Paul Lambert

[StanBalaban]

Spend in isolation means nothing without using the starting position as a barometer.  Man City could spend nothing in the summer and still have a fantastic squad.

 

We had an overhaul of our team and spent less than many of the teams around us - thus sacrificing quality in many cases for quantity.

 

We are where we would be under most managers that would've been willing to join the Villa at the time. 

[Mantis]

 

Westwood, Kozak and even Lowton and Sylla weren't bad purchases and Helenius hasn't really had a chance, which is a completely different criticism of Lambert.

Yes and who's fault it is that Helenius hasn't had a chance? When you are on a budget, don't waste money on a player you have n9 intention of playing. Simples!

 

 

Lambert's (which I pointed out in the post you quoted) but as I just said that's a different criticism entirely. We're talking about his transfer record here.

 

[shaggy]

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.

If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.

Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

[PieFacE]

So buying poor players for cheap money is classed as performing well in the transfer market?

It's neither poor or good. It's just how it is. 

 

Signing Habib Beye and putting him on 40k a week is performing badly in the transfer market, what Lambert has done isn't bad, it's not great, but it's where we are as a club. 

[Mantis]

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.

If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.

Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

 

80% was spent unwisely? How on Earth did you come to that figure?

[StanBalaban]

 

Westwood, Kozak and even Lowton and Sylla weren't bad purchases and Helenius hasn't really had a chance, which is a completely different criticism of Lambert.

Yes and who's fault it is that Helenius hasn't had a chance? When you are on a budget, don't waste money on a player you have no intention of playing. Simples!

 

And what would the £500k on Helenius be put towards that would make so much difference?

 

Helenius was never purchased to play a big role this season.  We have had nothing but short-term vision for too many season's now, so you can't beat the manager for trying to spot achievable future potential.

 

If Helenius was bought by another club and came to the fore next season, we'd all be asking why we never picked him up for small change.  

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

So buying poor players for cheap money is classed as performing well in the transfer market?

 

No, it's the few gems he has found when having to build a Premier League squad with such low figure signings, i.e. Westwood £2m, Bacuna £800k, Vlaar £3m, Benteke £7m, Okore (probably) £4m.

 

Also, some fans think that many of his "duds" can still come good, such as Helenius, Lowton and I'd even include Bennett.

 

Also, KEA has really improved this year and is starting to look fairly value for money.

[Risso]

 

He's had £40m to spend.  Whether you think that's enough is a matter of opinion.  What isn't in doubt though, is that of that, the amounts spent on Bowery (£500K) Lowton (£3m), Sylla (£2m), Tonev (£2.5m), Bennett (£2.75m), Helenius (£1.2m) and Luna (£2m) has been largely wasted, as Lambert himself doesn't think they're good enough this season and they've all contributed next to nothing this season.

 

That's over a quarter of his funds pissed up the wall.  Why spend nearly £6m on two players in Bennett and Luna who were no better than a player like Lichaj who we let go for nothing?  Even with the much trumpeted "rebuilding the squad from scratch", it's hard not to think that 2 or 3 decent players, rather than all that dross would have been a much better idea.  No point in buying cheap tat if they're not going to play.  Add in the £7m on Kozak (who I'm not arguing is a bad player), and that's £20m that could and should have been spent much more wisely.

I don't think that's any kind of an argument, if I'm honest. I mean even if I were to accept your comments on those players as the only valid view of them (I don't) I don't see that someone shopping in the bargain basement and "wasting" over a quarter of their money is anything to complain about. It suggests a thhree quarters, or thereabouts, hit rate.

Lihaj was a right back, no left back.

Kozak looked like a galoot to me, and IMO was a waste of money, but injury means we can't really know either way, yet.

So basically, while I don't think his transfer record is something outstanding, I don't think it's a fair stick to beat him with. He's done OK, perhaps a bit better than that. I suspect a few of the players will go on to get a lot better, too, in time.

 

 

I don't accept your counter argument either, so ner.  Saying that those quarter are terrible does NOT mean that he's got a 3/4 success rate at all.  It just means that others aren't out and out terrible, and the likes of Bacuna and KEA have hardly set the world alight either.  The only out and out success has been Benteke.  Lihaj was a right back and no left back as you say, but when he did play at left back he was no worse than Bennett or Luna, who don't appear to be left backs either.

[StanBalaban]

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.

If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.

Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

 

Don't take it to the higher level of Liverpool and Citeh, talk at our level. Which managers have deployed a similar budget in a vastly superior fashion?

[Isa]

Lambert's (which I pointed out in the post you quoted) but as I just said that's a different criticism entirely. We're talking about his transfer record here.

Ok, you are just being obtuse. Considering that we are on a budget, he shouldn't waste any of it on somebody that he doesn't consider good enough to play yet. His transfer record is judged on how well he used his funds.

And what would the £500k on Helenius be put towards that would make so much difference?

No offense but are you just making figures up off the top of your head? Helenius' former club declared the actual figure (£1.2) for tax reasons.

[Big_John_10]

So buying poor players for cheap money is classed as performing well in the transfer market?

It's neither poor or good. It's just how it is.

Signing Habib Beye and putting him on 40k a week is performing badly in the transfer market, what Lambert has done isn't bad, it's not great, but it's where we are as a club.

Don't really disagree, I just don't think its worth any praise.

[StanBalaban]

 

Lambert's (which I pointed out in the post you quoted) but as I just said that's a different criticism entirely. We're talking about his transfer record here.

Ok, you are just being obtuse. Considering that we are on a budget, he shouldn't waste any of it on somebody that he doesn't consider good enough to play yet. His transfer record is judged on how well he used his funds.

And what would the £500k on Helenius be put towards that would make so much difference?

No offense but are you just making figures up off the top of your head? Helenius' former club declared the actual figure (£1.2) for tax reasons.

 

 

Ok I concede to you on the figures, but what about the rest of my post? How does £1.2m negate that argument in any way?

[Mantis]

 

Lambert's (which I pointed out in the post you quoted) but as I just said that's a different criticism entirely. We're talking about his transfer record here.

Ok, you are just being obtuse. Considering that we are on a budget, he shouldn't waste any of it on somebody that he doesn't consider good enough to play yet. His transfer record is judged on how well he used his funds.

 

How am I? Lambert not giving certain players a chance is a completely different issue - they're not the same at all. I doubt Lambert bought Helenius with the intention of not giving him a chance.

[sharkyvilla]

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.

If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.

Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

 

Don't take it to the higher level of Liverpool and Citeh, talk at our level. Which managers have deployed a similar budget in a vastly superior fashion?

Martinez got Wigan relegated on a similar budget to what Lambert has worked with...

[shaggy]

Mantis.

His record in the transfer market has been appalling. Benteke and Vlaar have been great and Bertrand has been good but other than that that's it.

His signings have been the main contributing factor to those battles against relegation because they haven't produced enough consistent performances to keep us out of trouble.

No they haven't been appalling, that's your interpretation.  Lowton was nearly POTS last year, Sylla came in a did a good job etc etc

 

For the 1st 10 games, everyone thought Luna was wonderful.

 

Bennett against Chelsea was arugably MOTM - when he came he weighed about 4 stone, now he's bulked up and looks much better imo.

 

KEA has done much better this year, than last year. For many of these players it's still too early to judge them.  A lot of them have either came up a league or two or have come from a completely different country and have been thrown into this situation. 

 

The cost of any individual player is arbitury, it's their wages which accounts for more in our situation.. Not many existing professional footballers in the premier league would come to Villa on 10k a week, when most of them ar comfy on their bums for 20k.

 

The quality of player we've bought is largely down to wages, not one of fee's.

Of course it's my interpretation but one based on performances and results.

How many of the players you mention are still first team regulars?

[StanBalaban]

Spending £1m or £2m or even £5m on a transfer has not been PL's issue as all these players have come in on between £10 - 20k per week.

 

It's spending the £8m + AND the £50k per week for real quality that's not been available to us.  Funding a Helenius for the future has not eaten into that pot, as that size of pot doesn't exist.

 

Sure, one could argue that add Bowery, Tonev, Helenius, Sylla together and you have enough for one quality player, but then we'd be short on squad numbers.  My opinion, based on nothing more than guesswork I might add, is that Lerner is perhaps unwilling to sanction a lot of money on a single player, as he's seen what happens when the eggs are placed in one basket before.

 

He trusts his manager, but his fingers are still burnt.  This is why he needs to step down for a new owner.

[PieFacE]

 

 

So buying poor players for cheap money is classed as performing well in the transfer market?

It's neither poor or good. It's just how it is.

Signing Habib Beye and putting him on 40k a week is performing badly in the transfer market, what Lambert has done isn't bad, it's not great, but it's where we are as a club.

Don't really disagree, I just don't think its worth any praise.

 

Quite! I agree. But I don't think it's worth criticising him over either (not saying you are, just in general)

[Daniel]

 

 

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.

If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.

Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

 

Don't take it to the higher level of Liverpool and Citeh, talk at our level. Which managers have deployed a similar budget in a vastly superior fashion?

Martinez got Wigan relegated on a similar budget to what Lambert has worked with...

 

 

Still won them the FA cup.

[shaggy]

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.

If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.

Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

 

Don't take it to the higher level of Liverpool and Citeh, talk at our level. Which managers have deployed a similar budget in a vastly superior fashion?

The principle is exactly the same and it is relative. Poor use of budget equates to under performance.

In direct reply to your question when lambert arrived at out club and was given his first transfer budget did you expect two relegation battles.

[lapal_fan]

Did you know, Jordan Rhodes cost more than any single player signed by Paul Lambert, and that he's currently playing in the Championship on £2.6m a year?

 

We can't even compete wages wise with flippin' Blackburn..

 

I think we're doing alright y'know.

 

As Asda (can't remember his name) said, "I rest my case".. whatever the case I'm trying to make is..

 

 

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.
If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.
Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

 
Don't take it to the higher level of Liverpool and Citeh, talk at our level. Which managers have deployed a similar budget in a vastly superior fashion?

The principle is exactly the same and it is relative. Poor use of budget equates to under performance.

In direct reply to your question when lambert arrived at out club and was given his first transfer budget did you expect two relegation battles.

 

Who would you have signed with £20m?

 

Serious question.