Why Paul Lambert should get the sack

[drat01]

But we will beat palace and everything will look so much better again lol

no it won't . Unless of course you are not prepared to accept the mistakes and under performance to date. As others have said it always seems to be others fault from players who in your own words were rubbish through to the medical staff through to the owners. Funny how none of the problems facing the club are in any way attributable to lambert and the entourage around him?

[darrenm]

But we will beat palace and everything will look so much better again lol

no it won't . Unless of course you are not prepared to accept the mistakes and under performance to date. As others have said it always seems to be others fault from players who in your own words were rubbish through to the medical staff through to the owners. Funny how none of the problems facing the club are in any way attributable to lambert and the entourage around him?

What problems? We've lost a few games? We're lower mid table? Hardly a crisis is it?

[drat01]

You are joking aren't you? If you are saying the abysmal performances of this season are to be ignored then ok no problems. If you are saying that even by the admission of the biggest blind faith villa (lambert ) fan the squad is suitable and able to take the club forward then ok no problems. If you are saying that the we can just ignore all of the stats and records from the past 18 months then ok no problems.

There are massive issues at the club and the only way things will get better is by accepting that and looking at causes and having the professionalism and good sense to correct them

[andym]

It's the wages that hit home!

if money is so tight and wages such a massive problem, why were players like westwood and lowton given new improved deals after just one half decent season? guzan was extended as well when he had only signed a contract the year before.

 

also bentekes new contract i assume will see him on a decent wage. gabby will be on a good contract, and lambert hasnt been told to get rid of him. so i assume more than peanuts can be paid if a player is deemed good enough.

[Isa]

Darrenm, I take it Faulkner who confirmed Lambert has spent £43m also made himself look stupid right?

And seriously? You'd back a manager who takes us down? Embarressing really...

[suttonpaul]

Drat01 I will say the team is easily good enough to stay in the league but not to take us forward, but then again I don't expect us to make any strides forward until 2015 when all the bomb squad are gone and we may have had 5 or 6 players at 5m plus brought by the end of the 2015 summer window.

[drat01]

Drat01 I will say the team is easily good enough to stay in the league but not to take us forward, but then again I don't expect us to make any strides forward until 2015 when all the bomb squad are gone and we may have had 5 or 6 players at 5m plus brought by the end of the 2015 summer window.

paul I hope your optimism is rewarded.

[darrenm]

Darrenm, I take it Faulkner who confirmed Lambert has spent £43m also made himself look stupid right?

And seriously? You'd back a manager who takes us down? Embarressing really...

No, Faulkner hasn't confirmed that the transfers in this summer were any more than Lambert has stated. It's a lot more complicated than that.

And yes I would, I don't think he will, but I can see the bigger picture. It's OK if you can't.

[darrenm]

You are joking aren't you? If you are saying the abysmal performances of this season are to be ignored then ok no problems. If you are saying that even by the admission of the biggest blind faith villa (lambert ) fan the squad is suitable and able to take the club forward then ok no problems. If you are saying that the we can just ignore all of the stats and records from the past 18 months then ok no problems.

There are massive issues at the club and the only way things will get better is by accepting that and looking at causes and having the professionalism and good sense to correct them

No offence, but I find your views so unnaturally negative that I don't think you're sincere, therefore it's not really worth me replying.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

 

 

It just tells you how desperate we are when we have to rely on the form of one player that's just turned 23 to keep us going

 

I don't know if he's really injured or the insane pressure he's been put under to be Mr Aston Villa has finally seen him off

 

If others chipped in half as much as he was then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. We're supposed to be a team not a one man operation after all

Benteke has contributed very little to our league standing so far.

 

 

 

As i just said ...

 

Should we be expecting a just turned 23 year old to carry the whole team again like last season ?

 

Or should we have lessened his work load by bringing in some better quality to help him ?

 

 

What relevance is his age? The bigger question should be should we have built the side around him in the first place? My answer to that would be an emphatic yes, he's clearly talented enough to have that bestowed upon him, but now he's gone walkabouts we're up shit creek without a paddle. It's hardly a surprise, but frankly we've had long enough to try and adjust and I think a better manager would have found a way yet we haven't, no plan B. We're a shambles.

 

Players that looked very much like players last season (Westwood, Lowton, Weimann and of course the aforementioned Benteke in particular) have fallen off the map. I don't buy that they're not good enough, we've seen that they are. I'm very worried about what is or isn't going on at the training ground. It doesn't help them at all that nobody seems to understand the system particularly in midfield. They seem rudderless to me. 

 

Yes we should have signed more quality but the money clearly wasn't and isn't there to do so. The board are as culpable as anyone else in this mess, they scorched the earth when we what we needed a controlled burn. But the manager? Not good enough right now and he's had a season and a half with the majority of these players to get them playing as a cohesive unit.

 

I like the guy, but if I was the chairman he'd get his marching orders. Is that the answer for us though? Probably not. Lord knows who we'd get to come here. 

[Isa]

Darrenm, I take it Faulkner who confirmed Lambert has spent £43m also made himself look stupid right?

And seriously? You'd back a manager who takes us down? Embarressing really...

No, Faulkner hasn't confirmed that the transfers in this summer were any more than Lambert has stated. It's a lot more complicated than that.

And yes I would, I don't think he will, but I can see the bigger picture. It's OK if you can't.

Explain how then Mr know-it-all...

[suttonpaul]

That's just what I think the plan is Drat. I think he will continue to get 20m a season but it wont be spread out so much as we have a fairly full squad and common sense says if the wage bill is ok with the 100's of thousands a week coming off the wage bill from the bomb squad getting pushed out then that can go on rises for existing players and new signings.

 

I also think it should be noted that nearly everyone we have brought will be worth the same or more if sold and that isn't something we have been used to as Villa fan in the last decade.

[darrenm]

Darrenm, I take it Faulkner who confirmed Lambert has spent £43m also made himself look stupid right?

And seriously? You'd back a manager who takes us down? Embarressing really...

No, Faulkner hasn't confirmed that the transfers in this summer were any more than Lambert has stated. It's a lot more complicated than that.

And yes I would, I don't think he will, but I can see the bigger picture. It's OK if you can't.

Explain how then Mr know-it-all...

I don't know it all. I certainly know that it isn't as simple as £43m must be all on headline transfer figures. There are loads of other factors such as differences in terminology, different time references, extraneous fees, swamp tax, etc. which would be in the bottom line but would be of no consequence to Lambert as a manager's headline transfer fee.

An example outside of football. You buy a house for £200,000. The house has cost you £200,000 and that's what you tell everyone and is the accepted figure. Is that the money you've actually paid out? Of course not, you've also had to pay solicitor's fees, stamp duty, mortgage arrangement fees, surveyor fees, everything. You've bought a house for £200,000, but £230,000 has left your pocket. Your bank manager (Faulkner) confirms that you're £230,000 less well off, but you still only paid £200,000 for your new house.

As I say, I'm not in finance, but that all seems fairly obvious to me.

[TRO]

But we will beat palace and everything will look so much better again lol

 

To some fans yes....some others look a bit deeper.

[jacketspuds]

But we will beat palace and everything will look so much better again lol

 

To some fans yes....some others look a bit deeper.

I don't. I react with equal delight or rage depending on whether we win or lose. No deep thinking for me.

[snowychap]

I don't know if account figures include wages for total period of their deals but transfer fees are nowhere near as high as reported.

 

What is that even supposed to mean?

 

The accounts for the period will show their wages for the period (and the depreciation for their contract for the relevant period), surely?

[Isa]

I don't know it all. I certainly know that it isn't as simple as £43m must be all on headline transfer figures. There are loads of other factors such as differences in terminology, different time references, extraneous fees, swamp tax, etc. which would be in the bottom line but would be of no consequence to Lambert as a manager's headline transfer fee.

An example outside of football. You buy a house for £200,000. The house has cost you £200,000 and that's what you tell everyone and is the accepted figure. Is that the money you've actually paid out? Of course not, you've also had to pay solicitor's fees, stamp duty, mortgage arrangement fees, surveyor fees, everything. You've bought a house for £200,000, but £230,000 has left your pocket. Your bank manager (Faulkner) confirms that you're £230,000 less well off, but you still only paid £200,000 for your new house.

As I say, I'm not in finance, but that all seems fairly obvious to me.

That is just guesswork though. Here's what we do know:

A) Faulkner referred to the £43m specifically for transfer fees. This has been confirmed even by people like Howard Hodgson who talk to Faulkner on a regular basis. Howard also claimed that that Faulkner rubbished Lambert's claim that we can't compete with Smethwick also.

B ) Last year's accounts show a transfer spend of £21.7m in spend. Risso (an actual accountant) confirmed this figure doesn't include agent's fees, wages etc. Yet you claim that anybody who reads the accounts this way is 'making themselves look stupid'.

C) Hairyhands completely avoided the 'Last set of accounts' thread and has never given an answer as to why Lambert's figures contradict Faulkner and the accounts.

Edit - I see HH has attempted to respond to it above.

D) I won't class this as an official point but a well known Villa fan and blogger on Twitter, @doc3d, who has contacts with Sheffield United claimed he knows for a fact that Lowton didn't cost less then £1m as Lambert claimed. He is pro-Lambert too, so there is no reason why he would lie about it.

On a side-note, I apologise for the 'know-it-all' remark. It was uncalled for.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Isa

[TRO]

Its like Big John has already mooted.

 

until we get comments from the club as to where we are in terms of the progress of our austerity programme, it is difficult to make an informed opinion.

 

not even sure they have any intention of doing such a thing, that the problem.

[TRO]

for what its worth I think we have a footballing problem, before an accounting problem.

[snowychap]

B ) Last year's accounts show a transfer spend of £21.7m in spend. Risso (an actual accountant) confirmed this figure doesn't include agent's fees, wages etc.

I think he only told people that wages/bonuses and so on were not included. Things specifically associated with the transfer (agent's fees; legal fees, signing on fees and so on) may well be capitalized and thus would likely be included in that figure.

Pez1974's post seems quite clear on the matter.