what MON was doing and wanted things to change. MON's contract renegotiations at Celtic stalled over this and in the end the Celtic board gave him what he wanted to appease the fans etc. By the end of his time at Celtic he had handed out some ridiculous contracts to players that werent going to get better. After MON left, there was some radical changes to how things were done at Celtic.

MON had a few big signings for the SPL but he hardly added to his squad after the first season or two. IIRC there was one year where David Fernandez ( remember him?! ) was the only signing.

Strachan was left with the spine of a good team with the likes of Hartson, Petrov, Lennon, Balde. Most of the deadwood was gotten rid of easy enough. Except for Bobo who wanted to see out his contract.
You also have to remember times were different then. I think the downsizing happened with Strachan, unintentionally. He bought a lot of players who just weren't at the standard of MON's team and paid plenty of money for them. See Gravesen, Jarosik, Brown (4.4m), Donati, Zurawski, Boruc, Naka, JVOH etc. There were quite a few flops there.

G.K.

MON was given full control by the outgoing chairman, Doug Ellis. When Lerner tried to remove it, the walked.

ColeTrain

G.K. wrote: »

MON was given full control by the outgoing chairman, Doug Ellis. When Lerner tried to remove it, the walked.

If that's true then Ellis was a very stupid man.

Dempsey

ColeTrain wrote: »

MON had a few big signings for the SPL but he hardly added to his squad after the first season or two. IIRC there was one year where David Fernandez ( remember him?! ) was the only signing.

Strachan was left with the spine of a good team with the likes of Hartson, Petrov, Lennon, Balde. Most of the deadwood was gotten rid of easy enough. Except for Bobo who wanted to see out his contract.
You also have to remember times were different then. I think the downsizing happened with Strachan, unintentionally. He bought a lot of players who just weren't at the standard of MON's team and paid plenty of money for them. See Gravesen, Jarosik, Brown (4.4m), Donati, Zurawski, Boruc, Naka, JVOH etc. There were quite a few flops there.

And yet with all the success and lack of signings, we racked up a massive debt.

That majority of that "spine" was sold or loaned out within 18 months. I couldnt disagree with the bolded more strongly considering what Strachan said about the minimal influence he actually had on transfer policy at Celtic.

Anyways, back to Lambert!

Corholio

G.K. wrote: »

MON was given full control by the outgoing chairman, Doug Ellis. When Lerner tried to remove it, the walked.

Lerner would have had huge input on how O'Neill was appointed too. Not just Ellis.

Neil3030

Well you also have to look at it from the perspective that Chairmen often have to gamble on managers, as much as managers have to gamble on players.

Whoever sanctioned the deal where MON was given total control - this was a gamble. Was it a calculated gamble? Absolutely. At the time of his appointment, MON had enjoyed relative success anywhere he went, he was hotly tipped as a future manager of Manchester United, Liverpool, etc., so by all accounts, Ellis/Lerner were absolutely right to take a punt on giving him what he wanted, i.e., complete control of the club's transfers, in order to seduce him to come to a club that had just survived relegation.

The proceeding couple of seasons were sustainable; Lerner had promised investment, on which he duly delivered, and the squad grew in strength. Results improved and the team qualified for Europe at the end of 07/08. Everything was going according to plan. Perhaps there were some small warning signs (Harewood, Salifou, Routledge all taking a wage but rarely playing), but no chairman would have stepped in at that point. The team was progressing, there were assets on the books if cash was needed (Barry, Young, Agbonlahor), and the wagebill, as yet, was not too high.

That summer, i.e., Summer 2008, was financially where it all started to go wrong, imo. Milner, Friedel and Guzan were brought in, the former two proving excellent buys, and the third a decent backup keeper. But in addition, in came Davies (his permanent transfer went through at this point), Sidwell, Shorey, Luke Young and Cuellar, none of whom would see regular playing time at the club. Villa were now at the crest of the risk curve; the wagebill had practically doubled thanks to these transfers, and a further debt of nearly £50m had been added to the books in order to buy the players. Without securing Champion's League football the following season, the situation would be gravely unsustainable.

So should the chairman have stepped in at this point? This is debatable. But again, you have to look at this in perspective: thus far, the risk had paid off. Villa were in the Europa League, and had just finished 6th the previous year. The feel-good factor at Villa Park was immense; and the media were tipping them to challenge for the Champion's League. All signs pointed to further progress, and any intervention on a chairman's part would have established his position as a villain, if you will, amongst Villains.

And gain, by all accounts, Lerner was right to let the gamble continue. By January 2009, Villa were 3rd in the table, 2 points ahead of Chelsea and 7 points clear of Arsenal, in 4th and 5th respectively. The team had also progressed from their group in Europe. The addition of Heskey in the January window was ponderous to many, and certainly no help to the club's finances, but again, O'Neill had the club in a position to achieve what would have been unthinkable a few seasons previous. Everything was going exactly according to plan. Should the chairman have stepped in at this point? Not on your life.

But what then followed was a horrendous mix of misfortune and mismanagement. MON took a punt on keeping players fresh for the Champion's League push, by sending a team largely comprised of reserves to play in a knock-out tie against CSKA Moscow in the Europa League. The team put up a spirited performance but ultimately lost. Fans who had gone to great expense to make the trip were angered and morale probably suffered. Villa then lost their captain to an eventual career-ending knee injury.

Results consequently suffered and O'Neill's tactics were starting to appear naive and insufficient; he rarely rotated his players and rigidly stuck to a game plan of deep-defending and pacey counter attacking. Teams twigged this and parked the bus. Villa had no plan B. Thus, they failed to win any of the next ten league matches, and ended the season in 6th place.

By the Summer of 2009, murmurings of discontent were starting to surface amongst fans. The team were in touching distance of Champion's League football, and hadn't delivered. A very large amount of money had been spent. The football was starting to aggrieve people on two fronts; first of all it was bland and unentertaining for spectators and secondly, it afforded teams the opportunity to play for draws at Villa Park, which many successfully did to the ultimate detriment of the Champion's League push.

But was all this enough to prompt the chairman to step in? Well, he didn't, deciding to give O'Neill another crack at the top 4 the following season. This was perhaps naive, but the consequent signings indicated that O'Neill may have learned from his shortcomings the previous season. He brought in four new defenders, Dunne, Collins, Beye and Warnock, addressing weaknesses in this area. He also brought in Downing, another wide player to take pressure of Young, and Delph, a promising youngster to potentially serve as the long term replacement for Barry, who left the club for £12m,

The proceeding season saw Villa once again finish sixth, once again rarely rotate players, once again show little creativity with the ball in possession and once again draw too many games at home (8). The wagebill would now have been at its peak; O'Neill had added 22 players to the Villa wage bill during his tenure, at an average wage of around 40k per week. Only three of these players were sold while he was at the club, but further, most saw very little game time, which called his transfer policy into serious question. The gamble had now spanned four seasons, and not only did it not work, but for the first time it really started to look as if further gambles wouldn't work.

Should the chairman have stepped in at this point? Well, he did. By accounts, O'Neill was instructed that enough was enough, and he had to reduce the wagebill before he was free to sign any more players. The deal that had been brokered at his hiring was therefore violated and MON walked, winning his constructive dismissal case some 12 months later.

So in hindsight, yes, it may appear utterly ludicrous to entrust the financial management of a club to a manager, when you look at the end product; the decision on Villa's part left them with a catastrophic combination of a £100m per year wage bill and relatively little resale value of the assets on its books. However, when you look at the course of events how they unfolded, you can't really pinpoint a time when the chairman would have been absolutely correct stepping in, except maybe in the Summer of 2009.

Panrich

Neil3030 wrote: »

Well you also have to look at it from the perspective that Chairmen often have to gamble on managers, as much as managers have to gamble on players.

Whoever sanctioned the deal where MON was given total control - this was a gamble. Was it a calculated gamble? Absolutely. At the time of his appointment, MON had enjoyed relative success anywhere he went, he was hotly tipped as a future manager of Manchester United, Liverpool, etc., so by all accounts, Ellis/Lerner were absolutely right to take a punt on giving him what he wanted, i.e., complete control of the club's transfers, in order to seduce him to come to a club that had just survived relegation.

The proceeding couple of seasons were sustainable; Lerner had promised investment, on which he duly delivered, and the squad grew in strength. Results improved and the team qualified for Europe at the end of 07/08. Everything was going according to plan. Perhaps there were some small warning signs (Harewood, Salifou, Routledge all taking a wage but rarely playing), but no chairman would have stepped in at that point. The team was progressing, there were assets on the books if cash was needed (Barry, Young, Agbonlahor), and the wagebill, as yet, was not too high.

That summer, i.e., Summer 2008, was financially where it all started to go wrong, imo. Milner, Friedel and Guzan were brought in, the former two proving excellent buys, and the third a decent backup keeper. But in addition, in came Davies (his permanent transfer went through at this point), Sidwell, Shorey, Luke Young and Cuellar, none of whom would see regular playing time at the club. Villa were now at the crest of the risk curve; the wagebill had practically doubled thanks to these transfers, and a further debt of nearly £50m had been added to the books in order to buy the players. Without securing Champion's League football the following season, the situation would be gravely unsustainable.

So should the chairman have stepped in at this point? This is debatable. But again, you have to look at this in perspective: thus far, the risk had paid off. Villa were in the Europa League, and had just finished 6th the previous year. The feel-good factor at Villa Park was immense; and the media were tipping them to challenge for the Champion's League. All signs pointed to further progress, and any intervention on a chairman's part would have established his position as a villain, if you will, amongst Villains.

And gain, by all accounts, Lerner was right to let the gamble continue. By January 2009, Villa were 3rd in the table, 2 points ahead of Chelsea and 7 points clear of Arsenal, in 4th and 5th respectively. The team had also progressed from their group in Europe. The addition of Heskey in the January window was ponderous to many, and certainly no help to the club's finances, but again, O'Neill had the club in a position to achieve what would have been unthinkable a few seasons previous. Everything was going exactly according to plan. Should the chairman have stepped in at this point? Not on your life.

But what then followed was a horrendous mix of misfortune and mismanagement. MON took a punt on keeping players fresh for the Champion's League push, by sending a team largely comprised of reserves to play in a knock-out tie against CSKA Moscow in the Europa League. The team put up a spirited performance but ultimately lost. Fans who had gone to great expense to make the trip were angered and morale probably suffered. Villa then lost their captain to an eventual career-ending knee injury.

Results consequently suffered and O'Neill's tactics were starting to appear naive and insufficient; he rarely rotated his players and rigidly stuck to a game plan of deep-defending and pacey counter attacking. Teams twigged this and parked the bus. Villa had no plan B. Thus, they failed to win any of the next ten league matches, and ended the season in 6th place.

By the Summer of 2009, murmurings of discontent were starting to surface amongst fans. The team were in touching distance of Champion's League football, and hadn't delivered. A very large amount of money had been spent. The football was starting to aggrieve people on two fronts; first of all it was bland and unentertaining for spectators and secondly, it afforded teams the opportunity to play for draws at Villa Park, which many successfully did to the ultimate detriment of the Champion's League push.

But was all this enough to prompt the chairman to step in? Well, he didn't, deciding to give O'Neill another crack at the top 4 the following season. This was perhaps naive, but the consequent signings indicated that O'Neill may have learned from his shortcomings the previous season. He brought in four new defenders, Dunne, Collins, Beye and Warnock, addressing weaknesses in this area. He also brought in Downing, another wide player to take pressure of Young, and Delph, a promising youngster to potentially serve as the long term replacement for Barry, who left the club for £12m,

The proceeding season saw Villa once again finish sixth, once again rarely rotate players, once again show little creativity with the ball in possession and once again draw too many games at home (8). The wagebill would now have been at its peak; O'Neill had added 22 players to the Villa wage bill during his tenure, at an average wage of around 40k per week. Only three of these players were sold while he was at the club, but further, most saw very little game time, which called his transfer policy into serious question. The gamble had now spanned four seasons, and not only did it not work, but for the first time it really started to look as if further gambles wouldn't work.

Should the chairman have stepped in at this point? Well, he did. By accounts, O'Neill was instructed that enough was enough, and he had to reduce the wagebill before he was free to sign any more players. The deal that had been brokered at his hiring was therefore violated and MON walked, winning his constructive dismissal case some 12 months later.

So in hindsight, yes, it may appear utterly ludicrous to entrust the financial management of a club to a manager, when you look at the end product; the decision on Villa's part left them with a catastrophic combination of a £100m per year wage bill and relatively little resale value of the assets on its books. However, when you look at the course of events how they unfolded, you can't really pinpoint a time when the chairman would have been absolutely correct stepping in, except maybe in the Summer of 2009.

Best summary of MON's reign at Villa that I have read anywhere and I have read many. It presents the facts brilliantly in my opinion.