Martin O'Neill reportedly offers resignation to Sunderland

wandatowell

His system of football is being found out by the teams who now have better forward players, he cant adapt so its the football scrap heap for him, i.e. BBC punditry


p.s. I love his rig for the sidelines. None of this sharp suit crap, trackies with the sock tucked over the bottoms, hilarious!

bit of a bogey

Granted MON is not over achieving with Sunderland at the momnet but the truth is that they are not a good team and dont have the players to finish a whole lot higher in the league. Look around at the other teams at the bottom. The quality of players are no better at Sunderland.

Corholio

Thought he'd do better at Sunderland to be honest, I don't know what Sunderland fans thought of his signing's but his time at Villa was littered with overpriced players he ended up not even playing, one of whom he ended up buying for Sunderland in Cuellar. The Heskey signing for Villa still haunts the club to this very day, bought him and changed the system when in 4th place and in great form, then just had an outrageously bad run of results and finished 6th.

Francie Barrett

Is he leaving, or what?

Turtyturd

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Is he leaving, or what?

Not until he finds out Jordan Henderson's shocking secret.

Cienciano

When he left Villa someone (possibly Helix) put a post up about him that was nominated for post of the year, not sure if it won, but it should have, it summed him up to a tee and predicted his job at sunderland perfectly.
I always thought the Gabriel Marcotti article was spot on too. Not a great manager, not a bad manager, he just does what you'd expect for the money he spend.

Marcotti
Tuesday offered a textbook case of how quickly rumours can spread. Peter Lansley's piece sums up neatly how unconfirmed reports of Martin O'Neill's resignation as Aston Villa manager romped around the web and the airwaves. Heck, I was part of it too ... retweeting Oli Kay's tweet (which, responsibly, reminded us that it was UNCONFIRMED) and then watching the mayhem unfold.

I have to confess I don't understand the O'Neill phenomenon. Maybe it's my fault. I don't think he plays outstanding, innovative football. I do think he sets out his teams in a well-organised counter-attacking system and generally gets them to execute his game plan very well. But so do others.

I don't think he's particularly shrewd or creative in the transfer market. By my reckoning, since arriving at Villa Park, his club have spent more money than any other team in the Premier League (£88 million in net terms) with the exception of Manchester City. And, after all that expense, Villa will probably finish somewhere between fifth and seventh which basically equates to the club punching its weight.

Take a quick look at history. O'Neill finished 11th in his first season and sixth the last two years. The much maligned David O'Leary took Villa to fifth place in 2003-04. That was his first season at the club and he took over a side which had finished just three points above relegation the previous year. In the seven seasons between 1995 and 2002, Villa finished fourth, fifth, seventh, sixth, sixth, eighth and eighth, while winning the League Cup in 1996. The guys managing Villa in those years were Brian Little and John Gregory (with a bit of Graham Taylor thrown in). Neither Little nor Gregory (let alone O'Leary) are spoken of in the same glowing terms as O'Neill. And yet they achieved what they achieved without the massive investment from Randy Lerner, but with the rather more cautious Doug Ellis at the helm.

I fail to see what in his results at Aston Villa suggests he's any different from his peers who achieved comparable results, like Harry Redknapp (with a comparable budget) or David Moyes (with a smaller budget and smaller wage bill).

Further muddying the waters - and, again, it's probably just me - is the fact that I don't understand what his transfer strategy is. Since arriving at Villa he has only bought players from British clubs, with three exceptions: John Carew, reserve goalkeeper Brad Guzan and Moustapha Salifou (who is 26 and has yet to start a league game). It has been a pattern throughout his career. At Celtic, in five seasons he brought in three players from abroad: Bobo Balde and Joos Valgaeren who were pretty good and Michael Herbet, who never played a single league game for the club. Now, you obviously don't need to buy players from abroad to be a good manager. But the fact that he has bought just six in nearly nine seasons is a bit of a head-scratcher.

Unless he's somehow prejudiced against them (and I don't think he is), it suggests his scouting network and decision-making maybe isn't what it should be. Instead, he's bought British players, mostly young ones, for which he's been widely praised. But again, it's not as if he's unearthed gems, signing some teenage left back from Colchester who then goes on to become the next Stuart Pearce or an underrated striker from Reading whose career he helps get back on track. Most of his British signings are fairly obvious ones - well-known players at market prices, whether it's Stewart Downing or Ashley Young or James Milner. There's no great nous or imagination there, it's basically a case of bringing in brand names. And paying accordingly for the privilege.

He's supposed to be some kind of guru to young players, but, in fact, he's given league debuts to just four home-grown players in four seasons. One of them, Isaiah Osbourne, is now on loan at Middlesbrough. The other three - Ciaran Clark, Marc Albrighton and Nathan Delfouneso - have between them started a single league game this season and played less than 300 minutes between them. He's meant to be methodical and clear-thinking, but then he signed three quarters of his starting back four (Stephen Warnock, Richard Dunne and James Collins) in the last hours of the transfer window. Which actually doesn't suggest much of a plan at all.

What you're left with is his results. Which, as stated above, are good but not exceptional. Three SPL titltes, three Scottish FA Cups and a League Cup in five years. But, of course, that was at Celtic. Gordon Strachan, his successor, also won three league titles, as well as a Scottish FA Cup and two League Cups, and he did it in four years. You don't see Strachan mentioned in the same breath as Sir Alex Ferguson and Brian Clough do you? And, yes, he did take Celtic to the Uefa Cup final. (But then Steve McClaren also took Middlesbrough to a Uefa Cup final).

O'Neill strikes me, ultimately, as someone who does the job to the level you would expect, given the resources at his disposal. Nothing less, nothing more. When you have a net spend of £88 million over four years, a top six finish is the least you can expect. We'll never know, of course, but one would imagine that, say, David Moyes might have attained comparable heights if he'd had £88 million to spend, instead of the roughly £20 million net spend he's had to work with since O'Neill's arrival. Who knows? Maybe some of the folks further down the food chain would have as well. Heck, maybe even Brian Little and John Gregory.

Would he have been more successful than, say Rafa Benitez at Liverpool or Wenger at Arsenal? Maybe, maybe not. But, while I can imagine an argument for why he would do worse, I have yet to hear a cogent argument for why he would definitely have done better. (I'm all ears, BTW. Though, of course, I accept that it's mere conjecture, we'll probably never know).

One more thing. Lansley's article mentions suggestions that O'Neill is under pressure because Lerner, Villa's owner, is unwilling to make further large investments in the club. If that's the case, it's more than understandable. You spend big, you get the players you want and then you work on making them play well together as a team.

O'Neill has succeeded in doing so with Young and Milner, now it's up to him to make it work with the others. But now comes the real test of whether he really is a special manager or just another "good" manager who suceeeds when he's awash with money. Now we'll find out what he can do. Provided, of course, the unconfirmed rumours are wholly false and he does decide to stick around, even with a switched off tap.

Super-Rush

Super-Rush wrote: »

Yes, he's an awful manager.

Er, no he isnt.

He won 2 Carling cups with a mediocre Leicester side, and apart from the leagues and cups he won with Celtic they were competitive in the champions league on a relative shoestring and got to the uefa cup final in 2003 beating Liverpool and Blackburn en route. 2004 they knocked Barcelona with Ronaldinho out of Europe. He may not have reached the dizzy heights we all anticipated he would but to call him 'awful' is an unbelievable comment. And to get all those thanks for it.....even worse :rolleyes:

How have Villa fared since he left? How were Sunderland before his arrival? Sunderland may not be scoring much but they are a hard team to break down.

ScienceNerd

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Some people's inability to recognise that there's a level between the very best and the very worst is hilarious.

MON is a good manager, just not a great manager.

Probably the fairest comment on this thread. I dont think O'Neill really tested himself when he had the opportunities to do so though.

He seems to be a good man manager in my opinion. Even Stan Collymore stated he would have went through a brick wall for him. He set up a good team dynamic at Celtic with Sutton, Thompson, Larsson, Lennon, Hartson and co and got the very best out of all those players. i felt they were unlucky in certain European games and refs shafted them once or twice. Very unlucky not to get a result in Turin back in 2001 as one example

Chucky the tree

He's not awful, it was a good lol comment though. If I found out he was going to the manager of the club I supported I'd probably vomit, that doesn't say much for him. If I supported a team like Sunderland, Newcastle, Fulham, Swansea and a few others I wouldn't want him either. He'd probably do a good job bringing some relegation scrapers to safety but I wouldn't rely on him to do much else. He seems to really struggle to meet high expectations.

J Cheever Loophole

Super-Rush wrote: »

Neil3030 wrote: »

He clearly isn't an awful manager, as even a cursory glance of his track record will prove.

Ah i must have missed all those big clubs fighting with each other for his services.

Are these the same 'big clubs' that have employed Sparky Hughes, AVB, Avram Grant, King Kenny II and Phil Scolari as managers in recent years? Yes, their lack of interest is a sure sign!! :rolleyes:

Although I do not like the man, I have to acknowledge the greatness of Sir. I'm often reminded though of how close he came to the exit in 1990 before Man United won that year's FA Cup - a cup in which they were on the brink against Oldham in the semi-final and against Palace in the final. That shows how fickle managerial success can be. People are keen here to highlight his tenure at Villa as evidence of failure, and yet that was very much a work in progress when he left. Ask any Villa fan about that and the majority I reckon would take him back in the morning.

JPA

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

Ask any Villa fan about that and the majority I reckon would take him back in the morning.

They very much would not.

Neil3030

There is no question for me. Offer me MON back and an expensive, turgid style of football, which may keep Villa mid table, or offer me a manager like Lambert, who gives youth a chance and tries to instill a modern playing style (even if this brings a risk of relegation), I would take the latter option every time.

Corholio

Neil3030 wrote: »

There is no question for me. Offer me MON back and an expensive, turgid style of football, which may keep Villa mid table, or offer me a manager like Lambert, who gives youth a chance and tries to instill a modern playing style (even if this brings a risk of relegation), I would take the latter option every time.

Do we have to pick one? :pac:

super_furry

Has Martin O'Neill ever really been a major success outside of the two-horse town that was the SPL? I've heard people make cases for why he should be offered a chance at a bigger club but while his League Cup wins with Leicester were highpoints, it was at a time when the competition was taken even less serious than it is now.

J Cheever Loophole

JPA wrote: »

They very much would not.

Neil3030 wrote: »

There is no question for me. Offer me MON back and an expensive, turgid style of football, which may keep Villa mid table, or offer me a manager like Lambert, who gives youth a chance and tries to instill a modern playing style (even if this brings a risk of relegation), I would take the latter option every time.

Apologies to Villa fans so - that was my assumption on the basis of what followed. I'm happy to concede that point.

I won't concede though on the salient point that his time at Villa can be seen as evidence of him being a poor manager, given the top ten finishes and the fact that he left what for him was surely a work in progress.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Has Martin O'Neill ever really been a major success outside of the two-horse town that was the SPL? I've heard people make cases for why he should be offered a chance at a bigger club but while his League Cup wins with Leicester were highpoints, it was at a time when the competition was taken even less serious than it is now.

Em did he not get Villa 6th place finishes 2 seasons in a row. What they would take for that now.

Melion

Deleted User wrote: »

Em did he not get Villa 6th place finishes 2 seasons in a row. What they would take for that now.

The kind of money he wasted, 6th place was a let down.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Em did he not get Villa 6th place finishes 2 seasons in a row. What they would take for that now.

yeah, but at a serious cost.

pickarooney

Why do fans give a toss what a manager spends? I can't understand the mindset of a fan who cares more about the accounts than the results or the quality of football on display.

Corholio

pickarooney wrote: »

Why do fans give a toss what a manager spends? I can't understand the mindset of a fan who cares more about the accounts than the results or the quality of football on display.

Because it can end up severely affecting what any possible future manager spends, of course the football is more important but it can have a serious knock on effect, especially the last few years.

Chucky the tree

pickarooney wrote: »

Why do fans give a toss what a manager spends? I can't understand the mindset of a fan who cares more about the accounts than the results or the quality of football on display.

I'd have thought most fans don't want their club to turn out like Leeds.

pickarooney

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'd have thought most fans don't want their club to turn out like Leeds.

I'd prefer to be a Leeds fan than a Sunderland fan. When you're down, like Leeds, there's the tantalising prospect of recovery each season and the memory of the good days, being champions of England and going close in Europe. For fans of the likes of Sunderland it's year after year of hoping for 10th place and settling for 16th. It's just beyond me what enjoyment is to be had in that.

Chucky the tree

pickarooney wrote: »

I'd prefer to be a Leeds fan than a Sunderland fan. When you're down, like Leeds, there's the tantalising prospect of recovery each season and the memory of the good days, being champions of England and going close in Europe. For fans of the likes of Sunderland it's year after year of hoping for 10th place and settling for 16th. It's just beyond me what enjoyment is to be had in that.

They always have the potential to make Europe in one season though. Like WBA, probably won't make Europe but I'd say they are enjoying this season a lot more than a Leeds fan. Probably been that way for a long time.

aidan24326

JPA wrote: »

They very much would not.

Neil3030 wrote: »

There is no question for me. Offer me MON back and an expensive, turgid style of football, which may keep Villa mid table, or offer me a manager like Lambert, who gives youth a chance and tries to instill a modern playing style (even if this brings a risk of relegation), I would take the latter option every time.

Why so much hatred for Martin O'Neill? You say you'd much prefer to have Lambert in charge but he's leading Villa straight to the Championship as things are. And if O'Neill's style of football was turgid what do you call the dross Villa have been serving up recently? Lambert has shown no signs of doing anything other than perhaps narrowly avoiding relegation, which for a club of Villa's stature is hardly much to shout about.

Doodee

aidan24326 wrote: »

Why so much hatred for Martin O'Neill? You say you'd much prefer to have Lambert in charge but he's leading Villa straight to the Championship as things are. And if O'Neill's style of football was turgid what do you call the dross Villa have been serving up recently? Lambert has shown no signs of doing anything other than perhaps narrowly avoiding relegation, which for a club of Villa's stature is hardly much to shout about.

How many Villa games have you watched this season vs last season?
Villa are playing very different football these days, with a much younger squad.

Is it a case of MON walks before he is sacked?

aidan24326

Doodee wrote: »

How many Villa games have you watched this season vs last season?
Villa are playing very different football these days, with a much younger squad.

Is it a case of MON walks before he is sacked?

I've seen Villa a few times and they've hardly set the world alight now have they? I take your point about trying to play a different way with younger players and all that but the results aren't happening and as things stand Villa will probably stay up only through having even worse teams below them (with QPR and Southamption already looking nailed-on for relegation). And btw I'd agree that MON isn't doing that great a job a Sunderland. He WAS an excellent manager with Wycombe and with Leicester but never really built on that as such.

Raekwon

I'd take Paul Lambert over Martin O'Neill any day of the week.

I was a huge fan of O'Neill's when he was at Villa but he did nearly bankrupt them in his vein attempts trying to qualify for a Champions League place and the club are still trying to recover from his reign three seasons on.

His transfer policy was very short sighted and in some cases absolutely baffling and in most cases he signed absolute dross on huge contracts with absolutely no potential for a sell on fee. At one point the wage bill was higher the Champions League teams like Roma & Schalke, £80m per season, which account for 88% of the club's £90million turnover (2010 figures).

Paul Lambert on the other hand has been very shrewd so far. He has brought in mainly lower league players for 2 or 3 million and on fairly low wages and when he has splashed out he has signed a ready made captain in Ron Vlaar and a potentially brilliant striker in Christian Benteke (who has probably doubled his sell on fee in the last few months with his displays for both club and country).

Of course Lambert's young team needs time to gel and if he strengthens adequately in January I can see Villa steadily climb the table and out of danger. They do desperately need to sign a completive midfielder, an experienced LB & possibly a winger, but getting a fit again Richard Dunne back to partner Ron Vlaar will be a huge bonus for the team.

eagle eye

Raekwon wrote: »

I'd take Paul Lambert over Martin O'Neill any day of the week.

I was a huge fan of O'Neill's when he was at Villa but he did nearly bankrupt them in his vein attempts trying to qualify for a Champions League place and the club are still trying to recover from his reign three seasons on.

His transfer policy was very short sighted and in some cases absolutely baffling and in most cases he signed absolute dross on huge contracts with absolutely no potential for a sell on fee. At one point the wage bill was higher the Champions League teams like Roma & Schalke, £80m per season, which account for 88% of the club's £90million turnover (2010 figures).

Thing is though that Villa had the 6th biggest wage bill and O'Neill finished 6th. Only issue is that he did not overachieve. The only problem with O'Neill that I could see there was him not using more of the squad to keep players in top shape. It showed in March every season I think. He might have overachieved if he had used a good rotation policy.

Corholio

Raekwon wrote: »

I'd take Paul Lambert over Martin O'Neill any day of the week.

I was a huge fan of O'Neill's when he was at Villa but he did nearly bankrupt them in his vein attempts trying to qualify for a Champions League place and the club are still trying to recover from his reign three seasons on.

His transfer policy was very short sighted and in some cases absolutely baffling and in most cases he signed absolute dross on huge contracts with absolutely no potential for a sell on fee. At one point the wage bill was higher the Champions League teams like Roma & Schalke, £80m per season, which account for 88% of the club's £90million turnover (2010 figures).

Paul Lambert on the other hand has been very shrewd so far. He has brought in mainly lower league players for 2 or 3 million and on fairly low wages and when he has splashed out he has signed a ready made captain in Ron Vlaar and a potentially brilliant striker in Christian Benteke (who has probably doubled his sell on fee in the last few months with his displays for both club and country).

Of course Lambert's young team needs time to gel and if he strengthens adequately in January I can see Villa steadily climb the table and out of danger. They do desperately need to sign a completive midfielder, an experienced LB & possibly a winger, but getting a fit again Richard Dunne back to partner Ron Vlaar will be a huge bonus for the team.

Agreed on O'Neill, however on Lambert only Vlaar and Benteke have justified his 'shrewdness' so far. To be honest, they are well short at the moment, full backs and midfield have really struggled so far. Dunne also has a lot to prove when he gets back too, he certainly wont be first choice for a while, if at all. Vlaar has been good but has had a few shaky times too. Benteke's general play has been very good, but needs to start scoring more, he's missed a good few very good chances too. I'm sick of Villa strikers the last few years 'playing well' (Carew, Agbonlahor) but not getting enough goals. But he has shown good signs so here's hoping he will.

On January, experience and strength are needed, young lower league players isn't what's needed, so I hope Lambert has some flexibility to his 'policy'.

Corholio

eagle eye wrote: »

Thing is though that Villa had the 6th biggest wage bill and O'Neill finished 6th. Only issue is that he did not overachieve. The only problem with O'Neill that I could see there was him not using more of the squad to keep players in top shape. It showed in March every season I think. He might have overachieved if he had used a good rotation policy.

6th highest wage bill and finishing 6th isnt an accurate reflection. 90% of the players on these high wages were sold at a loss, most of them a significant one, not to mention he didn't even play some of them (Cuellar, Sidwell etc)

Refusal to make subs, disastrous signings (Heskey) and complete lack of rotation were all shortcomings he had at Villa.

eagle eye

Corholio wrote: »

6th highest wage bill and finishing 6th isnt an accurate reflection. 90% of the players on these high wages were sold at a loss, most of them a significant one, not to mention he didn't even play some of them (Cuellar, Sidwell etc)

Refusal to make subs, disastrous signings (Heskey) and complete lack of rotation were all shortcomings he had at Villa.

Villa got something in the region of £60/70m back for three of his signings so I doubt he lost much money on the tranfer market. Milner, Young and Downing are the three I'm talking about.

Raekwon

eagle eye wrote: »

Thing is though that Villa had the 6th biggest wage bill and O'Neill finished 6th. Only issue is that he did not overachieve. The only problem with O'Neill that I could see there was him not using more of the squad to keep players in top shape. It showed in March every season I think. He might have overachieved if he had used a good rotation policy.

For me the biggest problem with O'Neill was his transfer policy. The only players that he signed that were capable of making any money from were Young, Downing & Milner. The rest were released from their £50k+ week contracts at a huge financial loss to the club. That's also the main reason MON walked in the end. Lerner simply told him to cut the ridiculously high wage bill down because he needed to balance the books, MON refused and wanted to spend all of the money that Villa got for James Milner, toys got thrown out of the pram. End of.

Corholio wrote: »

Agreed on O'Neill, however on Lambert only Vlaar and Benteke have justified his 'shrewdness' so far. To be honest, they are well short at the moment, full backs and midfield have really struggled so far. Dunne also has a lot to prove when he gets back too, he certainly wont be first choice for a while, if at all. Vlaar has been good but has had a few shaky times too. Benteke's general play has been very good, but needs to start scoring more, he's missed a good few very good chances too. I'm sick of Villa strikers the last few years 'playing well' (Carew, Agbonlahor) but not getting enough goals. But he has shown good signs so here's hoping he will.

On January, experience and strength are needed, young lower league players isn't what's needed, so I hope Lambert has some flexibility to his 'policy'.

Yeah we definitely need strengthening and like I said in the Villa thread I'd prefer Lambert to sign a few foreign 'unknowns' then a glut of League One players for the same transfer fees/salaries.

I only used the word shrewd there to highlight the fact that signing the likes of former Crewe captain Ashley Westwood on £25k per week is a better investment then having Steve Sidwell warm the bench for £55k a week. Ditto Lowton & Bennett compared to Beye & Warnock.

Raekwon

eagle eye wrote: »

Villa got something in the region of £60/70m back for three of his signings so I doubt he lost much money on the tranfer market. Milner, Young and Downing are the three I'm talking about.

Young was signed for £9.6m and was sold for £16m. Downing was signed for £12m and sold for £20m. Milner was signed for £12 and sold for £24m (-£8m in the deal that included Stephen Ireland). So that's a profit of £18.4m for Aston Villa (not including wages etc).

listermint

Raekwon wrote: »

Young was signed for £9.6m and was sold for £16m. Downing was signed for £12m and sold for £20m. Milner was signed for £12 and sold for £24m (-£8m in the deal that included Stephen Ireland). So that's a profit of £18.4m for Aston Villa (not including wages etc).

And then theres Bent. .. ....... ..

Raekwon

listermint wrote: »

And then theres Bent. .. ....... ..

Bent was signed by Gérard Houllier

Mr. Guappa

eagle eye wrote: »

Thing is though that Villa had the 6th biggest wage bill and O'Neill finished 6th. Only issue is that he did not overachieve. The only problem with O'Neill that I could see there was him not using more of the squad to keep players in top shape. It showed in March every season I think. He might have overachieved if he had used a good rotation policy.

In my view a manager at a club like Villa has a responsibility to look after the future as well as achieving relative success in the present. The players he brought in were, in general, short-term fixes most of whom Villa struggled to get rid of. Yes, he had them in top 4 contention for a couple of years but theIR situation now is directly linked to his time in charge also. I don't think it's giving the full picture to simply state that they finished 6-6-6 during his time in charge and without acknowledging that there subsequent drop-off in results is in large part his fault also.

JPA

Raekwon wrote: »

I only used the word shrewd there to highlight the fact that signing the likes of former Crewe captain Ashley Westwood on £25k per week is a better investment then having Steve Sidwell warm the bench for £55k a week. Ditto Lowton & Bennett compared to Beye & Warnock.

But there's no way Westwood is on even 25k!

JPA

eagle eye wrote: »

Thing is though that Villa had the 6th biggest wage bill and O'Neill finished 6th. Only issue is that he did not overachieve. The only problem with O'Neill that I could see there was him not using more of the squad to keep players in top shape. It showed in March every season I think. He might have overachieved if he had used a good rotation policy.

But Villas 6th highest wage bill was completely out of line with the income of the club, he was basically operating in a bubble.

Neil3030

eagle eye wrote: »

Villa got something in the region of £60/70m back for three of his signings so I doubt he lost much money on the tranfer market. Milner, Young and Downing are the three I'm talking about.

According to Helix's post referenced earlier in this thread:

26 players signed at an approximate cost in total to the club of £220m, with fees for sold players taken into account. that's right, mon's spell in charge of aston villa cost the club £220,000,000 - almost a quarter of a billion pounds

That's counting wages of course. Without factoring in wages, he spent around £136m, and recouped around £56m.

Net loss on transfer market: £80m.

But the most damning stat, for me, is how of the 26 players he signed, 15 left on free transfers, with the likelihood that a further 2 (Warnock and Dunne) will do likewise.

Leiva

he also didn't exactly buy young either.

eagle eye

Neil3030 wrote: »

According to Helix's post referenced earlier in this thread:



That's counting wages of course. Without factoring in wages, he spent around £136m, and recouped around £56m.

Net loss on transfer market: £80m.

I don't think that would include Milner, Downing nor Young as he left before they did. Makes it look a lot worse than it was. That takes that figure down to somewhere around £15 million.

JPA

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think that would include Milner, Downing nor Young as he left before they did. Makes it look a lot worse than it was. That takes that figure down to somewhere around £15 million.

Where are you getting that figure?

eagle eye

JPA wrote: »

Where are you getting that figure?

Around £65 million for the combined sales of Milner, Young and Downing. Maybe I'm wrong about the the prices, I wasn't sure but think it was between £60/70 million combined for those three.

JPA

eagle eye wrote: »

Around £65 million for the combined sales of Milner, Young and Downing. Maybe I'm wrong about the the prices, I wasn't sure but think it was between £60/70 million combined for those three.

Those figures are accounted for.
The post is based on MONs signings, all of them.

Vurnon San Benito

Said it before, will say it again.

Martin O'Neill needs a chequebook if he's to get a job done.

As mentioned above, he dished out way over the odds for a large number of players, and put them on big wages. (Whether he had any say in the wages is another matter).

However, most people will forget this, but O'Neill has already spent the guts of £30m on players at Sunderland already, and that's Adam Johnson and Steven Fletcher. They're not particularly standout either, although Fletcher is a very good forward.

Lovely bloke; chequebook manager.

Doocey

Doocey wrote: »

Said it before, will say it again.

Martin O'Neill needs a chequebook if he's to get a job done.

As mentioned above, he dished out way over the odds for a large number of players, and put them on big wages. (Whether he had any say in the wages is another matter).

However, most people will forget this, but O'Neill has already spent the guts of £30m on players at Sunderland already, and that's Adam Johnson and Steven Fletcher. They're not particularly standout either, although Fletcher is a very good forward.

Lovely bloke; chequebook manager.

You could say that about any manager these days. How good would Chelsea or City be without a chequebook?

Vurnon San Benito

Deleted User wrote: »

You could say that about any manager these days. How good would Chelsea or City be without a chequebook?

Newcastle last season?

There's the obvious need for reinforcement when a new manager takes over, but O'Neill just loves dishing the cash :pac:

Paully D

Doocey wrote: »

Newcastle last season?

There's the obvious need for reinforcement when a new manager takes over, but O'Neill just loves dishing the cash :pac:

In all fairness Doocey - Colocinni cost over £10m, Jonas was £7m, Ben Arfa £7m including the loan fee, Cisse around £8m, Cabaye cost around £5m, Santon cost over £5m and Ba's agent fees will have been scarily high, more than likely hitting the price range that you paid for the likes of Cabaye.

It's not as if that squad was put together on a shoe string budget full of free transfers and players no one had ever heard of.

O Neill will bring Sunderland down with his caveman football.

Pal

Fizman wrote: »

Martin O'Neill reportedly offers resignation to Sunderland

what you talking about ?