Feidhlim

Who cares how much we spent? We improved the squad no end. Chelsea spend a relatively low net amount and Man U spent a stupidly high amount. Chelsea signed players on a par with Man U, at a minimum. In summary, Net spend <> success

Any signing should be seen as an addition to the squad rather than an addition to starting 11 in my opinion. Ideally we are still in all cup competitions and can rotate accordingly. Ideally. Not somebody who will be our record signing under Lambert, that has to be someone who easily walks into the starting eleven. I think you missed my point but I do agree with you, he needs to be able to walk into our best 11. In any case, I think he would be a good signing. Significant improvement and a step in the right direction.

Any signing should be seen as an addition to the squad rather than an addition to starting 11 in my opinion. Ideally we are still in all cup competitions and can rotate accordingly. Ideally.

That's surprising. I'm sure someone quoted £75k earlier in the thread, maybe it wasn't sourced. When are things ever sourced on Villatalk?

Source? Cause this rumor sounds like BS, I'm interested to see other BS spin offs

It's starting to feel like the Mangala transfer where he agreed personal terms and passed a medical and then a month went by before the it was finalised. Thread was started 3 days ago...? Everyone needs to chill out. Go and buy yourself a milky bar, the latest issue of Hello and run yourself a bath...

We have gotten rid of 2 bullies too

If this guy signs I would drop Westwood initially. He was simply terrible against Parma.

Is that all? Someone should tell Lambo...

source?

Carlton Cole when we loaned him was worse...

I would agree, I think December personally. But he wont be able to get in the team with Bent's form. Let me save you all the forthcoming post...

Are you taking the piss or really that deluded?

I don't agree with this either. Lerner can be blamed for appointing shit managers. Though in his defence, on paper, Houllier was a good signing for Villa at the time. Are you suggesting the chairman should have interferred with the manager and his signings / contracts? Fans would have been up in arms had he done that...

Arsenal had 30 million credit between 2007 and 2012 Spending money doesn't equate to success. Lerner's tenure should be looked at as a failure based on more than money.

I would write that off cause it's the Daily Mail, not because of Everton

I get the impression Lambert told him that he was signed because he can score goals from midfield, amongst other things. Tonev only remembered the goals from midfield part and feels obliged to try and make it the only aspect of his game. Failing miserably about 7 or 8 times a game.

When judging Lambert I think we need to go all the way back to last season. When Lerner said "you have X amount to use" did Lambert then decide to plough ahead with the youth project? When buying these players, they have the potential of increasing in value 3x or 4x over (Benteke). If he didn't have the adaquate resources to buy the youth players like Benteke and he settled on players like Luna for a fraction of the cost, it's a huge oversight by Lambert. If he didn't have the resources available to him then, which he or Lerner has acknowledged this season, he should have brought back the bomb squad and signed the Bosmans last season. The Bosman players are here to get us "over the line" until new owners come in. It is effectively admitting defeat for Lamberts or Lerners plan of youth. The Bosmans will never increase in value 3x or 4x. They have hit their uninspiring peak and will hopefully be a stop gap for a massive hole or two in the team. Back on point, if Lerner insisted we follow the youth project and didn't give resources last season, he is to blame. If Lambert ploughed ahead with the youth project and couldn't get his number 1 targets (or more worryingly he did), he is to blame. We will never know for sure.

I dont think it's only Swansea reporting that

Hardly narrows it down...

Do you want an owner who just developed a fleeting interest in football based on a couple of games by the US?

Everyone felt that Keane was too harsh for an assistant manager role so we are now linked with Barney, the purple dinosaur, as a more friendly face in the dressing room....

And a takeover would have to happen at the same time as an appointment of a new manager? Don't be silly... If the plan was to take over Villa and then employ Klinsmann, then I can see why they would wait until the WC was over. We're not Man Utd. USA might not release Klinsmann to talk to little Aston Villa in the middle of a World Cup or World Cup preparations, like Holland allowed Van Gaal. If it's a concern that Klinsmann wouldn't be officially appointed until after the WC, then the owners might not want to complete the takeover until then too. If they took over the club in June, and then didn't replace Lambert for over a month, fans would probably moan that no-one had been appointed. By waiting until the WC has finished, they're just deflecting the abuse to Lerner, who is being blamed for 'selling slowly', instead of starting their new reign with criticism. (All big 'if's, but I can see why owners might wait to complete a take over). If paying hundreds of millions, you don't wait for other parties to potentially declare interest on the chance that you miss out on your first preference as manager. You buy the club, sack lambert and wait until after world cup to appoint klinsmann. Crazy stuff. Come on folks, think logically about this.

And a takeover would have to happen at the same time as an appointment of a new manager? Don't be silly...

i.e. A normal season