jackbauer24

Actually one final thing - of the £45m Lambert has spent whilst here, Benteke, Kozak and Okore have been unavailable for huge periods of time: that's nearly half the value of the whole squad.

This post has been written with full research as best I can find it from transferleague.co.uk so whilst some of the info might be slightly wrong you’d imagine it’s the fairest place to get it all as it’ll be wrong for all teams! It is a long post but the findings are significant. There has been a lot of talk about transfer spending and net spend and a lot of other information, all with points for and against how to interpret the findings. I suggest we look at things in what seems the fairest way and am going to publish this even if it doesn’t prove my belief that Lambert has, at worst, done an OK job. A few basic rules; firstly there is no point with me comparing net spends for all teams – if Chelsea had a £500m pound quality squad but have a few seasons not spending, that does not mean we can compete with them if we outspend them for two seasons of spending £5m. So I will only be comparing, season on season, similar clubs to ours. Secondly, loans and frees are very difficult to judge so can’t really be included although I acknowledge they have an impact. So let’s start with when Lambert took over. Aston Villa had just finished 16th, sacked McLeish and had a number of high paid players in the squad which he was informed to deal with. Now we can say he was told to ‘bomb’ them or we can say he ‘decided’ to bomb them but that’s another argument. The teams that had finished around us (but survived in the Premiership) were as follows and their summer spend that year in NET (so to show whether improving squad quality) is in brackets: 17thQPR (spent £36m) 16th Aston Villa (spent £23.7m - largely Young and Downing money) 15thWigan (made £1.9m) 14th Stoke (spent £21m) 13th Sunderland (spent £11.6m) 12th Norwich (spent £9m) 11th Swansea (made £6.5m) Also coming up were Reading (spent £7m), Southampton (spent £32m) and West Ham (spent £18m) As we all know Wigan, Reading and QPR went down. We now finished 15th ahead of Sunderland (we spent more than them so jumped ahead) whilst Stoke, Norwich and Swansea also improved by one position (obviously Norwich and Swansea did very well considering their spends). Newcastle plummeted and Southampton finished a place above us. So I think you could argue the two teams directly sandwiching us in QPR and Wigan tried differing strategies on transfers but both got relegated and we survived. The other teams matched the one position improvement we made. On to 2013/14. We have now been trying to improve again and we have to evaluate our new competition down near the foot of the table: 17th Sunderland (spent £7m) 16th Newcastle (made £19m – Cabaye) 15th Aston Villa (spent £16m) 14th Southampton (spent another £35m) 13th Stoke (spent £2m) 12thFulham (spent £20m) 11thNorwich (spent £22m) We were also joined by Cardiff (spent £32m), Hull (spent £24m) and Crystal Palace (spent £26m) So despite trying to improve we actually spent much the same, often less, than most other teams. Yet Cardiff, Fulham and Norwich got relegated who spent more than us and, in Fulham and Norwich’s case, from a better position than us the previous season. We remained 15th and with the spending you see above, I think treading water is pretty much accurate and not a failure. Stoke were the clear ‘winners’. So now we’ve just finished a season surrounded by: 17th West Brom (spent £13m this summer to improve) 16th Hull (spent £22m this summer) 15th Aston Villa (spent £5.5m this summer) 14th Sunderland (spent £11m this summer) 13th West Ham (spent £23m this summer) 12th Swansea (made £2m this summer after spending £20m the season before) 11th Crystal Palace (spent £9m this summer) We’ve also been joined by Leicester (spent £11m), Burnley (Spent £6.5m) and QPR (spent £19m) So we have been outspent by everyone other than Swansea who finished above us. Now, having seen the stats, who can really argue that Lambert has had a ‘real’ chance to improve us? At best he’s had the same funds as managers around us and has either tread water whilst they have been relegated or pretty much matched their progress in a positional basis (improving a position). There are some stand out teams like Southampton but then you realise they spent nearly £70m before this seasons sales/ new purchases. Stoke and Newcastle moved away from trouble - anyone want Pardew(?!) and Villa are currently above Stoke this season so far. This season we have clearly spent less than practically everyone so why are we expecting progress? I don’t see how this can be interpreted as a ‘twisting’ of the figures – they are there for you all to read. Who of the teams around us when Lambert took over have done significantly better than us with the same funds? This also does not include wages which I think even the most ardent Lambert haters have to agree plays a role in transfers. I think we can all acknowledge that the likes of Newcastle, QPR, West Ham and even West Brom pay more than we do. Probably most of the other teams bar the likes of Burnley, Leicester and Crystal Palace do too. Lambert is NOT the problem. I hate the football, I hate where we are but it is the lack of funds that is strangling the life out of Aston Villa not Lambert’s team which has been assembled on what he can get, what he can gamble on and then has to play to their ability rather than how he might prefer to play. Unfortunately I suspect despite this overwhelming evidence to the contrary, most Lambert haters will still want him out as they blame him just because it’s easy. At least he can be shouted at every week rather than the absent Lerner. For one final defence (and this is the last time I write in this thread as it irritates me a little to see people twisting stuff and not looking beyond an obvious scape goat) of Lambert THIS season. If you forget everything that has gone on before, this season Aston Villa are doing better than they did last season against the same opposition. Furthermore, other than last season’s top 6, we have only lost to QPR this season – but we did beat one top 6 team in Liverpool. The style and manner of performances might not be great but you take results before performance and then see what you can do. I’d rather survive playing crap for a few years than be exciting losers in the Championship.

I'm really struggling to understand how you don't understand!! Surely if you're accepting that Lambert might have preferred better players than he's been able to get due to financial constraints (whether transfer fee or wages) then you are acknowledging that it is Lerner not Lambert who is the MAIN problem. Most of the Lambert sympathisers (not necessarily pro) suggest he couldn't have done much better in the transfer market than he has done. Yes one or two haven't worked out like all managers and others have. His record is fine really, above average I'd say. But you seem to be blaming him for Lerner not providing competitive transfer fees or wages! His transfer record has been mostly not very good at all: KEA - hopeless Sylla - terrible Lowton - rubbish Bennett - dismal Luna - worse than Bennett Tonev - George Weah's cousin Bowery - pub player Cissokho - crap Vlaar - always injured Bacuna - average at best Joe Cole - elderly Helenius - another flop How to answer this ridiculous post politely.... You have picked out 12 players from all his transfers. You name Vlaar as bad value (doesn't even need a comment), You say Cissokho is crap (very few would agree with that at this stage), You say Cole is elderly (we've been crying out for experience as a fan base) you say Lowton is rubbish (not the common consensus just a season or two ago) Furthermore the players you have named are generally under £2m, Bowery ended up costing us £0.25m! EVERY manager will have some bad signings. It's Champ manager thinking that ruins modern football... "should have bought x from Kazakhstan...."

Please name like for like value players that Lambert could have bought (try to do same with wages too!). If you can pick and choose a first XI from any teams in the Premiership I'll be quite surprised, if you can do it from just one or two teams I'd be shocked! I'll even let us assume they of course want to play for the mighty Aston Villa without hesitation. Genuine challenge - base it on our team against Crystal Palace: Guzan (I'll be nice and say £1m even though for Lambert he was a free) Clark (free) Okore (£4m) Hutton (£4m - although not a Lambert signing) Cissokho (£2m) Westwood (£2m) Sanchez (£4m) Cleverley (any player on loan of similar wages/value) Weimann (free) Agbonlahor (free) Benteke (£10m) Complete fantasy football with all the benefits of hindsight but I think if you try it you'll really struggle to make a better first XI with £27m.

I'm really struggling to understand how you don't understand!! Surely if you're accepting that Lambert might have preferred better players than he's been able to get due to financial constraints (whether transfer fee or wages) then you are acknowledging that it is Lerner not Lambert who is the MAIN problem. Most of the Lambert sympathisers (not necessarily pro) suggest he couldn't have done much better in the transfer market than he has done. Yes one or two haven't worked out like all managers and others have. His record is fine really, above average I'd say. But you seem to be blaming him for Lerner not providing competitive transfer fees or wages!

This is very 'current' thinking with all the benefits of hindsight. Who on here would genuinely think Hutton didn't need replacing a few years back when he had played appallingly game after game? Then he was replaced with a very cheap Lowton from a League One side (so unproven and low wages) who went on to be an near ever present and be considered one of the players of the season and score an amazing goal against Stoke that arguably begun our survival bid. But because he's been dropped for unknown reasons and Hutton has had a rebirth this means Lambert misspent?! It's too easy to pick and chose who we should have bought and when but with ALL the things people beat Lambert with - his transfer record is amongst the better ones in the division with the funds he's had available. Someone above very astutely mentioned that he's only spent significant funds on a few players (let's say £4m as a guide using transferleague.co.uk for fees) Carlos Sanchez (£4.7m) - Early but looks like at least a partial success. Jores Okore (£4m) - Injured within three games but has had a fairly good reintroduction recently. Libor Kozak (£5m) - Injured, but £5m for a striker is incredibly cheap anyway. Christian Benteke (£10m) - Success. Saved us several times, will be sold for a lot more than he's worth. That's it. But maybe we try above £3m players (you know, like broke small teams buy to keep afloat) Leandro Bacuna (£3m) - I'd say easily worth that - some of the freekicks have been outstanding!! Matthew Lowton (£3m) - see above but good value Ron Vlaar (£3.2m) - much like Benteke, but error with contracts - is that Lambert's fault? Now we have to look at under £3m players... In fact, I'll list the players who can be considered a waste of money since Lambert took over: Sylla (£2m), Bowery (£0.5m - or 0.25m after sale), Bennett (£2.5m), Tonev (£2.5m), Helenius (£2m), Luna (£2m) £11m over three seasons. So he could have gambled on two or three (considering our average transfer fee) different players over that time and who knows whether they would have been any better or whether we would have had the squad depth. Lambert has spent £50.9m on 25 players since he has been in charge (an average of £2m a player) and the documented reduction of wages (and therefore quality) that goes with it. For all you fantasy football fans, please give me a squad of players (picking and choosing with the benefit of hindsight) from any team in the Premiership with the maximum amount you are allowed to spend being £50m. It's slightly unrealistic because obviously we had players when he took over (but no-one of any value left, or ageing/ over-paid players he didn't want or wasn't allowed to play). As a rough guide you need to spend £1m on your keepers Maybe £8m on your four defenders Say £16m on your four defenders And the same on your two strikers = £41m You then have £9m to spend on AT LEAST a competent 5 subs and use youth for the rest of the squad. And it's not just transfers either - everyone knows our wage cap is crippling and has to be heavily reduced. We couldn't compete with West Brom for Lescott on his wages...

Interesting stats for those that worry about progression: Villa are the second most improved team based on like for like fixtures last year. West Ham are clear winners on that front at the moment (£31m will do that) but Villa are making progress, albeit from a very poor position last year. http://bwinbetting.com/leagues/premier-league/west-ham-aston-villa-chelsea-201415s-most-improved-teams,64594.html?

The worst performance I've seen in a few seasons and yet three points! Sorry Palace, you were robbed. Struggled to give any player MOTM as they were all pathetic. How can I be so angry after a win?!

There's no way that 67% stat for possession can be right, unless they're counting the minutes it's in the air whilst we've sliced it in an attempted clearance?! I'm shocked we're not losing this by three or four, if Zaha manages not to sky every pass he makes we're screwed in the second half. Absolutely shocking display.

    Much like changing the manager will make little difference whilst Lerner is the chairman...

How old is he?! I'd hope that he could at least manage 60minutes for all these three games, just go easier on training if that's a great concern. Easily MOTM today, ran the midfield and Burnley today. I'd hope he'll strike up a good relationship with Benteke in the next few matches.

It was like playing with ten men in the first half. For all the good, even impressive, stuff we did he looked a liability and Burnley seized upon that. Second half he improved but nothing remotely spectacular - still the weakest midfielder out there. He doesnt react quickly, he's sloppy and he gets turned so easily. Im not writing him off yet but he has a long way to go to get up to Prem standard. I'd have felt more comfortable with El Ahmadi out there! Just hope it's an adjustment thing and he makes the same strides Petrov did after a shaky start.

Say there was one choice; Lambert gets sack and Lerner stays on for another decade, or Lerner sells up but stipulates Lambert must be allowed to at least see out his new contract. Which one would be best for the club? For me, changing manager will not have any significant impact on our future. Well, so far as in we may get a handful of places higher (12th highest) or may get a handful of places lower and be relegated but basically it'll be much of a muchness and too much of a gamble it's the second one for me. However, I believe Lambert will get sacked and what is clearly the majority of fans will be suitably appeased and distracted by the promise of something new. Unfortunately all missing the real root cause. Lerner's on to a winner with everyone blaming Lambert for 99% his choices, lack of involvement and investment and he can hide happily in the States while Lambert takes the vitriol. Then sack him, get plaudits for 'doing the right thing' and reset with which ever new manager comes in. I think he did this with McLeish to some degree too - make them reduce the quality of the team through lack of financial support, let them take the blame for the obvious downturn in performances and then sack them when the clamour becomes untenable; but McLeish was always going to get less time from supporters that Lambert. Put it this way; I'm convinced that Lambert will get the sack to the pleasure of the majority eventually but will happily be quoted as saying that if Lerner stays on, giving the same amount of 'effort' he has since MON left, then I guarantee nothing will change and we'll all still hate everything about the club two years in to the new managers job when he should have 'improved' us. Lerner withdraws time, effort, support, cash and neither Houllier (still getting £18m Bent in crisis), McLeish (allowed £10m N'Zogbia) or Lambert (£7m for Benteke) have been able to do anything to get us back up there. And looking at the constant squeezing of every penny, the next managers top signing will be £5m at most. Let's just hope he is allowed to play our high earners of Westwood, Lowton and Grealish so we don't have a bomb squad mark ii! YOU CAN NOT DO UP A HOUSE WITH NEXT TO NO MONEY HOWEVER GOOD A DIY'ER YOU ARE! Lambert had no assets, or not ones he was allowed to utilise which therefore effected their value further, and has averaged £2.2m per signing. In the premiership that's not enough to stand still nevermind progress. But we're all shouting in the wind now, no ones really left on the fence and there's little to discuss. It might be depressing to say that this (surviving) is the best we can hope for but unfortunately i genuinely believe it is while Lerner remains in charge with his current perameters. I wont cry if Lambert goes by any means, I'll thank him for keeping us up, think he had an impossible task and then feel sorry for the next poor idiot who takes over as they won't stand a chance.

I try not to let this thread wind me up but I feel some people are missing the point of the more 'pro-Lambert' argument. It's fine to disagree with it or not place the same importance on some mitigating circumstances but some just seem to completely miss the point in the argument for Lambert. No-one is saying he's marvelous, no-one is saying they are happy with either the squad, the playing style or the results. What they are saying is the bulk of the blame is not Lambert's but Lerner's. I hate our style, a number of players are substandard and it is a horrible time to be a fan. People are saying we 'should' be able to compete with the likes of West Ham and Sunderland etc, why? Last season we did which is a credit to Lambert as he spent less than them. This season they all strengthened. Someone mentioned "we're as bad as Burnley, Leicester, Palace and QPR" - we SHOULD be! Only one of them has invested less than us! What gives us a divine right to be higher than these teams? They invested in their squad, we didn't. Yet we're still in there fighting. Based on CURRENT transfers and wages (i.e. not those inherited from MON or McLeish) our top signing is £4.5m Sanchez! We operate as a small team trying to survive. So, whilst very very unhappy about it, Lambert is succeeding in keeping us up. Is that good enough? Clearly not, but Lambert can't do anything about it, only Lerner can. Please name any other team that has both played better and finished higher than us in recent years who has invested the same amount we have. Wigan played better and got relegated, others spent. And for the record, of those teams we should 'compete' with as a divine right (anyone outside last years top 6) we have only lost to QPR this season.

I thing the argument that has been made over the last 1000 pages comes down simply to Villa's position in this world. If you believe we are a midtable team then you're right and Lambert should be sacked. If you believe we are a struggling team, lower midtable then you think he's under-performed. If you believe, like me, that the finances and set up of this club and barely enough to survive then Lambert isn't the problem. I think a lot of managers would have got us relegated. I'd prefer to play the cr*p anti-football of last night and tread water in the hope of a better future (change of ownership) than play exciting football and be destroyed because we don't have the finances to be that exciting. Lerner doesn't deserve a Premier League team, and pushes the boundary further every year. One year he'll push too hard. Lambert has limited chance to improve the style of team. But i think at this point, few will be swayed from their viewpoint.

It is well documented that Lambert has both hands tied behind his back as regards transfers/ wages. However, it is how much weight you give to the money equals success/ lack of it equals failure argument. To me, money equals success 9 times out of 10. No money results in failure 9.5 times out of ten! Last night's starting eleven cost approximately £25m? Of which nearly half is N'Zogbia (a player Lambert didn't buy and has been an underachiever in Claret and Blue at best). Of our standard first eleven, only Delph (leaving) and Benteke cost more than £5m. We are a small team. If our transfers are that small, I'm sure the wages roughly tally. It's said our squad cost is approximately £81m. Take away Bent, N'Zogbia and soon to be Delph and it costs about £41m. In the last two seasons Lambert has bought 11 players that have been (at least intended) to feature in our team regularly. The average cost of those 11 players is £2.2m. Unfortunately in this league you will not make progress spending £2.2m on a player (and the likely low wages that go with it). I don't think you can argue he could have bought just three players of greater quality if you look at our injury list! In fact last summer/ transfer window (info taken from Transferleague.co.uk): Aston Villa spent £6.7m Newly Promoted: Leicester spent £11m Burnley spent £6.5m QPR spent £35.5m Teams we fought relegation with last season: Hull spent £37m Crystal Palace spent £10.9m Sunderland spent £14m West Brom spent £15.1m West Ham £27m Swansea £15m Why, oh why aren't we progressing?! It really isn't rocket science. What can Lambert REALLY do that is going to make a significant impact? Lambert has spent over 4m on only four occasions since he has been here: Benteke (£10m), Kozak (£5m), Okore (£4m) and Sanchez (£4m) - none of them have been a disaster yet. Benteke alone will probably at least double his value, Kozak and Okore have had awful injuries and Sanchez is not yet settled (although he was bloody awful last night!) Lambert has taken gambles of under £4m on a host of players with mixed success, Vlaar stand out bright point (£3.2m) but I don't see how anyone can get a Premier League club even comfortably surviving on these sorts of finances? Lambert has made mistakes but NO manager will get us comfortable with these financial constraints - it will be a battle against relegation every year. Lambert is not the real problem, see past it.

Although I have no clue what any of you are talking about.... I was thinking of going to a Giants game just to experience it. I try to spend every Xmas/ New Year in NYC and last year went to MSG to see the Knicks, needed a small mortgage for the tickets but thought it must be due to popularity/ the name. Looking at Giants tickets and they too require loans to be taken out on your first born! Cheapest tickets are easily £100, right at the back. Is all US sport this expensive?! How do people afford it? Going to see Brooklyn Nets at Barclays Centre this year and thats a lot more reasonably priced. Makes me think the Premier League is a bargain.

I don't think anyone is forgetting that or defending the man himself. It is the principle of justice/fairness. If the law we all follow suggests he is free to continue his normal life then it doesn't matter what he did, whether he's an idiot or what his job is. If he shouldn't be allowed to then he should still be in jail. He will have certain restrictions on him but the law does not stop him from being a footballer so it is irrelevant. He can't be a teacher etc, but footballer is not on that list. If it were placed on the list how would you decide - salary cap (so apply to bankers/ self employed entrepreneurs?) or fame (A list not allowed, 'f' list ok....). I'd never heard of Ched Evans before this so don't have any particular interest particular in him/ the case, but I feel he should be treated like all other released prisoners. He should be treated the same as any other convicted rapist who has served half their sentence, I 100% agree with you. So do you agree? If a office worker can go back to their job then so should he even if he's a footballer on a ridiculous wage. However, whether either should be entitled to do that after half their sentence is a different matter. Whether five years is sufficient even is another matter. The issue is the law not whether he is a footballer or an average guy.

I don't think anyone is forgetting that or defending the man himself. It is the principle of justice/fairness. If the law we all follow suggests he is free to continue his normal life then it doesn't matter what he did, whether he's an idiot or what his job is. If he shouldn't be allowed to then he should still be in jail. He will have certain restrictions on him but the law does not stop him from being a footballer so it is irrelevant. He can't be a teacher etc, but footballer is not on that list. If it were placed on the list how would you decide - salary cap (so apply to bankers/ self employed entrepreneurs?) or fame (A list not allowed, 'f' list ok....). I'd never heard of Ched Evans before this so don't have any particular interest particular in him/ the case, but I feel he should be treated like all other released prisoners.

To me this is incredibly simple; if he's out of jail and allowed to resume his life then he should be fully entitled to do whatever he is able to as long as it fits his conditions of release. It doesn't matter what the crime is, it doesn't matter if he's an idiot, it doesn't matter what job he does - we must attempt to treat all people equally and if that means rich people can't pay their way out of law they equally can't be penalised more than your average Joe. The argument should only be whether the sentencing of crimes is sufficient. But a postman would be allowed back to work, a head of a company would not be forced to start at the bottom again and a millionaire banker would be allowed to earn his ridiculous salary again. So, for me, he should be permitted to play for whatever club wants to take him on without threat of public backlash. If any backlash exists, it should be again the Justice system.

Or alternatively he is badly managing the team and he has limited ability to resolve the mess that he has partly created. I think he's done what he needs to so far, which is to keep us up. I think that's all that has been asked of him and has been a deciding factor on budget and player signings. Lerner gave him an extended contract based on this rather than four games in all likelihood. He's been given the transfer and wage limits to survive and nothing more and he's done this. So whilst I hate where we are, I think Lambert has done what's been required. It all comes down to where you believe our ceiling is at the moment, for me we could not get higher than 12th with any manager with our transfer and wage limitations. So whilst there is room for some improvement, which early season suggested was possible, I don't think he's done an awful job. I firmly believe a lot of other managers would have seen us relegated whilst only a few may have made us reach 12th. Lambert is the safe, sensible, stable and proven bet to keep us up until we are sold are can start competing again.

If we are to judge Lambert on purely the results and ignore all outside influences, mitigating circumstances and the modern game then there is little to support him. We are having awful season after awful season. HOWEVER, then surely the same should apply to Lerner. Ellis was a better chairman than him; it's simple, we won two cups under his stewardship and were frequently in Europe. We are not allowed to look at the environment surrounding their tenure - simply what results we have while they are in charge. And this, for me, is why saying Lambert is awful is too simplistic. I hate as much as anyone what is happening to our club but I don't feel changing the manager will change our fortunes. I think he's doing a good job based on what he has to work with, which is unfortunately bad players. He's made mistakes but to judge him on all the awful records we have broken is too easy - he's just head of a badly managed company with a limited chance of being able to fix it. But I know this will fall largely on deaf ears because we're all hurting too much at the results. I just think we're looking in the wrong place for the fault.

Ok, I'll put it this way; We all hate Lambert - worst records ever We all hate McLeish - worst records ever We all hate MON - spent badly and abandoned the club We all hate every manager we've ever had unless they have brought us some silverwear. With this in mind, which manager should we hate next because no-one is going to get us anywhere near silverware/ Europe / respectability. So change the manager, I'm not that fussed if he stays or goes, but expect to all back here in another 18months to two years saying the same old crap; he's had time, we're not progressing, all our players are crap. I don't think changing the manager will alter that future. Changing Lerner and/or the way modern football is run is the only way we will now escape this fate. This isn't even just Lerner's time. Please tell me the last manager we had who was liked by the majority? Little?! Different world now, and changing a manager who has not relegated us, has bought what we seem to all agree is our best first XI in years and has just signed a new contract is counterproductive to me. I'd rather spend money on more poor quality players to at least help fight relegation than pay off another manager who couldn't make a cake out of horsesh*t.

90% of those records would have been 'achieved' whatever manager we'd had. They would have broken some other ones instead of the remaining 10%. Alonso is not a cr*p driver because his Ferrari has been useless for last few years, he's made some mistakes and has some say over car setup and performance but he is limited by the cr*p car. Lerner has Villa the cr*p car.

IF Lambert were to leave, and that's a big if, then surely we all know who will take over in the short term. Who is cheap, available and would love the chance to take on the managers hot seat again? He is also currently working with our players! Yes, Keane will definitely get the job, if only in the short term. No extra costs, let Given take on coaching again and the easy option in a time of uncertainty that is noncommittal. If Lambert goes it is Keane in charge, I'm convinced this is our options.