Big_John_10

People do have short memories on Ellis, the man who couldn't find the cash to buy Erik Bakke.

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.

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.

but his business and financial decisions have been quite sound long before he got here and since.

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

People do have short memories on Ellis, the man who couldn't find the cash to buy Erik Bakke.

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.

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?

Strange that those that said he's definatoey going to be sacked straight after the season ends have gone quiet.

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

When he sold up we were without doubt in a worse position than the current situation.

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.

To very quickly recap, McLeish lavished money in either wages or transfer fee's on the likes of £9.5m on N'Zogbia and the stupid wages of Given (that isn't hindsight, I said it was stupid at the time).

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.

He also inherited a far better squad than Lambert inherited

Did he? Who was so good that McLeish had that Lambert didn't?

There is also little comparison between the way the two managed the team, McLeish signed short term, expensive dross like Hutton not with the clubs long term health in mind but due to a short term desire to cling to a job I'm sure he could hardly believe he landed having just been relegated, again.

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.

There is also little to be compared in their managerial records prior to arriving at B6, Lambert turned a club in terminal decline around leading them to successive promotions. McLeish well, he managed to finish 3rd in Scotland with Rangers and everyone knows the rest, a fluke cup win and finishing 9th with Bruce's team shouldn't fool anyone.

That seems a balanced summary of their previous achievements.

Trying to draw comparisons between the results of Lambert and McLeish is in my view more than a little daft given the gulf in the difference of circumstances and is normally only done by those who wish to convince people they are right in their condemnation of Lambert. It really has very little to do with proper analysis or comparison.

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.

The biggest reason though for a difference for me is one manager set up with 6 defenders at home and Heskey in midfield against Spurs while the other has led us to wins at Anfield, Arsenal and at home to Chelsea. I've intentionally discounted the Man City game as that was a freak.

We have twice gone up to Anfield under Lambert and played them off the park, that to me suggests whatever errors he has made and whatever shortcomings he might have he his a better manager than McLeish by some considerable distance.

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.

What's happened? Seems to be a few more supporters of Paul Lambert on here than at the end of the season. Did he say/do something these past few days?

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.

People do have short memories on Ellis, the man who couldn't find the cash to buy Erik Bakke.

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.

Probably because we had a defence that included Wilfred Bouma, Olof Mellberg and Martin Laursen.

So Doug allowed a better team to be built.

I'd prefer bent playing rather than kozak.

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.

Kendrick will be lucky if he is allowed back in to the Villa after his Lambert-Out stance adopted post the end of the season.

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.

Does anyone think if new owners arrive late in the summer it will be for the best to keep Lambert?

He knows the club needs improvement and know the players we need (Holtby,Lescott etc). A new manager may want to assess the squad first before making improvements

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.

It pretty much is though. Your whole argument is basically that Lerner doesn't care because he's made bad decisions.

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.

I don't agree with that at all - his whole point is based on the flawed logic that success (or lack of it) of decisions determines how much he "cares".

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

No, the appointment of Alex McLeish shows that he didn't always make good decisions. Same goes for the January transfer windows. It's as if you think it's impossible to both care but make bad decisions at the same time.

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

I would imagine lerner does just want a sale. This idea that he loves us is just a hopeful dream for a man many have put a lot of faith in. The last few years show he really doesn't care much at all.

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.

I would imagine lerner does just want a sale. This idea that he loves us is just a hopeful dream for a man many have put a lot of faith in. The last few years show he really doesn't care much at all.

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.