bobzy

Love dat Brummie "exactly" at 1:53-ish.

Sigh. No, it's not all about money spent. I imagine the day to day running of a football club is far more intricate than I could possibly know about. Lambert has to shoulder responsibility as he's picked the teams, bought in the players he has and presumably sets them up to play however they play each week. As a precursor to "doing well" in the Premier League, though, you need money. It really is that **** simple.

It's not that simple, otherwise the premier league table would just match the amount of money spent by each club on transfers and wages. There's a group of middle-ranking clubs where performance is also influenced strongly by the way the club is run and the squad and team are managed. The relative success this season of Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and West Ham demonstrates this. There was an interesting article in the Guardian about this last week: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/nov/10/good-housekeeping-premier-league-high-flyers Basically saying the important factors are a well-stocked and settled defence, lower expectations so less pressure on the players, and well-run club, youth, scouting and management set-ups. Got a feeling we fall short on all these counts and some are absolutely down to the manager. The way the club is run and the ethos employed is definitely important. The interesting things with the clubs mentioned are that they've had to struggle back from somewhere bleak on the whole. Southampton and Swansea were both financially stricken and West Ham were relegated having overspent. With Stoke, they've had to struggle in the bleakness of Stoke . But yes, if you're a well run club operating sensibly on turnover:wages, you have a better chance of doing well. Southampton's current form is nothing short of remarkable, mind, and a lot of credit has to go to both Pochettino and, moreso, Koeman who has come in and had to, essentially, re-vamp his first team. The club are run well, though, and that's where the money aspect comes into it. They've re-couped huge fees but been able to put the vast majority of those straight back into the playing staff. That said, there's no way they "should be" 2nd in the table. I still think that, given the end of the season, we'll see a league table that essentially reflects position in league = amount spent on playing staff. The middle bit is the most volatile and is looks as if Southampton are escaping it - very quickly at that, too.

Ahhhh - ladies and gentleman, we have a youth coach amongst us! All that the young players need is time in the first team to develop. Let's just switch the U21's and first team around - we're bound to be better off because that is literally all that's needed. Time on the pitch in the Premier League. Can't believe Lambert hasn't already done it! Lambert out!

Who did we spend £8m on?

That's why he plays in midfield

He seemed that way against Spurs too, in fairness.

Who was the creative midfielder we were signing?

Subbed ON Yeah my response was to him not starting and ppl saying they were surprised. Ah right, with you - my bad

Subbed ON

He'd be a terrible signing. At best, he's a thug.

"Spent enough to achieve at least mid table mediocrity" based on what? I can agree with issues over style of play or not performing well at home - and, indeed, perhaps the manager isn't good enough - but some fans honestly live in the past where being a "big club" was enough to mean... well, something. You can see the money issue being a "very lame excuse" but, unless you spend in the Premier League, you go nowhere. Currently, we're going nowhere. OK let's simplify it. Every transfer window (of which he has had a few) he should be getting in players that improve the situation and improve our position. If you are suggesting that he has only bought players that are worse than what we had or at best the same as what we had then that signifies that he is a poor manager. If, by chance, some of the players that he has bought has improved our squad then we should be seeing an improvement in position, results and performance. We are not so I can only conclude that he is a poor manager. In the time that he has been here he has spent enough money and brought in enough players to move forward but he has not. Money is not everything, spending it wisely is. I want a better player than player <x> and I identify a few players - however, I'm unable to get the financial backing from the board to bring these players in. The squad is struggling and needs some fresh impetus, but I can't get the first players I want so I work, essentially, down a list. Can I get player <a>? No. How about player <b>? No. Turns out I can get player <c> so I go for him - the 31st player on my list. I hope he has an impact on the team because it's needed but the purchase is more of a gamble because, for better quality, I recognise that I likely need to pay more. I understand he can't win in your situation (surprise, eh?!), but the general consensus is pay more, get more. On the whole, I think Lambert has done pretty well in the transfer market and I think the squad is improved from when he joined. Therefore, disappointing that we're currently not playing much better football in terms of pure aesthetics. On the whole, though, I don't think our results have been that bad this season when taken in isolation. Since Lambert has joined Aston Villa, I don't think we've gone backwards. We probably haven't gone forwards that much either - which rightly disappoints fans and likely disappoints the manager/the players - but I can't see that changing too much until we start to spend decent amounts on decent players. Bear in mind that, in keeping with this rhetoric, Lambert's most expensive signings have been Benteke, Kozak, Sanchez and Okore - 2 of these players have been injured for longer than they've been fit, 3 of them have suffered serious injuries and one has only joined this season.

But it's likely to be the case unless the owner gets more ambitious. If we're spending £30m in a transfer window and flirting with the drop, he'd go. If we're spending £5m, staying up is good enough. Not Very ambitious from Lambert either though is it? If he is happy signing a new 4 year contract knowing the contriants and the future is just to keep us in the premier league, says alot about him really. Any other manager i.e like Pulis, would not sign another contract knowing he will have to struggle through with little or no transfer fees. Why is it not ambitious from Lambert? You think he doesn't want to win every game he's in charge of? Nonsense. I don't know the explanation or reasoning behind him getting/signing a new contract. It could be that he's happy to be in a job and getting paid, it could be that he's had reassurances over upcoming transfer windows, it could be that he relishes a challenge - who knows. r.e: The lower league opposition, the answer is simple for me - the players let us down. Now it may be that Lambert didn't sufficiently motivate them but, as you say, our team is good enough to beat League One sides. I'd lay blame at Lambert's door moreso for things like the home loss against Crystal Palace last season than being knocked out of the cup by lower league opposition. Obviously, though, it happened on his watch so he has to take responsibility for it.

It does, absolutely - although I'm not convinced any of those players suggest anything more than "mid to lower Premier League".

"Spent enough to achieve at least mid table mediocrity" based on what? I can agree with issues over style of play or not performing well at home - and, indeed, perhaps the manager isn't good enough - but some fans honestly live in the past where being a "big club" was enough to mean... well, something. You can see the money issue being a "very lame excuse" but, unless you spend in the Premier League, you go nowhere. Currently, we're going nowhere.

a] Harsh on Norwich. b] To put his performance into comparison, the season that Norwich were relegated (having finished 12th under Lambert, then 11th the following season), they spent £26m on players (inc £8.5m on Van Wolfswinkel, £5.5m on Hooper, £5m on Fer). Lambert hasn't spent that amount in any season at Villa.

But it's likely to be the case unless the owner gets more ambitious. If we're spending £30m in a transfer window and flirting with the drop, he'd go. If we're spending £5m, staying up is good enough.

Be shit for a whole season then rally at the end with wins against the big clubs? Sounds like we're in the same boat

At the risk of being involved in some in-joke that I'm not aware of... ...I think he's his nephew.

Obviously true, but we're not great compared to some teams even at the "best" of times. The 1-0 win over Chelsea had the Holte looking/sounding pretty sweet, mind.

I'd say the article is pretty accurate - our home support is terrible in terms of atmosphere. Our away fans, though, are very good. We're an extreme team!

This and it's why I always wanted him to stay this season. Especially when you consider that next in line to the captaincy are the likes of Agbonlahor and Westwood! Senderos to be honest. It needs someone vocal - I think we're quite "shy" as a team.

We haven't lost or drawn or won every single game this season.

I can't see how Benteke is being questioned; that's nonsense. The guy is class (even if his temperament is iffy on occasion). Vlaar has been relatively successful for both a] the money he cost and b] the amount of defending he's had to do. If he hadn't been relatively successful, there simply wouldn't be the links to Man Utd or Arsenal or Southampton or whoever else. One of the better players at the World Cup who led the Dutch to a 3rd place finish. (I don't think they lost a game (bar the shootout, obviously) during that tournament?) He started off pretty shaky for us and has got better and better - until this season, it seems. For £3m(?), he's been good business.

McClaren is a decent manager. His reputation is tarnished only because of a media narrative - "wally with a brolly".