Articulate, funny and an enthusiastic celebrator of his team’s goals, Martin O’Neill is one of the most popular men in football. Having done a superb job at Leicester City, and a very good one at Celtic (despite quite heavy spending) he was linked with the Manchester United job in 2002 (before Ferguson stayed on) and was interviewed for the England Managership in 2006. Many think he would be the perfect candidate for the latter, while others think he and David Moyes would be good ‘home-grown’ choices if and when the former becomes available. He inherited David O’Leary’s position at Aston Villa in 2006, as he was hired by Randy Lerner – who had recently succeeded ‘Deadly’ Doug Ellis as owner of Aston Villa – and according to many pundits did a fantastic job, leading Villa to three consecutive 6th place finishes after a modest 11th place in his first season.

This conclusion has been drawn understandably, but it relies upon a red herring of a statistic. O’Neill’s many acolytes often state that he single-handedly turned a club that finished 16th in 2005-06 consistently into a top 6 club. This understates the level of investment given to O’Neill compared to his predecessor. Whereas O’Leary was able to spend roughly £5m net per season at Villa, O’Neill spent £83m in his four seasons – four times more per season than the Irishman.

During his first season, having spent £16m net, the improvement from 16th to 11th, whilst not being bad, is nothing exceptional with the extra resources available. He insitgated a much-needed overhaul of O’Leary’s squad, buying success stories John Carew and Ashley Young at considerable expense while selling white elephants such as Milan Baros.

The next season, O’Neill spent just £1m net. The improvement from 11th to 6th perhaps came residually from the previous January’s signings (including Carew and Young) being allowed to ‘bed in’ at the club in the previous ‘transition’ season. The signings made in the summer ranged from the moderate (£3.5m for Zat Knight) to the ridiculous (£5m for Marlon Harewood), with only Nigel Reo-Coker and Knight (£11m combined) contributing in any way to the team’s improvement. O’Neill did extremely well to lead this squad to sixth place, but it was in his sales where his success is tempered. Players such as Gary Cahill, Liam Ridgewell, Steven Davis and Aaron Hughes, sold for modest prices by O’Neill, could have acted as the back-up expensively assembled later on in their positions.

The next season, 2008-09, O’Neill splurged £45m net, looking to break into the Champions League. Brad Friedel, James Milner and Carlos Cuellar contributed greatly to this quest, whereas Steve Sidwell, Luke Young and Curtis Davies figured intermittently. Nicky Shorey’s purchase for £5m was comparable in wastage only to that of Marlon Harewood. For this expenditure, Villa attained the same 6th place position after threatening Arsenal’s position in the top four for much of the season. From a very strong position with 15 games to go, Villa collapsed. They struggled for goals as Young, Milner and Agbonlahor tired late in the season, scoring only 16 in 14 games after March 1st.

One major flaw with O’Neill’s transfer policy at this time was his exaggerated belief in the 2007-08 players. A strong sixth placed finish was an overachievement with the players at his disposal – the ‘next level’ of Champions League football required players of greater quality. 1 win in 9 home games against the rest of the top 10 that season suggests that the side lacked the technical quality and imagination to win the tough games needed to finish fourth. Away this was less of a problem, as they could counterattack the more attacking home sides, but at home the level of creativity needed to break solid ‘playing for a point’ teams down was not there.

Moreover, spending £16m on Sidwell, Shorey and Luke Young when players such as Maynor Figueroa, John Paintsil and Dickson Etuhu came into Fulham and Wigan respectively for much less, was indicative of O’Neill’s unimaginative transfer policy. The latter three signings would surely have left greater scope for a striker or creative midfielder of immediate quality, exactly what was needed in his first choice XI. Perhaps O’Neill’s lack of foreign transfer acumen, or a seeming taste for dealing with a largely British dressing room was his biggest flaw. Again he hadn’t done badly by maintaining the team’s position in the European positions, but stagnation would surely not cost £45m under a manager doing an ‘exceptional job’.

Last season saw another sixth place finished after spending £22m net more. With the increasing power of Tottenham and Manchester City, sixth again was by no means a failure but O’Neill’s selection, style and transfer policy was once again Anglo-centric. Stewart Downing came in to help relieve the pressure upon his creative midfielders, but at £10m he was by no means a bargain. Richard Dunne’s age, lack of re-sale value and his wages make his £6m transfer fee from Man City again look no better than good, despite his very impressive performances. That he was signed on deadline day along with James Collins indicates a distinct lack of planning from O’Neill, even if they turned out to be very good on the pitch. Stephen Warnock was a good addition to the first team but was not cheap at £8m. The signing of Fabian Delph has not provided immediate dividends, but he surely is for the future.

Once again Villa defended well for large parts of the season – Carlos Cuellar impressing especially – but the lack of depth up front meant again the strain fell upon Agbonlahor and Carew. They were often magnificent away to Big Four clubs but couldn’t breach top drawer defences at home. If O’Neill had spent some of his budget on a creative schemer rather than on Habib Beye and James Collins, perhaps they would have been able to crack the top four, especially with Liverpool’s capitulation.

In cup competitions O’Neill showed that he is an astute tactician, reaching an FA Cup Semi and a Carling Cup Final, but the major failing in both defeats was Villa’s inability to create and finish chances. In one-off games, against Chelsea and Manchester United, teams who struggle to create and finish their chances are generally punished. O’Neill’s whingeing about Nemanja Vidic’s ‘definite sending off’ in the Carling Cup final masked another disappointing attacking display, despite the early boon of Milner’s penalty.

Again O’Neill was unable to take his side to a higher level than he had in 2008,  due in part to paying over the odds for players who were Premier League quality but not Champions League quality.

Thus while he did by no means a poor job at Aston Villa his net outlay when compared to Everton in 2008-09 (under a manager proving himself to be vastly superior) and to a lesser extent Spurs last season is indicative of a manager doing a solid, unspectacular job. Ultimately, that’s all he did, no more, less.

Those who would purify English football believe the current debauchery and debt stems from foreign ownership. That is not necessarily true.

American billionaire Stan Kroenke bought out the Carr family shares in Arsenal for about £45m, increasing his stake in the club to 28.3%, the largest individual holding.

Despite the Guardian’s assertions that this is part of “Silent Stan’s” insidious takeover deal, Kroenke’s involvement with the club has been viewed favorably. He has been seen as a benign bulwark against a strong-arming Usmanov.

The Arsenal Supporters’ Trust, the group who would be outraged, praised Kroenke’s acquisition.

“We were the first shareholders at Arsenal to welcome Kroenke’s initial investment. We have since established a good dialogue with him and this will continue.

“Our position is that stability and plurality in ownership is to the benefit of Arsenal.

“New chief executive Ivan Gazidis has made a good impression and says he values our role and the importance of custodianship.

“We hope he will build relationships with all shareholders so that the club has stability off the pitch which is a vital ingredient for success on it.”

Kroenke is no carpet-bagging American. He enjoys owning sports teams, and successful sports teams at that. He co-owns the St. Louis Rams who won a Super Bowl while he was there. His Colorado Avalanche also won a Stanley Cup in 2001. His Denver Nuggets are often a playoff team.

He has invested in long-term growth projects such as Arena Football and Major League Lacrosse.

Most importantly, he’s a football guy. He owns the Colorado Rapids of Major League Soccer. They are a stable club with a lovely, soccer-only facility and a development partnership with Arsenal.

The common thread with all of his sporting investments is that he has been successful, has not run the clubs into crazed debt and has not meddled with personnel decisions– exactly the qualities ideal for Premier League ownership.

Fellow American Randy Lerner bought Aston Villa in 2006. He has stuck with a great manager in Martin O’Neill, funded transfers and created the nucleus of a club set to challenge the top four. The club has also more than doubled in value under his stewardship.

There have been bad seed Americans. Manchester United has been successful under Malcolm Glazer, though he saddled the club with enormous debt. Ditto on the debt front for Hicks and Gillett. Rafa Benitez should be credited for being competitive despite the travesty of their ownership. However, there have also been good ones.

Some English owners have had farts smell like roses, others have run their club into the ground.

In a globalized economy, the notion of an English owner owning an English club, with an English manager and all English players is romantic, and probably xenophobic, nonsense. It’s not American or foreign ownership the Premier League needs to avoid. It is idiots.

If Martin O’Neill managed any other club in the Premier League, would he be able to achieve more success than the club’s current manager?

What if O’Neill was in charge of Chelsea or Liverpool? Could he do a better job than Scolari and Benitez? I believe he could, by far. Read on to find the answers to WWMD – What would Martin do?

Under the reign of manager David O’Leary from 2004 to 2006, Aston Villa were a dreadful team to watch. Crippled by the tightfisted Doug Ellis and playing an unattractive brand of football, the outlook for the West Midlands side was dire. Martin O’Neill joined Villa as new manager in the summer of 2006. And a few months later, the answer to O’Neill’s prayers arrived when Randy Lerner pried Villa out of Ellis’s grubby hands, and brought a new wealth to the club in the form of transfer signings and a firm financial structure.

In just two years, O’Neill and Lerner have turned Villa around from a sleeping giant into a force to be reckoned with both on and off the field. There’s still a long way to go this season, but Villa’s recent form surpasses the recent dismal goings on at Arsenal and Chelsea, for sure.

It makes you wonder what impact Martin would make at any of the clubs in the Premier League. Given the same amount of money and time that the current managers have had, here’s what the “WWMD” accomplish at:

• Chelsea. Chelsea supporters may bemoan the fact that Roman Abramovich has tightened his purse strings and hasn’t given Scolari the opportunity to bring in major transfer signings the way that Mourinho did, but there’s no doubt that O’Neill would dream of having such a talented pool as the one found at Stamford Bridge. I could see his man-management skills having a lot of success with dissatisfied players such as Joe Cole, Didier Drogba and Michael Ballack. Players would respect him. I can also see the Northern Irishman giving opportunities to some of the B-rated players at Chelsea such as Michael Mancienne and Scott Sinclair (currently out on loan), as well as coming up with a tactical system that would work (whether Drogba and Anelka can play together, and finding a way to make the midfield work effectively).
• Liverpool. For Martin O’Neill to have the same transfer budget as Rafa Benitez would be a dream come true for the Villa manager. Since he took the position at Liverpool in 2004, Benitez has spent millions on players. While he made wise choices by signing Fernando Torres and Xabi Alonso, he also has purchased plenty of flops including Morientes, Dossena, Gonzalez, Pennant, Josemi, Nunez and Kromkamp — just to name a few. In comparison, O’Neill has made plenty of shrewd signings including Ashley Young, Brad Friedel, Luke Young and Carlos Cuellar. One other thing about O’Neill. He would never go on the record and risk igniting Fergie’s fire by publicly calling out Ferguson the way Rafa did on Friday. O’Neill would know better. All it did was made Ferguson’s side more hungry and determined to beat Chelsea and set their sights on surpassing Liverpool in the league.
• Arsenal. When given the opportunity to buy players such as Wenger has, the Frenchman has passed on the opportunity or has purchased inexpensive youth players instead for nominal fees. What O’Neill would have done is to acknowledge the weaknesses in this talented side and purchased two to three key players that would have made a profound difference on this team this season. Most notably, O’Neill would have purchased a replacement for Mathieu Flamini, secured a centre back to add steel to Arsenal’s back four such as Martin Laursen from Villa, and would have let moody Adebayor leave in the summer and replaced him with a more consistent goalscorer such as David Villa, a self admitted Gooner.

With Martin O’Neill at the helm, big Premier League clubs would be better. It’s astonishing to think that a bigger English club than Aston Villa hasn’t tried to pluck O’Neill away. To me, he’s the perfect successor to Sir Alex Ferguson when Fergie retires at United. Until then, we’ll continue to marvel at O’Neill’s success at Villa and watch his jump for joy when his side scores, and appreciate the way he hugs his players after matches. I only wish there were more Martin O’Neill’s in the Premier League.

If the decisions that Alan Curbishley and Kevin Keegan took earlier this season to leave their respective Premier League clubs doesn’t serve as good enough evidence to foreign owners that trying to get involved with matters on the pitch is a terrible idea, then the future hopes of some of England’s top-flight teams are in shatters.

When two of the country’s most respected managers walk away from jobs at the clubs they love so much then you know something is wrong. Curbishley and Keegan have such affection for West Ham and Newcastle respectively that just resigning out of the blue was never an option. There had to be something or someone that had caused such shock exists.  And there was.

In both cases the reason for departure was how the club was being run at board level, and more specifically how the board were attempting to run the football side of things. At West Ham Curbishly said publicly towards the end of the summer’s transfer window that no more of the club’s players would be sold, only for Anton Ferdinand to be shipped out against his wishes days after making the statement. It was not his choice to see him go; in fact it had nothing to do with him at all. The decision was made by the executives of the club who sit upstairs mulling over finances and revenue most of the time.

And the circumstances were almost identical at Newcastle, where Keegan left because he discovered that on the final day of the transfer window several of his first-team players were offered for sale by the club’s board. Keegan spent a few days discussing the situation with Newcastle’s hierarchy before coming to the decision to resign with immediate effect. Once again a man who was steering a club in the right direction was forced to leave because stupid board members and executives above him were trying to do jobs they were not supposed to even think about.

Football is not their area of specialism so trying to invade the club’s on-the-pitch matters with their absurd ideas just simply doesn’t work. They employ a manager and coaching staff to work in that field, and to work with the players and pick the team, so with that the job of deciding which players come in and out of the club should rest with them as well. They are the football people, they have played the game professionally and they know what they are doing, so leave it to them. If businessmen from upstairs are signing players and then presenting them to the manager all of a sudden then what are they supposed to do? The individual who is responsible for training the players should have the choice as to which players he is training. This is the manager. It should not be somebody who does not know the ins and outs of Premier League football, like the board members at Upton Park and St James Park.

Yet despite the sufficient evidence provided by managers like Curbishley and Keegan, and many before them,  that interfering with their jobs is almost suicidal, owners will continue to come and buy clubs and attempt to get involved with football matters. Doing this has a track-record of failing miserably, and even Chelsea were victims of this when Roman Abramovich tried to meddle with Jose Mourinho’s job, only for the gifted Portuguese manager to walk out on the Stamford Bridge outfit. They suffered and mourned, and so will many clubs in the future if the current predicament remains. Why rich businessmen from abroad continue to do this is beyond most people that follow the Premier League. It sometimes makes you wonder how they became so wealthy when they come and do such stupid things.

One example, however, of a foreign owner taking charge of a top-flight club in England and proving wonderfully successful is that of the American Randy Lerner at Aston Villa. He has injected money into the club but has not stuck his nose into matters on the pitch. He never talks to the media, and remains out of the spotlight, so much so that people often forget he is such a high-profile figure. Lerner does things so simply but so effectively and that is what makes him such a great owner. He does not seek attention, and he knows that he is never going to be the most important person at the club, like some owners think they are. Randy Lerner should be the role model for wannabe Premier League owners, when currently everybody wants to be the next Roman Abramovich and get stuck into the football side of things.

Things need to chance at the top of the hierarchy if clubs are function properly in the future. Let’s hope there are plenty of Lerners out there, ready to mirror Randy’s masterful running of Aston Villa.

The Premier League has given Aston Villa permission to have a charity’s name emblazoned across their shirts next season instead of a sponsor’s name. The landmark decision by the Premier League will allow Aston Villa to have Acorns Children’s Hospice printed on its shirts.

“Real credit must go to Aston Villa for being the first Premier League club to use its shirt sponsorship to highlight and promote its charity partnership with Acorns, a highly public way of demonstrating that this type of commitment is central to the modern football club,” said Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League.

Let’s hope that this decision by Aston Villa will make other Premier League clubs consider doing the same in the future. During a time when generating massive amounts of revenue is high on the agenda for all clubs, Aston Villa has bucked the trend by deciding to allow a charity to be featured on their shirts instead of collecting massive money from sponsorship rights.

Of course, Aston Villa isn’t the first football club in the world to make this move. Barcelona has never worn the name of a sponsor on their shirt, but recently featured the name UNICEF.

Congratulations to Aston Villa and Randy Lerner for being so benevolent.