twofootedtackle.com

The resignation of Martin O’Neill forced Aston Villa supporters to nail their colours to the mast either side of a divide that had been raging under the surface for some time. For some, O’Neill’s exit wasn’t really a problem and should mark the beginning of a less frustrating period at the club. But for those angered by his departure, he can still do no wrong and their criticism of owner Randy Lerner has been scathing.

The professional media, of course, largely came down in the pro-O’Neill camp, happy to judge a man’s decision on nothing more than his perceived personability and the fact that Villa have one of those dastardly foreigners at the helm. My gripes with O’Neill have been well documented here over the last two years, and my response to his resignation explains why his final act at Aston Villa washed away any residual respect I had for a manager I’d long decided should leave.

However, the questions raised in the aftermath did cause some concern. Trusting Lerner and knowing he’s got his heart in the right place are two different things, and the worry that Villa were skint has certainly crossed my mind in recent weeks. But it seems clear that the falling out between owner and manager resulted mainly from a dispute over the size of the wage to turnover ratio. If the reported numbers are accurate, Lerner was absolutely correct to demand a reduction. In fact, with the allegedly promised reduction not being delivered in January, he should have sacked O’Neill in June if the Irishman had failed to present a plan for summer cuts.

There’s a distinction between running out of money and running out of patience. O’Neill spent a lot and there were question marks over many of the players he brought in. Firstly, there were good players that he spent big money on and then dropped apparently because of personality clashes. Secondly, the sums paid for the likes of Marlon Harewood, Nicky Shorey, Steve Sidwell and Emile Heskey defined the spending of a man capable of being extremely wasteful. Lerner was right to try to repair potentially disastrous damage, albeit damage he should have prevented himself.

The appointment of O’Neill’s successor was a key one for Villa’s future. Yesterday - finally - it was confirmed that former Liverpool manager Gerard Houllier would be stepping into the Villa Park dugout. Is he the right man for the job? Ian Walsh thinks not, and his reasons are all valid. But I am, despite my poor record in such things, cautiously optimistic - not that Villa will get into the Champions League, but that Houllier can provide more excitement and less frustration than O’Neill’s mostly drab football and contempt for supporters ever could.

It could have been a lot worse. Martin Jol or Slaven Bilic would have been dream appointments, but outside them the options were mostly terrifying. I’m not convinced Lerner didn’t make a move for Jol, and the same may be true of other managers in employment. But Villa could realistically have ended up with Alan Curbishley or Alan Pardew, appointments that would have set the alarm bells ringing about Lerner’s ownership and the club’s finances.

Even worse, Villa might have plumped for caretaker manager Kevin MacDonald. I have no problem with internal promotions in general, but in this case the assumptions in the press that the club is out of money or that Lerner has lost interest (accusations that have fallen into routine and regular use with absolutely no proof ever having been offered for either) means that MacDonald’s appointment would have sent a clear message that, yes, Villa are buggered.

That extends to any kind of Director of Football model, the oft-touted version being Houllier coming in above MacDonald’s head. Even more worryingly, there had been whispers of Phil Thompson following Houllier to Villa. Having just got rid of one smarmy, dislikeable, misguided tw*t, the last thing Villa needed was another one. If Thompson does indeed join the club (which would be a surprise at this stage) then my fading interest in the club will wane still further.

But, as it always seems to with Lerner at Villa, it might all have turned out rather well. Houllier’s record puts O’Neill’s modest success into some perspective, and despite his massively dubious decisions in the transfer market, the Frenchman brings something different to a club that hasn’t had a foreign manager since Jo Venglos, give or take David O’Leary, who may count as foreign but certainly doesn’t as a manager.

His technical role with the French Football Federation gives Villa supporters a reason to be positive. Furthermore, life will be more exciting at Villa Park during silly season. No more sitting around waiting to find out if they’ve signed Wayne Routledge at the eleventh hour. But perhaps most importantly, Houllier’s appointment likely indicates that the club is not skint.

Yes, the wage bill will have to be cut, but that doesn’t automatically mean selling the club’s star players. Villa have a sub-class of players, the overpaid and under-played, constructed by O’Neill, at which Houllier can chip away to bring wages back to sensible levels. Any club outside the Champions League will have their best players poached by new money clubs, but that’s just an unavoidable fact of football and not necessarily a reflection on the stability of the selling club.

This season will be very tough for Aston Villa, but supporters can be optimistic about a more fun, less predictable and more entertaining time over the next few years. It might be risky at times, but after the O’Neill snoozefest that will be a welcome change. Bienvenue, Gerard, and hello to the unknown.

Tags: Aston Villa, Gerard Houllier, Managers