RAWK Goes Into Meltdown (2011/2012)

alastair said:
Really? Liverpool is one thing, but United fans wanting O'Neill as a replacement for Ferguson? Can't believe that.

And whilst a lot is made of Benitez failing to get a job at the moment, what's O'Neill up to?
Click to expand...

You can look it up here, he was talked about a fair bit over the years. Him and Moyes were probably the closest after the likes of Mourinho, Ancelotti etc. I couldn't believe it either, but there you go. Anyway, I remember the talk about O'Neill and Liverpool at the time, there was a fair bit of interest.

He's probably working on making himself a bit taller at the moment.
 
alastair said:
I do wish people would stop taking everything so literally. And I was quoting a post which said 'us' in it, which I thought was true. Do you not think it's true?
Click to expand...

You literally ate your hat, these things often stay with us.
 
golden_blunder said:
Luke Young was a highly rated fullback at the time
Cuellar - rubbish, overated because of his time in Scotland
Reo-Coker highly rated at the time but paid over the odds for him
Heskey was an international striker, one that the great Rafa wanted back again
Carew was an international striker

you dont give credit for the likes of Ashley Young and James Milner

or for the fact that under MON they finished 6th for 3 seasons in a row at a time when United,Chelsea and Arsenal were eating up the league
Click to expand...

I give credit for Young and Milner - the former was a brave signing, and paid off. Milner did well for Villa, but as he's showing at City, he doesn't have any kind of world class ability.

Heskey and Carew may well be international strikers, but it doesn't make them top quality. It seems to be a line trotted out quite a lot on here that they play internationally, but it means very little.

O'Neill did a good job with Villa to a point - the reason why I think he's over-rated is that he never really addressed the issues within his squad, and he threw money at areas that didn't need a lot of work. There's that amazing statistic about how Villa didn't win a league match in March under him for years, and it showed that his squad was too small in vital areas. He never fixed this, and finally went when Lerner refused to let him plunge Villa into debt.
 
Hectic said:
You can look it up here, he was talked about a fair bit over the years. Him and Moyes were probably the closest after the likes of Mourinho, Ancelotti etc. I couldn't believe it either, but there you go. Anyway, I remember the talk about O'Neill and Liverpool at the time, there was a fair bit of interest.

He's probably working on making himself a bit taller at the moment.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I seem to remember reading RAWK who, to a man, wanted him nowhere near the club. Obviously that forum isn't exactly a great indication of reality though. FWIW, I reckon he'd have had more success than Hodgson and might well still have been there today.
 
alastair said:
I give credit for Young and Milner - the former was a brave signing, and paid off. Milner did well for Villa, but as he's showing at City, he doesn't have any kind of world class ability.

Heskey and Carew may well be international strikers, but it doesn't make them top quality. It seems to be a line trotted out quite a lot on here that they play internationally, but it means very little.

O'Neill did a good job with Villa to a point - the reason why I think he's over-rated is that he never really addressed the issues within his squad, and he threw money at areas that didn't need a lot of work. There's that amazing statistic about how Villa didn't win a league match in March under him for years, and it showed that his squad was too small in vital areas. He never fixed this, and finally went when Lerner refused to let him plunge Villa into debt.
Click to expand...

What Milner does now at City is not the point, they doubled their money on him

Top Quality - Villa aren't and haven't been a top 4 club for a very long time. Hence they were never going to attract 'top quality'

He did well at Villa. I dont understand why you are trying to dismiss O'Neills results whilst trying to defend Rafa's honour
 
golden_blunder said:
What Milner does now at City is not the point, they doubled their money on him

Top Quality - Villa aren't and haven't been a top 4 club for a very long time. Hence they were never going to attract 'top quality'

He did well at Villa. I dont understand why you are trying to dismiss O'Neills results whilst trying to defend Rafa's honour
Click to expand...

I defend Benitez because he's regarded as inferior to O'Neill by so many, when clearly that's not the case. And indeed, Villa could never attract top quality, so why make it a policy to only buy English players when you couldn't attract the best ones?
 
because he believed results would be better having a British core?

not unlike a tactic the beloved King Kenny is currently employing i might add
 
alastair said:
In a deal which had loads of add-ons, given Aquilani's lack of game time and trophy success there, I refuse to believe they paid £20m. I don't believe you think they paid £20m either to be honest.
Click to expand...

Roma revealed that the fee was €20 million (£17 million) plus sporting bonus
Click to expand...

its why he's on loan deals the last few seasons, no-one wants to pay anywhere near that
 
alastair said:
British core is fine - Dalglish knows, however, that you have to sign top quality to surround the core, and thus you see Suarez.
Click to expand...

the difference being that Liverpool have the history of being a succesful club whereas Villa do not. Hence they can top up their Brit core with a cherry on top.

Villa dont, and probably never will, have that luxury

and you're backtracking slightly
 
golden_blunder said:
the difference being that Liverpool have the history of being a succesful club whereas Villa do not. Hence they can top up their Brit core with a cherry on top.

Villa dont, and probably never will, have that luxury
Click to expand...

Indeed. Which is why you need to scout around and look for gems out in foreign markets. O'Neill never did that. When Arsenal could only afford to spend net £0 in a transfer window, Wenger went and nabbed great talent on the cheap. That's how you gain/retain success.
 
Yep, it was 17-18 million definitely in installments and with Champions League appearances etc (Ha), it could have risen to 22 million.
 
alastair said:
In a deal which had loads of add-ons, given Aquilani's lack of game time and trophy success there, I refuse to believe they paid £20m. I don't believe you think they paid £20m either to be honest.
Click to expand...

You're talking rubbish now tbh. The wikipedia has said that Roma released their figures of Aquilani being a 20M Euro signing. There's also this Liverpool fan site ALBERTO AQUILANI - The truth about his transfer fee. How much will he REALLY cost? | Liverpool-Kop which talks about Aquilani.

But yeah Liverpool didn't pay anything near 20mil :rolleyes:
 
alastair said:
I defend Benitez because he's regarded as inferior to O'Neill by so many, when clearly that's not the case. And indeed, Villa could never attract top quality, so why make it a policy to only buy English players when you couldn't attract the best ones?
Click to expand...

Why not? I think it's a trend among the top PL clubs now actually, even Arsenal are often taking to the field with as many as two Englishmen in their side.

To address some of your other points - I think O'Neill knew he had limited funds so focused on improving their 1st team, to the detriment of squad strength. Stoke have just spent 20m - I doubt their 1st team will be any stronger but they've got a bigger squad out of it. I don't really see that as being a better policy than Villa's under O'Neill.

As for Carew, if you knew the reputation he arrived with - fecked knees, poorly motivated and a malign dressing room influence - you'd realise he did very well to draw what he did out of him. I don't think signing Carew was a measure of MoN - I think it was a measure of the limited funds he had. He was a gamble who sometimes paid off, more often than most would have thought too.
 
Blimey, this thread has become RAFA goes into Meltdown. :D

Anyway, if you're going to discuss football fans' favourite scapegoats, surely the obvious thing to do is quote Leviticus 16. No? Think that's ever so slightly nuts? Well you're not a RAWKite then...

Scapegoat
 
KM said:
You're talking rubbish now tbh. The wikipedia has said that Roma released their figures of Aquilani being a 20M Euro signing. There's also this Liverpool fan site ALBERTO AQUILANI - The truth about his transfer fee. How much will he REALLY cost? | Liverpool-Kop which talks about Aquilani.

But yeah Liverpool didn't pay anything near 20mil :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's not entirely relevant anyway. The main point is that Benitez did not spend £250m as is reported so widely in the media, and his wastefulness in the transfer market was a tad overhyped. Aquilani wasn't a good signing whatever way you look at it though, that's for sure .
 
alastair said:
It's not entirely relevant anyway. The main point is that Benitez did not spend £250m as is reported so widely in the media, and his wastefulness in the transfer market was a tad overhyped. Aquilani wasn't a good signing whatever way you look at it though, that's for sure .
Click to expand...

No, you're right

He however, DID spend over 220 million, whichever way you spin it
 
alastair said:
It's not entirely relevant anyway. The main point is that Benitez did not spend £250m as is reported so widely in the media, and his wastefulness in the transfer market was a tad overhyped. Aquilani wasn't a good signing whatever way you look at it though, that's for sure .
Click to expand...

He did spend it though. Everywhere it has been reported like that. I don't even hate Benitez but spending/wasting 60mil odd on Johnson/Keane/Aquilani and then complain about lack of money is surely hilarious. He's a good tactician but his man management is awful. His efforts to flog off Alonso and bring in Barry were hilarious.
 
BaldwinLegend said:
Why not? I think it's a trend among the top PL clubs now actually, even Arsenal are often taking to the field with as many as two Englishmen in their side.

To address some of your other points - I think O'Neill knew he had limited funds so focused on improving their 1st team, to the detriment of squad strength. Stoke have just spent 20m - I doubt their 1st team will be any stronger but they've got a bigger squad out of it. I don't really see that as being a better policy than Villa's under O'Neill.

As for Carew, if you knew the reputation he arrived with - fecked knees, poorly motivated and a malign dressing room influence - you'd realise he did very well to draw what he did out of him. I don't think signing Carew was a measure of MoN - I think it was a measure of the limited funds he had. He was a gamble who sometimes paid off, more often than most would have thought too.
Click to expand...

O'Neill didn't have what I would refer to as limited funds. And your transfer policy can not be to improve the first team and that alone, regardless of your limits. You can't just have a great first eleven.

Perhaps it was a bit unfair for me to include Carew because from what I remember offhand, he was a swap with Baros, so no money exchanged hands.
I still don't understand how you can say his funds were limited though - when you over-pay hugely for players like Reo-Coker, you don't have a lot of money left. It's still his fault though.
 
alastair said:
I give credit for Young and Milner - the former was a brave signing, and paid off. Milner did well for Villa, but as he's showing at City, he doesn't have any kind of world class ability.
Heskey and Carew may well be international strikers, but it doesn't make them top quality. It seems to be a line trotted out quite a lot on here that they play internationally, but it means very little.

O'Neill did a good job with Villa to a point - the reason why I think he's over-rated is that he never really addressed the issues within his squad, and he threw money at areas that didn't need a lot of work. There's that amazing statistic about how Villa didn't win a league match in March under him for years, and it showed that his squad was too small in vital areas. He never fixed this, and finally went when Lerner refused to let him plunge Villa into debt.
Click to expand...

You may think that sentence is showing O'Neill isn't that good a manager when infact it is showing the opposite. Whether he was good enough for Utd or not is a different matter but O'Neill is a very gifted manager who has excelled everywhere he's been. Take a look at how his teams performed under him and what they did after he left for evidence of that.
 
alastair said:
Ferguson has spent upwards of £300m then, with that argument. Let's just ignore the fact he got £80m for Ronaldo.
Click to expand...

Yeah but he has also won countless no. of premier league titles also.
 
KM said:
He did spend it though. Everywhere it has been reported like that. I don't even hate Benitez but spending/wasting 60mil odd on Johnson/Keane/Aquilani and then complain about lack of money is surely hilarious. He's a good tactician but his man management is awful. His efforts to flog off Alonso and bring in Barry were hilarious.
Click to expand...

Yeh, he made a lot of mistakes, no doubt. Alonso and Barry was his ultimate downfall really. The money spent on Johnson was particularly stupid too. I have more sympathy over Keane and Aquilani, simply because they pretty much made their money back on Keane, whilst Aquilani had injuries and hated living in England, which was problematic.
 
acnumber9 said:
You may think that sentence is showing O'Neill isn't that good a manager when infact it is showing the opposite. Whether he was good enough for Utd or not is a different matter but O'Neill is a very gifted manager who has excelled everywhere he's been. Take a look at how his teams performed under him and what they did after he left for evidence of that.
Click to expand...

If a team performs poorly after a manager leaves, that's not necessarily a demonstration of how good the former manager was. It can be sometimes, but not all the time. A manager's legacy is important in determining his quality.
 
alastair said:
O'Neill didn't have what I would refer to as limited funds. And your transfer policy can not be to improve the first team and that alone, regardless of your limits. You can't just have a great first eleven.
Perhaps it was a bit unfair for me to include Carew because from what I remember offhand, he was a swap with Baros, so no money exchanged hands.
I still don't understand how you can say his funds were limited though - when you over-pay hugely for players like Reo-Coker, you don't have a lot of money left. It's still his fault though.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about Wenger now?
 
What is it with Alastair and these threads?

He constantly bashes Moyes for his poor spending too? And now O'Neill.

Whilst Benitez he off the revolving door transfer policy gets nothing but praise (albeit qualified marginally over Aquilani).

Benitez's ego was his major issue and his constant bleating over funds was nothing short of ridiculous given he spent more than any other Liverpool manager before him.
 
alastair said:
If a team performs poorly after a manager leaves, that's not necessarily a demonstration of how good the former manager was. It can be sometimes, but not all the time. A manager's legacy is important in determining his quality.
Click to expand...

Ask Leicester, Celtic, Wycombe and Villa fans what they think of O'Neill.
 
alastair said:
Yes, of course. One can hardly criticise him! My point was that net spend is how you work out how much a manager has spent, not gross spend.
Click to expand...

Im talking about, as you were earlier, the quality of players he brought in, and the amount of money he did in doing so

thats got feck all to do with how much he recouped
 
alastair said:
Yeh, he made a lot of mistakes, no doubt. Alonso and Barry was his ultimate downfall really. The money spent on Johnson was particularly stupid too. I have more sympathy over Keane and Aquilani, simply because they pretty much made their money back on Keane, whilst Aquilani had injuries and hated living in England, which was problematic.
Click to expand...

Yes, losing £8m. 'Pretty much' made their money back. :lol:

If by pretty much you mean, not even close.

Liverpool's recent troubles can be directly attributed to Benitez's revolving door transfer policy, which basically took the form of throwing enough shit at a wall and eventually some of it will stick.

Spend that kind of money and you're going to come up trumps a few times, but even when Benitez did find the odd success he'd often find a way to feck that up too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.