Big_John_10

as opposed to lerner the man who couldnt afford to give us some cash in the january windows to try and help against relegationNo no no, not couldn't afford. He chose not to. The same way he chose not the previous January and the one before that.Just checking did we get relegated? And I thought we brought 2 players in in January? One a first choice LB. And another a back up striker who hardly played. Unless they played for nothing of course. Are you really defending the level of investment given to the manager the past few January windows? Twisting the discussion. The discussion was about the relative merits of Ellis and Lerner. I do not think any right-minded person could think Ellis was a better custodian than Lerner. In my life I haven't experienced any years worse than the last 3. Makes him better for my experiences as a villa fan.

Pumping large amounts of money in, allowing costs to spiral out of control and then making drastic cuts doesn't quite back that up.

as opposed to lerner the man who couldnt afford to give us some cash in the january windows to try and help against relegationNo no no, not couldn't afford. He chose not to. The same way he chose not the previous January and the one before that. Just checking did we get relegated? And I thought we brought 2 players in in January? One a first choice LB. And another a back up striker who hardly played. Unless they played for nothing of course. Are you really defending the level of investment given to the manager the past few January windows?

I thought news of knew owners would come out straight away. I think he'll be gone once new owners come in but it's becoming more of a worry that we'll be stuck with him

Is that true? I'd say we have a worse squad. DOL was sacked and we've got a manager most fans can't stand. On top of that we've just had a season much worse than Doug's final year.

I think he did waste some money but then he was given more. Lambert's certainly wasted some and if given more I can't say I'd be confident he wouldn't waste it as well. He's signed 5 players who can play in the fullback position and we still haven't got a good one to start next season. Did he? Who was so good that McLeish had that Lambert didn't? But one had a protest against him before he joined and the other replaced one of the most hated managers in the clubs history. Of course Lambert could approach the job with more patience. I think you're ignoring a lot if you dismiss the circumstances in which both came into the job. McLeish knew he had to hit the ground running, Lambert delivers two awful seasons and is still defended. That seems a balanced summary of their previous achievements. And I think those that dismiss the comparison do so because a manager they've fully backed has produced worse results than a manager they class as useless. So you don't like comparing the two but will when it shows Lambert in a shining light. Regardless of the odd performance Lambert lost the majority of games and finished with the same points and a worse goal difference.

Well we haven't had to watch a Paul Lambert team play football for awhile so that helps. In terms of him staying, I'm not sure it's as noble as people make out. He would struggle to get another prem job and I seriously can't see him giving up a pay off to try and get money from the club through the courts. From his point of view to stay at the club right now is the smart move, not sure its worthy of praise.

as opposed to lerner the man who couldnt afford to give us some cash in the january windows to try and help against relegation No no no, not couldn't afford. He chose not to. The same way he chose not the previous January and the one before that.

Its about 50/50. He doesn't sell this summer and the majority of his time here will have been crap. We've reached lows I never thought we'd come close to when he first bought the club.

So Doug allowed a better team to be built.

Darren Bent 3 league goals Libor Kozak 4 league goals and broke his leg at Christmas so really? Yes, because Kozak is a Paul Lambert signing whereas Darren Bent is not. Thus, Bent > Kozak. Obviously. but Bent is a Houllier signing who he also didn't like. im confused, who is better than who Well you both might judge players on who signed them but I prefer to judge them on ability and what I see.

Don't see why he should be. He made valid points and the evidence backs up his opinion on lambert.

And even during that period we finished with more points than we have in the last 3 years.

So more news stories put out there from Aston villa that make a takeover seem miles away from happening. Worrying times.

I'd prefer bent playing rather than kozak.

Albrighton released and no more bomb squad. I get the feeling lambert is only in charge in name only.

On the one hand I'm not that fussed about losing a player I don't think is good enough. On the other hand I don't know if I need to be worried about it.

We didn't keep DOL when a takeover happened late and I'd hope new owners would do a similar thing.

I doubt we're offering him a better deal so he'd be foolish to turn it down. At the same time I don't think he's a huge miss. Not good enough for where we want to be and with new owners hopefully we'll be looking to build to that soon.

Of course he can make bad decisions and still care. Letting MON spend too much shows that. I've never said different. I just don't believe he always does and gave examples of that. I think they were calculated gambles of surviving while keeping costs low, I don't think it showed him really caring. And when I said great I didn't say you thought they were great decisions. I was just saying if you think they were decisons of a man really caring for us then fair enough.

No he doesn't really care because he didn't really care. The examples I gave weren't just bad decisions they showed that the best interests of Aston villa weren't his main motive in making them. You think they were then great. End discussion there.

What? You've made your own assumption there. That's nothing like what my point is

If you think releasing those funds in January was him caring but just making a bad decision then I'll leave the discussion there.

What a bizarre conclusion. Just because things haven't worked out doesn't mean he doesn't care. Alex mcleish shows he didn't care. The last two January windows, when we've been desperate, he provided funds for sylla and allowed Dawkins, Bertrand and Holt to join on loan. Nothing about not working out, those actions speak volumes. I don't always agree with BJ10 - but you have to say he has a point here. Its inexplicable to me why he has gambled with our premier league status - and more bafflingly his own investment - He left it to chance that we would bag a £72m TV deal - Surley £5-10m should have been given so this wasn't left to luck (Yes I know he got away with it - but you get the point) Exactly. No ones saying he should have spent £20 million each January window but to back managers like he has when the squad was in desperate need shows this idea of him really caring about us as a bit of a dream.

What a bizarre conclusion. Just because things haven't worked out doesn't mean he doesn't care. Alex mcleish shows he didn't care. The last two January windows, when we've been desperate, he provided funds for sylla and allowed Dawkins, Bertrand and Holt to join on loan. Nothing about not working out, those actions speak volumes.