VillaCas Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 He's doing it with no money, and by most statistics is improving us. From his awful first season but not from what went before. At this point under McLeish we had more points, scored more goals and conceded the same amount of goals. But it wasn't up to this point that people were greatly unhappy with McL - it was the 15 points from the last 19 games that sealed his fate The truth is that for the overwhelming majority of the time (probably all the time) we have no idea of the factors behind the scenes that drive decisions It's just a very difficult job and we all knew that the first two seasons would be challenging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 At this point under McLeish we had a wage bill that was easily 200K a week higher. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 What approximately 3million on Luna and Bennett. That fee in itself couldn't purchase Bertrand, so there is the problem. So Lambert has had just 3m to spend since he became our manager? That's very obviously not what was meant. Lambert has a budget and a squad to fill. You take a portion of the budget per position and decide on a player by player basis and judge your most pressing needs at the time. Now that we need less players (arguably) and cover for the left might be nice this makes sense. Having spent less on two previous players in the same position has abso-****-nothing to do with potentially spending more on a player in the future for the same position. If the only gap we had to plug was a LB and given the same budget as before then it would make more sense to portion a higher percentage of it to filling that role. Had he spent more on a LB at the time and missed out on Benteke, for example, then things would be different, no? No, he could have kept Fonz at the club instead of purchasing Bowery or Helenius. He could have kept Albrighton at the club instead of purchasing Tonev and he could have gotten an LB on loan instead of wasting more money on Bennet and Luna who he has now replaced with a loan. Bowery cost peanuts and has given 100% and done ok whenever called upon. Helenius is much more of a prospect than Fonz who is championship standard at best. Both of these were bought as squad players and for the future - we will make money on them if they are sold He did keep Albrighton and loaning him to Wigan was the kick up the arse he needed and no he's back in the first team squad Bertrand is a clear step up in quality to both Bennett and Luna. Bennett started to play well at the end of last season but has been long term injured and is still injured. Luna has struggled defensively but also lacked cover in front of him, so bringing Bertrand in makes perfect sense. It is also possible that Bertrand could play in front of Luna giving him the cover that he has lacked so far Tonev was Petrov's recommendation and I assume Lambert took a punt on him. He has been poor so far and not showing any sign of coming good. You win some you lose some. Albrightons loan wasn't, in my opinion, a kick up the arse. He's been injured for almost all the time since Lambert arrived and it was an ideal way to get him up to speed and get some match fitness. He wasn't however available for selection so to use him as a reason why Lambert shouldn't have brought Tonev, as Morpheus has done, is strange to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 At this point under McLeish we had a wage bill that was easily 200K a week higher. And do you believe the players he had were worth that 200k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 coulda shoulda woulda. Why've you got to be so angry all the time, Morpheus? Are you familiar with the Abraham Lincoln quote, 'I would find myself getting deeply distressed if I lived in hindsight all the time.' So by that we shouldn't comment on anything that has happened? Add to that the ones saying we should wait and see what happens before we form an opinion does that mean there is nothing to talk about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 17, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 17, 2014 At this point under McLeish we had a wage bill that was easily 200K a week higher. and McLeish's results nose dived in the second half of the season.Let's see where we are in May. I'd bet good money that we're better off than McLeish's year (and last season for what its worth) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 At this point under McLeish we had a wage bill that was easily 200K a week higher. And do you believe the players he had were worth that 200k? Mostly not, although he signed some of them. But considering what Lambert has done when he's been allowed to spend, I think he could have done great things with that 200K. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 At this point under McLeish we had a wage bill that was easily 200K a week higher. and McLeish's results nose dived in the second half of the season. Let's see where we are in May. I'd bet good money that we're better off than McLeish's year (and last season for what its worth) Maybe. I was just pointing out we're not statistically better off like it was claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandaq Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Not to be negative nancy but that there is no cm/am here is irritating me. Really thought that would be our first thing to get, hope there is more light in the tunnel. still have some buzz from bertrand but i want permanent!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 coulda shoulda woulda. Why've you got to be so angry all the time, Morpheus? Are you familiar with the Abraham Lincoln quote, 'I would find myself getting deeply distressed if I lived in hindsight all the time.' So by that we shouldn't comment on anything that has happened? Add to that the ones saying we should wait and see what happens before we form an opinion does that mean there is nothing to talk about? A straw man argument is where you mis characterize the position of another, and then attack that caricature as if it was the original posters position. There's a difference between "we shouldn't comment on anything that is happening." And recognizing that hindsight is 20/20 and when using every honest mistake, unforeseen consequence, calculated risk, and negative result, is magnified as if it were a deliberate choice that preferred the bad outcome. You're not too foolish to see the difference between the two. Can't understand why you would pretend that you are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Not much transfer speculation going on here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 coulda shoulda woulda. Why've you got to be so angry all the time, Morpheus? Are you familiar with the Abraham Lincoln quote, 'I would find myself getting deeply distressed if I lived in hindsight all the time.' So by that we shouldn't comment on anything that has happened? Add to that the ones saying we should wait and see what happens before we form an opinion does that mean there is nothing to talk about? A straw man argument is where you mis characterize the position of another, and then attack that caricature as if it was the original posters position. There's a difference between "we shouldn't comment on anything that is happening." And recognizing that hindsight is 20/20 and when using every honest mistake, unforeseen consequence, calculated risk, and negative result, is magnified as if it were a deliberate choice that preferred the bad outcome. You're not too foolish to see the difference between the two. Can't understand why you would pretend that you are. Because not everything, in this case Big John, talked about is hindisght. Hence the caricaturisation. But you knew that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 If we can get a proven PL level creative ACM in before 31 Jan I will be happy with this window . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Umm actually I didn't. I was just responding to the quotes cited. Praisedmombo and you, I did not go back And read all the posts leading up to this. if we traced it back enough quotes, I'm sure we'll see other examples that predate yours. I don"t point out logical fallacies in every post on VT. Nobody does, thank goodness, we would end up discussing nothing else, I noted this one only because it seemed egregious and based on previous posts from you, surprisingly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I have no idea what's going on in this thread right now, so here is GIF of Gerard Piqué and Elmo drinking juice Erm Elmo is NOT drinking juice! There is a glass to Elmo's left. He most certainly IS drinking juice. Besides I'm ITK on this. He isn't drinking juice, he's a **** puppet! YOU'RE A PUPPET Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I noted this one only because it seemed egregious and based on previous posts from you, surprisingly so. Bored, fed up, pilled up and dating Johnnie Walker Blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Apparently we are interested in Kevin Kampi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 coulda shoulda woulda. Why've you got to be so angry all the time, Morpheus? Are you familiar with the Abraham Lincoln quote, 'I would find myself getting deeply distressed if I lived in hindsight all the time.' I think it fits you well. If only we all had time machines. Lambert's actually got to do this job in reality, which by the way is in constant flux with eternally changing situations. He's doing it with no money, and by most statistics is improving us. I'll explain why i'm angry. 16 wins out of 59 games. 6 out of the last 8 games lost. We've lost to Bradford over two legs and we've been outplayed at home by Sheffield Wednesday of all teams. We only secured our Premiership status last season in the penultimate game and we have a run of fixtures coming up that might see us were we are last season, in relegation trouble. The manager having a limited budget to spend has wasted some of that limited budget on players who were no better than we already had with a success rate of 4 out of 16 signings. Some are now excusing those poor signings on budget constraints when in fact it has been just bad signings, poor allocation of funding and a reluctance to try and get the best out of what he had already at the club. A squad of players who even McDuff couldn't relegate. I feel it's desperately delusional to constantly try and excuse Lambert's present tenure with us. It has been nothing short of a disaster when you consider his original transfer policy, the results he has been getting with that policy and the fact he has had to do an about turn to save us and himself from further embarrassment. Thats why i'm angry mate. What approximately 3million on Luna and Bennett. That fee in itself couldn't purchase Bertrand, so there is the problem. So Lambert has had just 3m to spend since he became our manager? That's very obviously not what was meant. Lambert has a budget and a squad to fill. You take a portion of the budget per position and decide on a player by player basis and judge your most pressing needs at the time. Now that we need less players (arguably) and cover for the left might be nice this makes sense. Having spent less on two previous players in the same position has abso-****-nothing to do with potentially spending more on a player in the future for the same position. If the only gap we had to plug was a LB and given the same budget as before then it would make more sense to portion a higher percentage of it to filling that role. Had he spent more on a LB at the time and missed out on Benteke, for example, then things would be different, no? No, he could have kept Fonz at the club instead of purchasing Bowery or Helenius. He could have kept Albrighton at the club instead of purchasing Tonev and he could have gotten an LB on loan instead of wasting more money on Bennet and Luna who he has now replaced with a loan. Bowery cost peanuts and has given 100% and done ok whenever called upon. Helenius is much more of a prospect than Fonz who is championship standard at best. Both of these were bought as squad players and for the future - we will make money on them if they are sold He did keep Albrighton and loaning him to Wigan was the kick up the arse he needed and no he's back in the first team squad Bertrand is a clear step up in quality to both Bennett and Luna. Bennett started to play well at the end of last season but has been long term injured and is still injured. Luna has struggled defensively but also lacked cover in front of him, so bringing Bertrand in makes perfect sense. It is also possible that Bertrand could play in front of Luna giving him the cover that he has lacked so far Tonev was Petrov's recommendation and I assume Lambert took a punt on him. He has been poor so far and not showing any sign of coming good. You win some you lose some. Albrightons loan wasn't, in my opinion, a kick up the arse. He's been injured for almost all the time since Lambert arrived and it was an ideal way to get him up to speed and get some match fitness. He wasn't however available for selection so to use him as a reason why Lambert shouldn't have brought Tonev, as Morpheus has done, is strange to say the least. Yeah mate Tonev has been a regular in the first team along with Helenius and Bowery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phumfeinz Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 If we can get a proven PL level creative ACM in before 31 Jan I will be happy with this window . I don't think I want a Paul Lambert-level creative ACM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I noted this one only because it seemed egregious and based on previous posts from you, surprisingly so. Bored, fed up, pilled up and dating Johnnie Walker Blue. Empathize with the first three, envy the fourth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts