No offense to Bradley, but Villa can and should do better than that.
-
! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !
Discussions about police investigations
In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.
Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.
Aston Villa: Unai Enemy
- Thread starter Stevo the Villan
- Start date
- Replies 2,609
- Views 138,661
- Thread starter
- #1,702
Stevo the Villan
Established Member
Can't see him getting it. he's only being touted because he's american.
He'd need a director of football if he came here. A good coach, but no experience of the transfer market etc that comes with european management.
He'd need a director of football if he came here. A good coach, but no experience of the transfer market etc that comes with european management.
Kraig
Established Member
Martin Jol is the name im talking about with all my Villa mates. Has the league experience, top flight football experience with Ajax too, and knows how to get the best out of **** players (ex yid **** manager)
Fits the bill nicely i think.
Fits the bill nicely i think.
lagos
Established Member
How about Wenger to Villa?
Iloveyouarsenewenger
Established Member
scruzgooner said:
He'd bring in his son as well, who would be a decent player for them.
- Thread starter
- #1,707
Stevo the Villan
Established Member
phenn said:
I thought it was a case of Ajax gave him what he wanted so he snubbed Fulham.
If the club was paid compensation why couldn't he get out of his contract just like any other manager?
Genuine question, I'm not being facaetious or anything.
ricky1985
Established Member
Pretty sure Ajax basically said to Jol; "you aint going anywhere", and told fulham they weren't even willing to negotiate a compensation fee.
- Thread starter
- #1,709
Stevo the Villan
Established Member
Hmmmm, that's not how I understood it. But I didn't follow it all that closely so I'll take your word for it.
Stevo the Villan said:
Yeah they refused to even talk about compensation.
<a class="postlink" href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/07/22/fulham.jol.ap/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/s ... index.html</a> is one article about it.
scytheavatar
Established Member
<a class="postlink" href="http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=813359&sec=england&cc=3888" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... nd&cc=3888</a>
That's what I was talking about. It's useless to be getting 5th or 6th place finishes if your club is in the red and having above 80% wages to turnover ratio. In many ways O'Neill is worse than Rafa; at least Rafa sells some of his players and gets back some of his spent money. This post from the soccernet forums really explains what's wrong with O'Neill:
That's what I was talking about. It's useless to be getting 5th or 6th place finishes if your club is in the red and having above 80% wages to turnover ratio. In many ways O'Neill is worse than Rafa; at least Rafa sells some of his players and gets back some of his spent money. This post from the soccernet forums really explains what's wrong with O'Neill:
number_0
Established Member
Thats a stupid debate.
Comparing the different transfer values when everyone knows that transfers are not relative.
Barry was on his last year of his contract, so it was only 12 million then, or lose him for free the next window, O'niel did try to hold out for a 20-25 million from liverpool the previous year, but liverpool backed out the last minute.
Comparing the different transfer values when everyone knows that transfers are not relative.
Barry was on his last year of his contract, so it was only 12 million then, or lose him for free the next window, O'niel did try to hold out for a 20-25 million from liverpool the previous year, but liverpool backed out the last minute.
I do generally agree withe the point they're making though. O'Neill was backed, and didn't achieve what he should've with the money. Lerner has rightly decided enough is enough, and wanted to retrench, and yet O'Neill hasn't done that. The sustainability of the club should be the most important thing, IMO
- Thread starter
- #1,714
Stevo the Villan
Established Member
Yeh I posted the General's forum post here when he first posted it (told you it was him for those who doubted it 
)
It's true that O'neill had his dodgy transfer moments. But I think some analysis is unfair. Zat Knight for example. yes we all know he wasn't the greatest defender. He had his dodgy moments. but to be fair we got 2 seasons out of him at a time when we were low on defenders. next to a fully fit Laursen he wasn't too bad at all.
He did a job and despite some mistakes was fairly consistent. We then sold him for not far off what we bought him for.
Oh, and who can forget that goal in the 90th minute to equalise against some team. Can't quite remember who that was against...
Sidwell, harwewood, heskey yes are all flops. Knight, Davies Downing certainly aren't. Davies coud still come good given half a chance.
That's where MON's fault lies. Signing players like Davies and young and then not playing them He's very stubborn, and it seems if someone falls out of favour then they are hard pushed to find a way back in.
)It's true that O'neill had his dodgy transfer moments. But I think some analysis is unfair. Zat Knight for example. yes we all know he wasn't the greatest defender. He had his dodgy moments. but to be fair we got 2 seasons out of him at a time when we were low on defenders. next to a fully fit Laursen he wasn't too bad at all.
He did a job and despite some mistakes was fairly consistent. We then sold him for not far off what we bought him for.
Oh, and who can forget that goal in the 90th minute to equalise against some team. Can't quite remember who that was against...
Sidwell, harwewood, heskey yes are all flops. Knight, Davies Downing certainly aren't. Davies coud still come good given half a chance.
That's where MON's fault lies. Signing players like Davies and young and then not playing them He's very stubborn, and it seems if someone falls out of favour then they are hard pushed to find a way back in.
bertlb2
Well-Known Member
NWgunner said:
I feel there a couple of years where they could have got into the top4, get the CL money and build from there. Now that Sp*rs seem to get their act together and City is splashing so much money, it is very unlikely Villa will get into the top4 even with a decent investment. Hence I understand the owner to look coldly at the situation and stop the spending. MON is a good manager, but I doubt he will get a much better job than Villa tbh. Maybe he'll move back North. Looking at the deals he made, it doesn't seem like he knows a lot about the continent, so I don't think he'll do a McClaren.
He only bought 3 players outside of GB during his time at Villa: Carew (swap with Baros), Guzan from MLS and Salifou from a second division swiss team.
- Thread starter
- #1,717
Stevo the Villan
Established Member
NWgunner said:
But on the other hand he bought Dunne for 5m, Collins for 5m, Young for 9m, Milner for 10m Guzan for 100k. All of which are performing far above the pricetag they came with.
lagos
Established Member
My read on the situation is that the owners are content to be in the UEFA places and feel they are quite capable of that without extra spending and O'neil had ambitions to break into the top 4, a feat he felt he could not manage without extra spending.
- Thread starter
- #1,719
Stevo the Villan
Established Member
Not at all. The general has said transfer fees themselves are fine. Randy is willing to spend. But he is not willing to let the club get itself into financial difficulties.
As it stands, wages are 85% of turnover. That's much much too high. They had to reduce the wage bill, MON bought into it, but when it came down to it and he was struggling to offload players, it would seem MON has bottled it.
The owners would love to push us on to get CL, but they are not going to jeopardise the club by doing it (a la Portsmouth, Leeds et al).
I'm happy with that. if that means we don't get CL any time soon then that's disappointing and a bit depressing. But I'd rather that than one flash in the pan having CL football for one year followed by a decade of sliding down the table because we can't afford to sustain ourselves at that level due to huge wages.
Fact of the matter is, O'Neill has players that he barely uses like Sidwell, NRC, Davies etc sucking wages out of the club. It seems the board told him that if he wasn't going to use them then they weren't needed and so should be replaced. God knows what Sidwell is on, probably 40-50k a week. For a player who makes a handful of appearances every season that's not good enough.
it seems O'neill agreed with this, and has now walked when it came down to it.
The ambitions matched. MON wants CL and the board want CL. However, MON wants CL by spending more and more. The board are happy to spend IF MON shifts the deadwood that are costing wages and not playing. This is what they disagreed on, not on where the club needed to be.
As it stands, wages are 85% of turnover. That's much much too high. They had to reduce the wage bill, MON bought into it, but when it came down to it and he was struggling to offload players, it would seem MON has bottled it.
The owners would love to push us on to get CL, but they are not going to jeopardise the club by doing it (a la Portsmouth, Leeds et al).
I'm happy with that. if that means we don't get CL any time soon then that's disappointing and a bit depressing. But I'd rather that than one flash in the pan having CL football for one year followed by a decade of sliding down the table because we can't afford to sustain ourselves at that level due to huge wages.
Fact of the matter is, O'Neill has players that he barely uses like Sidwell, NRC, Davies etc sucking wages out of the club. It seems the board told him that if he wasn't going to use them then they weren't needed and so should be replaced. God knows what Sidwell is on, probably 40-50k a week. For a player who makes a handful of appearances every season that's not good enough.
it seems O'neill agreed with this, and has now walked when it came down to it.
The ambitions matched. MON wants CL and the board want CL. However, MON wants CL by spending more and more. The board are happy to spend IF MON shifts the deadwood that are costing wages and not playing. This is what they disagreed on, not on where the club needed to be.
