botak

 

If Weimann stops Bertrand or Gabby tracks a simple run, we would not be having this debate, we had enough back to defend it regardless of who was upfront

 

If you defend for 90 mins, your opponent gets a chance or 2. To point out individual mistakes is bollocks. That is what happens when you are so negative, you can't expect a flawless rearguard action, especially when you are talking about 2 forwards in defensive positions.    

Can anyone explain what he is supposed to have achieved in his time?

Attractive football? no

Tactical nous? no

Good in the transfer market? no

Getting players to perform to the best of their abilities? no

Signs of improvement? no

Avoiding the worst result in our history? no

Not getting outplayed in a 2 leg semi by a bottom division side? no

Not getting knocked out of almost every cup by lower division sides? no

reaching the heights of being the 2nd lowest scorers in Britain? no

Managing to score 1 goal in a calendar month? no

Getting the fans through the gates? no

Creating a sense of optimism? no

Providing the basis for a good atmosphere? no

Showing ambition? no

Not setting a record for our lowest points in a premier league season? no

Hiring your personal favourite backroom staff that don't need to be sacked for gross misconduct? no 

His only 'success' is just avoiding relegation. And we have never had one of the 3 worst squads, the 3 lowest budgets, etc. So basically, his best characteristic is that, despite failing by almost any reasonable criteria, he could have actually failed by slightly more. And until he reaches the absolute nadir of failure we should give him time, otherwise we will never know quite to what depths he is capable of plunging to.

Basically, for a relatively small expenditure, we have swapped KEA who was going to leave at the end of the season anyway for Cleverley who may or may not leave at the end of the season.

Cleverley is better than KEA. Our team is stronger. We are less likely to get relegated. More likely to finish higher in the league and get more income as a result.

Fair enough we didn't get a Delorean and 'back to the future' a prime Zico to VP. But other than this, why are folk complaining?

We were using players like Bowery and Sylla last season, and people are appalled by getting an England international who got plenty of game time at MU?? 

Jesus wept. 

I would have given him 35k.

 

We need to replace him now. We're going to have to pay a transfer fee to do that. To get someone who's played like Marc has this season we'd need to spend about £3-4m.

 

I hate our club right now. Can't even keep players who want to stay. 

It's not about 1 player's salary, overpaying leads to wage inflation throughout the squad. Players use team mates as referents, and paying sizeable wages to average players means top players want much more than that and other average players want parity.

There's one thing paying Benteke a higher than average wage, but how many players in the squad would look at Albrighton and think 'he deserves a higher salary than me'? How many people are happy in the workplace when people they consider equal/less capable than them earn significantly more? 

Possibly a reason for the 'bomb squad' - keep those being overpaid isolated from the rest of the squad.

Much as I want him out, if we have no new owner lined up and are going to be in a 'transitory phase' for several months, I would prefer him to stay till our new owners fire him than be left with a caretaker manager. 

It's interesting how you've criticised PL for signing a supposedly shite player in Helenius AND criticised him for not playing him.

 

We all want to see academy players get a shot, but really the manager (whoever he is) probably has a better idea whether they're ready or not than we do. Suggesting that we'd have done better if we played them is unscientific to say the least.

 

I'm as baffled about why Helenius hasn't featured as anyone else, but Lambert will have his reasons. Criticising them without knowing what they are is also a bit unscientific don't you think? 

If that was aimed at me I certainly didn't criticise Lambert for not playing him. I assumed that the only logical reason for not playing him was that he was shite, especially given the fact he was a Lambert signing and couldn't be subject to bias as someone else's player. If someone who has the ability to become a Premier league manager rates you as worse than Jordan Bowery, then you might as well pack your bags.

If we went back a few years everyone would have been saying 'give Balaban a chance' and talking about the 'high hopes' for Nii Lamptey. They never played because they were shite, and almost certainly, Helenius is too. Am just surprised some people still cling to the hope that he is going to make it here.

For that to be true you have to believe that our 23 year old 7th choice striker is actually a decent player, which requires a suspension of disbelief considering how shite we are.

I think we've come about as close to finding out whether Lambert's good enough as we have to finding out whether Helenius is.

We have fairly clear evidence that both of them are shite. Lambert is self evident, Bowery getting a start while Helenius can't get on the bench ahead of some academy players, is also pretty clear cut.

Lambert signed him, he has a vested interest in proving his managerial skills by demonstrating the value of his transfers, especially considering how shite most of his signings have been. Why would he deliberately hold him back when he is fighting for his job for any other reason than he is absolutely rank? 

He joined at the wrong time, in fact most of the new signings did. The victims of circumstance and a manager unwilling to take a chance on anything different and in general sticking with the same old same old even when it plain wasn't nearly effective enough.

More likely he joined with the wrong amount of footballing skill and is just rank awful. Cardiff binned his more highly rated compatriot pretty swiftly.

You can't really believe he is a quality prospect who rips it up in training but the stubborn and incompetent manager just doesn't realise and sticks with a 'jobs for the boys' strategy (or 'jobs for the real men' for Holt). 

We all wanted him to be a hidden gem when we signed him, in reality he isn't even a cubic zirconia. 

 

Still stand by what I said and Chelsea's loss it700 m also Forbes valuation of the club is off.

Magic beans please

You forget that if they break even on this endeavour they still earn money through their other interests connected to the club

 

Why don't you buy Villa then? Am sure one of the financial institutions out there would love to lend you the money given the amazing potential of the business. You could further persuade them with your facts and knowledge of brand values. 

Chelsea compliance without the debt is my point debt + purchase price = less then sale price therefore owner doesn't lose out.

 

As for Man City's sanction they have been sanctioned because UEFA believes that their sponsorship is fraudulent which is laughable as Utd's training kit deal is just 15m a year less.

 

As I mentioned previously their is external interests for the two owners in question but the motives aren't as you make out.

 Forbes values Chelsea at under 600m. Abramovich has spent more than 1 billion on the club. If he sells, he loses money overall. 

Even if they run in a debt free manner for the next 10 years and the value keeps going up and up  at an amazing rate and he actually somehow manages to make a small profit (which is highly unlikely), it would still be the worst return on investment imaginable. 

If you want to make money off a football team, you do a Glazer, not a Mansour or Abramovic. If Villa is worth 200m, we would need to become as successful as Chelsea over a decade or more on a net owner spend of under 400m for an investor to even have a chance of breaking even. Football is a very high risk investment, with a very low potential return on investment. If you think that is good from a purely financial perspective, I've got some magic beans you might like.

As for the Man City/Man Utd comparison, it isn't surprising that Man Utd get so much for training kit sponsorship. Man Utd are one of the world's biggest brands, Man City are not. You are paying for your association with the brand and the ability to use them in your worldwide marketing campaigns, not just to have your name on their training kit. 

What I am about to say is fact not opinion and is a response to today's posts and generally to what fans think about the relationship between owner funding and Premier League football clubs.

 

I have seen people say if Abramovic or Mansour left their respective clubs that they would go bankrupt within a year and that is simply not true. Both clubs are self sustaining now after the initial massive investment they received.

 

The reason for this is very simple, both clubs have CL money and receive more money for finishing higher in the league than most other clubs in the league but that isn't the big difference between us and them. The big difference is merchandising and sponsorship as I would be surprised if they earned more than 50m more than us from higher finishing money and group stage money for the CL that doesn't go very far when you pay some players 15m a year in your squad.

 

Like I said the stand out difference is sponsorship and merchandising. Sponsorship like the stadium naming rights and kit sponsor at Man City is worth 35m a year to them which people say is over the top and the owners circumventing FFP rules however Man Utd are reported to be signing a deal for 60m a year just for their shirt sponsorship and their training kit deal is worth 20m a year so that puts that myth to shame.

 

Merchandising is mostly selling shirts to people all over the world.

 

Ok Paul your not telling me much I don't know already here.....

 

Ok but why do those clubs get that kind of merchandising sales and sponsorship? Simple they win things and playing at the top end of the table. When some kid in China or Africa chooses an Premier League club they usually pick them because of how they play, a player who plays for them or because they are win things. In some cultures being a winner is a really attractive thing for example.

 

So when Mansour pops into Man City or Abramovic pop into Chelsea and drops a ton of money on the club it may seem really dumb financially but it actually isn't. What that money buys is success when you spend on that kind of level and that in turn buys you the foreign fans and unfortunately more and more in this country the kids of that generation here (how many more top 5 teams tops do you see on kids these days?). That is the merchandising revenue sorted and now the sponsors want you because of those fans following you and your exposure in the media.

 

Simple.

 

The owners get their money back by having a self sustaining club and when they eventually sell on the club is worth loads of money. It isn't hard to imagine City selling for over 500m now is it? Especially in a few years time with a few more cups under their belt and those benefits I just talked about doesn't take into account the other business benefits that someone like Mansour profits from with his Man City connection which are well known.

 

So to anyone who didn't understand that before I hope that debunked a few myths about these top owners just being in it for a benevolence factor.

 

Abramovic and Mansur will never make a profit off their investments, they will never get their money back. You might be able to make a club sustainable after a while, but that is only after a vast investment that far outweighs any increase in the value of the club. And missing out on CL for a couple of seasons makes you very unsustainable again.

To use Man utd revenue as an example is not a valid comparison, Man utd and even Liverpool have a following that far outweighs teams like Chelsea and Man City, it would take a generation to change this. No jonny come lately clubs have anything close to this sponsorship potential without their owners paying vastly over the odds .

Merchandising worldwide is not the potential cash cow you seem to think, few countries will sell more than a few thousand Man City shirts a season. Most people can't afford them. City will get a few promotional gigs, but the main ones all go to Utd, Barca and Real, etc.

I live in Indonesia, and there is probably 1 Chelsea fan for every 40 Man Utd fans. For Man City it probably 1 in 100. Yes, people here choose the successful teams to support or teams with popular players, but this is also very fickle, a few poor seasons and they won't stick around or a few transfers of the popular players can have the same effect. You used to see Leeds and Blackburn shirts in Asia, not so much now.

Man Utd and Liverpool are the 2 exceptions to the fickle fan. Man Utd probably have 30 'corporate partners' here, Man City promote an energy drink for manual labourers.

There is no business model in investing in an English Premiership football club and throwing cash around. A few titles will never give you the clout of Man Utd. It won't even make you Liverpool.

A few years of success doesn't make you an elite worldwide brand, and unless you are one of the brand name clubs, you only get left with their crumbs.

People need to stop being so precious. Man posts pic of him drinking beer with workmates after work. It's not like he posted a pic of himself wearing a blues strip and buggering a kitten.

Some people seem to think he should spend the next 3 months scourging himself to atone for the team's ineptitude.

His form hasn't been great, but he does tend to put a shift in on the pitch, which gives people even less reason to manufacture some kind of faux-outrage.

No reason for a grown adult to take offence at something so innocuous. 

 

I never said people weren't saying it, I just don't believe we did ride our luck that much. People often mistake well executed counter-attacking victories for "luck".

A little patronising. I assure you that I and a fair few others can tell the difference between that and 'sit back and hope' football. Anyway I'm done. You believe we've been unlucky, I believe luck has evened out and just glad to still be in this division.

 

Were there any games this season we were particularly unlucky not to win? Can't think of any off the top of my head, but have wiped most of the season from my memory.

Pl Is certainly one to partly blame

Magnum?

Without terrible luck with injuries we would almost have certainly done better to the point that 'progress' has been made, on a shoestring.

Yes, all clubs have to deal with injuries but this season has been especially damaging for us. Lambert has also made mistakes, but he's human and will have learned from them.

I think it's a shame PL won't be given the opportunity to build on the current squad for a third season with a bigger budget.

He's been shafted by Lerner by not releasing funds when needed.

Without injuries we might have only lost 4-2 to Stoke and Swansea, 3-1 to Spurs, might have sneaked a point at home to Fulham too. 

 

Best manager since Saunders? That's the funniest thing I've ever read on here.

Think he means Dean Saunders. I'd agree

 

Think he was actually referring to Jennifer.

Yet another reason to get rid:

2 seasons -44 goal difference.

last season 2nd worst of non-relegated teams

this season worst of non-relegated teams

Lambert's records:

Biggest ever defeat

Most home defeats in a season x 2 (actually broke his old record this season)

First manager to lose a league cup semi final to a bottom division team

Lowest number of points in a premier league season

On top of playing shite football and regularly getting pumped off shite teams, awful signings (some who are so bad that we can't even play them during an injury crisis), having his 2 closest members of staff suspended for misconduct, regular runs of consecutive defeats, being knocked out of multiple cups by lower league teams, etc.

His biggest 'achievement' is not getting relegated and he has made 2 good signings. 'Cutting the wage bill' is hardly an achievement as it's not like we had to sell any players who were actually any good.

And some people still think he should be 'given time'?

We seem to have had quite a lot of players in recent years that mysteriously dont play for us and never hear any updates about. It's very frustrating.

 

We genuinely have no idea whether there is some sort of masterplan to get him ready for PL football or if he is just shit and will be quietly sold in the summer.

Think we can safely assume that he is just shit.

Speaked well in the press conference. "While Man City put on Fernandiho and Negredo, we had to put on 2 academy kids" That says alot of our injury problems doesn't it? This is not even an excuse, this is plain facts. Our squad atm is totally ribbed

Says a lot about how awful some of his summer signings were too. 

When some are so bad we can't even use them in an injury crisis, he's got a bit of a cheek to be complaining about having to use academy kids as a last resort due to 'injuries'.

Bet he didn't mention that in the press conference.

Next season we are unlikely to get so much good fortune against the top teams. We were ridiculously lucky against Man City, got Chelsea on an off day, the Arsenal game was a great performance but could have been a very different result with a few breaks going the other way. 

The worrying thing is how rank we were in so many games against the mid/lower table sides. I would have preferred to lose every game against the top sides but had solid form against the lesser teams, that would be a better sign of progress than a number of victories that were good performances but did involve a fair bit of good fortune.

After 2 years of Lambert we can't pass a football under any kind of pressure (evidence of poor coaching), have had many of the worst performances I can ever remember, and have often played football as bad as anything that McLeish served up.

He's made a couple of good signings, but wasted the rest of his money. With the squad he inherited + money he has had to spend you can't say that keeping us up by the skin of our teeth actually counts as any kind of achievement. In many other seasons we could have been relegated both times, we have relied on others being worse rather than putting it beyond any doubt on our own merits.

Getting relegated would have been an abject failure. Being marginally better than an abject failure does not a success make.

Whether a takeover happens or not, we should seriously consider Steve mclaren.

I think we already seriously consider him to be an enormous bellend.

Think of the abuse Heskey used to get, but he was 10 times better in every single aspect of his play than Bowery. 

If he is lucky, if everything goes well for him, if he gets the breaks, Bowery may develop into a very poor man's Marlon Harewood. He is 22 now and the best you can say is that he is sometimes a minor 'nuisance', he's not even a 'handful'. He certainly isn't a goalscorer and never will be. 

Haven't seen any aspect of his game that makes me think he will be a useful Premier league squad player. The fact that anybody at all wants him anywhere near our squad shows how desperate we have become. Any game time he gets would be better spent on one of our youngsters who actually has a chance of being a top division player.

I wish him all the best in his future career, but suspect this will be mostly spent somewhere in D1.

Isn't Alex McLeish available? Fergie recommends him highly so he must be pretty decent. 

I'd get David O'Leary as his assistant too as his communication skills are second to none.