alreadyexists Posted September 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 6, 2014 Maybe because knowing something was going on isn't the same as proving it? Thats the thing, we don't really have enough facts to know one way or the other. Which is why it's ridiculous when people say that Lambert 'could/should have done something earlier' when we don't know what happened exactly, how long it was going on for or how long Lambert knew there was a problem before he acted. The early signs with Keane are positive. Maybe Lambert & Keane can be our Clough & Taylor ........ that would be something This I can't buy. Whether we know the facts or not, he is the manager. It is his job to know - and to act accordingly. If our performance towards the latter part of last season was down to those 2 clowns, then Lambert did not just show poor management by not removing them earlier.... ... he risked the premier league status of the club, which borders on incompetence. Trent has said, literally about 6 posts before this one, that he did know, but couldn't do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Maybe because knowing something was going on isn't the same as proving it? Thats the thing, we don't really have enough facts to know one way or the other. Which is why it's ridiculous when people say that Lambert 'could/should have done something earlier' when we don't know what happened exactly, how long it was going on for or how long Lambert knew there was a problem before he acted. The early signs with Keane are positive. Maybe Lambert & Keane can be our Clough & Taylor ........ that would be something This I can't buy. Whether we know the facts or not, he is the manager. It is his job to know - and to act accordingly. If our performance towards the latter part of last season was down to those 2 clowns, then Lambert did not just show poor management by not removing them earlier.... ... he risked the premier league status of the club, which borders on incompetence. Trent has said, literally about 6 posts before this one, that he did know, but couldn't do anything about it. What does that mean though? He's the manager, why couldn't he do something about it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 6, 2014 Trent has said, literally about 6 posts before this one, that he did know, but couldn't do anything about it. I had already read that. Let me reiterate for you: I don't buy it. This is his staff. They answer to him and he can hire or fire as he pleases. Now not being willing to take action - that I can believe. But not being able? That's a big stretch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAL Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Trent has said, literally about 6 posts before this one, that he did know, but couldn't do anything about it. I had already read that. Let me reiterate for you: I don't buy it. This is his staff. They answer to him and he can hire or fire as he pleases. Now not being willing to take action - that I can believe. But not being able? That's a big stretch. They were employed by AVFC not him maybe lerner was worried about having to pay more people off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyexists Posted September 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) Trent has said, literally about 6 posts before this one, that he did know, but couldn't do anything about it. I had already read that. Let me reiterate for you: I don't buy it. This is his staff. They answer to him and he can hire or fire as he pleases. Now not being willing to take action - that I can believe. But not being able? That's a big stretch. Fair enough, it's not my place to convince you of anything. I personally can believe it though, employment law is applicable to football clubs as well as it is to anywhere else and without proof it would be very difficult to fire someone without some messy legal proceedings. I don't think they we're Lambert's staff really either, they're employees of Aston Villa, so he can't hire and fire anyone without buy-in from the company, who also have to be willing and able. I'm in the same position as most of us fans though, I've only a vague idea what has happened based on some vague stuff in the press and limited releases from the club. Perhaps we'll never know. I do feel as though there's more than meets the eye with this one. Edited September 6, 2014 by alreadyexists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) I know you did, TV, but they were still his choice, and he cannot be absolved of the responsibility for that.. No absolve him from blame for their appointment is very different to blaming him for not seeing the problem earlier which is what you were previously saying. Yes Lambert appointed them based upon their performance for him previously, that their performance/attitude changed can't really be leveled as a criticism of him in my view as quite clearly he would have appointed them had it been a problem before. Whilst I believe this to an extent (because I believe you) what I can't understand is *why* he wasn't allowed to do anything about it? I mean, just how big were their contracts? Either way, would he/we not have been better off putting them on gardening leave and using Given et al as he did towards the end of last season? Something doesn't add up. Maybe because knowing something was going on isn't the same as proving it? Thats the thing, we don't really have enough facts to know one way or the other. Possibly, why can't he say now though? There was a lot of blame being put his way last season, if it was down to these guys, why not say they were disruptive once they'd gone? Edited September 6, 2014 by Tomaszk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I know you did, TV, but they were still his choice, and he cannot be absolved of the responsibility for that.. No absolve him from blame for their appointment is very different to blaming him for not seeing the problem earlier which is what you were previously saying. Yes Lambert appointed them based upon their performance for him previously, that their performance/attitude changed can't really be leveled as a criticism of him in my view as quite clearly he would have appointed them had it been a problem before. Whilst I believe this to an extent (because I believe you) what I can't understand is *why* he wasn't allowed to do anything about it? I mean, just how big were their contracts? Either way, would he/we not have been better off putting them on gardening leave and using Given et al as he did towards the end of last season? Something doesn't add up. Maybe because knowing something was going on isn't the same as proving it? Thats the thing, we don't really have enough facts to know one way or the other. Possibly, why can't he say now though? There was a lot of blame being put his way last season, if it was down to these guys, why not say they were disruptive once they'd gone? Maybe because there's nothing to be gained by bringing it all back up again. Everyone has moved on and ad it wouldn't look good for Lambert to be blaming other people publically, regardless to how responsible they were, for the difficulties of the last two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Lambert isn't in a position to sack staff, just as he isn't in a position to sign players. He's the manager of the team, he doesn't run the club or it's operations. Surely that isn't hard to work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Lambert isn't in a position to sack staff, just as he isn't in a position to sign players. He's the manager of the team, he doesn't run the club or it's operations. Surely that isn't hard to work out? Please help me grasp it all, it's too much. He got them removed, but if he felt they were not carrying out his instructions consistently, they should have been suspended earlier. We nearly got relegated for the third season in a row, we shouldn't be hanging around if there is something as plainly wrong as coaches not doing what the manager wants. I remember a press conference where he was saying things like "You don't know what's going on behind the scenes...." to journalists. Why say things like that if you don't want to make it public? A statement should have been released by the club at the end of last season explaining what happened, because a lot of negativity was heading Lambert's way for our style of play, I'd have thought he wanted to clear it up. I wasn't expecting a libelous "These two are terrible coaches" affair, but it was swept under the carpet almost as much as the Curtis Davies transfer. ---- I love how boring Keane finds the media. That video of him walking out of a hotel is fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Lambert isn't in a position to sack staff, just as he isn't in a position to sign players. He's the manager of the team, he doesn't run the club or it's operations. Surely that isn't hard to work out? Please help me grasp it all, it's too much. He got them removed, but if he felt they were not carrying out his instructions consistently, they should have been suspended earlier. We nearly got relegated for the third season in a row, we shouldn't be hanging around if there is something as plainly wrong as coaches not doing what the manager wants. I remember a press conference where he was saying things like "You don't know what's going on behind the scenes...." to journalists. Why say things like that if you don't want to make it public? A statement should have been released by the club at the end of last season explaining what happened, because a lot of negativity was heading Lambert's way for our style of play, I'd have thought he wanted to clear it up. I wasn't expecting a libelous "These two are terrible coaches" affair, but it was swept under the carpet almost as much as the Curtis Davies transfer. ---- I love how boring Keane finds the media. That video of him walking out of a hotel is fantastic. I'm with you here. Though I don't really care all that much for them being defensive, all I really want to know is why it took so long. I can believe he was not in charge of hiring and firing his own coaches, but wouldn't he have been better off having them stay at home and coaching the players himself with help from Cowans/Given/whoever than what actually transpired? Surely those above him were not allowed quite that much influence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Being as it is Randy Lerner who would have had to suspend/sack them, I'd assume it is do with money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 6, 2014 Massively off-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Being as it is Randy Lerner who would have had to suspend/sack them, I'd assume it is do with money. For the sake of the team they'd have been better staying at home collecting full pay surely? The manager should have taken more responsibility for training much sooner? Three are too many gaps in this for me to take it completely on faith that there was nothing he could do about it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnStortford Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Lambert isn't in a position to sack staff, just as he isn't in a position to sign players. He's the manager of the team, he doesn't run the club or it's operations. Surely that isn't hard to work out? He does not write the cheque, but he is responsible for hiring and firing - unless you are telling us that Lerner thought these two guys would be great and hired them, and Lambert was surprised to see them turn up one Monday morning for work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Lambert isn't in a position to sack staff, just as he isn't in a position to sign players. He's the manager of the team, he doesn't run the club or it's operations. Surely that isn't hard to work out? He does not write the cheque, but he is responsible for hiring and firing - unless you are telling us that Lerner thought these two guys would be great and hired them, and Lambert was surprised to see them turn up one Monday morning for work. The man who writes the cheque is the man that makes the decisions. If you remember, when Lambert joined they didn't both join with him straight away. He clearly asked the club to bring them in, but the club had to make it happen, not him. Just like how he would have asked the club to bring Keane in, although it is what he wanted, it isn't his decision or position to simply 'hire him'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 I know you did, TV, but they were still his choice, and he cannot be absolved of the responsibility for that.. No absolve him from blame for their appointment is very different to blaming him for not seeing the problem earlier which is what you were previously saying. Yes Lambert appointed them based upon their performance for him previously, that their performance/attitude changed can't really be leveled as a criticism of him in my view as quite clearly he would have appointed them had it been a problem before. I think you are agreeing that Lambert has to take the blame for hiring them, and therefore responsibility for their subsequent shortcomings. But I still think he failed to see the problems earlier, as I cannot believe he would have been prevented from dealing with that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Lambert isn't in a position to sack staff, just as he isn't in a position to sign players. He's the manager of the team, he doesn't run the club or it's operations. Surely that isn't hard to work out? He does not write the cheque, but he is responsible for hiring and firing - unless you are telling us that Lerner thought these two guys would be great and hired them, and Lambert was surprised to see them turn up one Monday morning for work. The man who writes the cheque is the man that makes the decisions. If you remember, when Lambert joined they didn't both join with him straight away. He clearly asked the club to bring them in, but the club had to make it happen, not him. Just like how he would have asked the club to bring Keane in, although it is what he wanted, it isn't his decision or position to simply 'hire him'. So he is responsible for hiring them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 The man who writes the cheque is the man that makes the decisions. If you remember, when Lambert joined they didn't both join with him straight away. He clearly asked the club to bring them in, but the club had to make it happen, not him. Just like how he would have asked the club to bring Keane in, although it is what he wanted, it isn't his decision or position to simply 'hire him'. So he is responsible for hiring them. He's responsible for identifying the areas hires are needed in, and for suggesting potential hires. He is NOT responsible for the hiring of them 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) I know you did, TV, but they were still his choice, and he cannot be absolved of the responsibility for that.. No absolve him from blame for their appointment is very different to blaming him for not seeing the problem earlier which is what you were previously saying. Yes Lambert appointed them based upon their performance for him previously, that their performance/attitude changed can't really be leveled as a criticism of him in my view as quite clearly he would have appointed them had it been a problem before. I think you are agreeing that Lambert has to take the blame for hiring them, and therefore responsibility for their subsequent shortcomings. But I still think he failed to see the problems earlier, as I cannot believe he would have been prevented from dealing with that situation. I'm not saying he doesn't "take blame" for hiring them, they were his candidates for the positions obviously, although I'm sure he wouldn't of had them hired if he knew what would happen. Of course, he isn't psychic, shockingly enough. I have no idea when he would have realised or saw the problems occurring, but to suggest he could and should have simply "told them to go home" or "sacked them" is a bit silly, because he really isn't in such a position of power to do so. Edited September 7, 2014 by samjp26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts