Paul Lambert

[Risso]

We should have appointed Mark Hughes after MON, we would be pretty stable IMO.

 

We'd certainly be better off than we are now.  The weird thing in all that is that apparently Lerner was not impressed with Hughes exercising the mutually agreed provision in his contract, but then appointed Alex McLiesh who resigned by email.  Just one of the many bizarre decisions made by Mr Lerner.

[Stevo985]

The appointment of McLeish remains the most inexplicable and bizarre decision made by Aston Villa in my time as a fan.

 

Truly baffling.

[markavfc40]

The minus 20 million net spent by McLeish doesn't sit right with me as a way of disparaging Lambert. At the time we had assets still left over from the heavy spending days of MON and that is why we had a net spend that year as they wanted out and we cashed in. McLeish actually bought very poorly with the money he did have in my opinion.

 

 

The point regarding McLeish’s net spend is that we sold the two best players he inherited in Downing and Ash Young, sold a decent fullback in Luke Young, and lost an at the time effective centre mid in Reo Coker and a very good goalkeeper in Brad Friedel for f all as they were out of contract. To replace those players he was given less than half what we had received. I am not saying he spent that money wisely but any manager would have been hard pushed to replace our two best players and the others mentioned above with 17 million. As it was he got NZogbia for 10 mill which many fans thought at the time was half decent business and got Hutton to replace Luke Young and Given to replace Freidel.

 

McLeish also, like Lambert initially, had to slash the wage bill and he certainly did as I would be confident in saying, Freidel, Heskey, Reo Coker, Downing, Ash Young, Luke Young who all left in the summer of 2011 were on way more money combined than the 3 players McLeish purchased.

 

I am not in any way saying McLeish did a good job but his hands were as much tied in terms of finances as Lamberts. He too much like Lambert had injuries to key players to contend with. However unlike Lambert him just avoiding relegation in 2011/12 was seen as underachieving and he was sacked after just one season. Lambert however has been given the grace, rightly in my opinion, of two and half years where he has over seen two narrow relegation escapes and this season we again find ourselves on a diabolical run of form heading once again into deep mire. For me it is now time to say enough is enough.

Edited November 12, 2014 by markavfc40

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

 

Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either.

Yes but we haven't really advanced on McLeish with his successor so in hindsight, we may as well just have retained the former.

Yeah that was my point. If people blame the owner(which is fair enough) then we might as well have stuck with McLeish, if the same level of performance is fine now.

It isn't the same level of performance though is it.

How is it much different? We lose more, we barely score more and we let in more goals. We average the same amount of points per game and possession and long ball stats are one of the highest in the league.

 

 

I didn't say much did I. It's not possible to compare performances accurately enough for it to be worth discussing. That was my point.

Edited November 12, 2014 by sexbelowsound

[Ulver]

The appointment of McLeish remains the most inexplicable and bizarre decision made by Aston Villa in my time as a fan.

 

Truly baffling.

 

I used to feel that way until I remembered Lambert was still our manager

[Isa]

The appointment of McLeish remains the most inexplicable and bizarre decision made by Aston Villa in my time as a fan.

 

Truly baffling.

Dunno, Lambert's new four-year contract runs it very close.

[sexbelowsound]

 

The minus 20 million net spent by McLeish doesn't sit right with me as a way of disparaging Lambert. At the time we had assets still left over from the heavy spending days of MON and that is why we had a net spend that year as they wanted out and we cashed in. McLeish actually bought very poorly with the money he did have in my opinion.

 

 

The point regarding McLeish’s net spend is that we sold the two best players he inherited in Downing and Ash Young, sold a decent fullback in Luke Young, and lost an at the time effective centre mid in Reo Coker and a very good goalkeeper in Brad Friedel for f all as they were out of contract. To replace those players he was given less than half what we had received. I am not saying he spent that money wisely but any manager would have been hard pushed to replace our two best players and the others mentioned above with 17 million. As it was he got NZogbia for 10 mill which many fans thought at the time was half decent business and got Hutton to replace Luke Young and Given to replace Freidel.

 

McLeish also, like Lambert initially, had to slash the wage bill and he certainly did as I would be confident in saying, Freidel, Heskey, Reo Coker, Downing, Ash Young, Luke Young who all left in the summer of 2011 were on way more money combined than the 3 players McLeish purchased.

 

I am not in any way saying McLeish did a good job but his hands were as much tied in terms of finances as Lamberts. He too much like Lambert had injuries to key players to contend with. However unlike Lambert him just avoiding relegation in 2011/12 was seen as underachieving and he was sacked after just one season. Lambert however has been given the grace, rightly in my opinion, of two and half years where he has over seen two narrow relegation escapes and this season we again find ourselves on a diabolical run of form heading once again into deep mire. For me it is now time to say enough is enough.

 

 

Good post Mark, I agree with most of it. My point was purely aimed at the net spend argument not being relevant though which I think we agree on?

[Stevo985]

 

The appointment of McLeish remains the most inexplicable and bizarre decision made by Aston Villa in my time as a fan.

 

Truly baffling.

Dunno, Lambert's new four-year contract runs it very close.

 

I knew somebody would say that

 

I completely disagree, fwiw, despite thinking that too was quite a bizarre decision.

[markavfc40]

 

 

Good post Mark, I agree with most of it. My point was purely aimed at the net spend argument not being relevant though which I think we agree on?

 

 

 Yes we do and in hindsight it was pretty irrelevant other than to perhaps highlight the point that McLeish was in terms of finances just as purely backed as Lambert when you look at the quality of players we lost and what he was given to spend to replace them with.

 

I think overall my point is this. McLeish and Lamberts records in terms of points gained and league positon are pretty much identical. They both received relatively poor backing from Lerner, they both had to contend with injuries to key players. One however was sacked after a year, the other has been given two and a half years even though we have made in terms of results and performances zero improvement. I know expectations have had to be lowered but surely not to the levels where what was unacceptable under McLeish is now considered acceptable.

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

Good post Mark, I agree with most of it. My point was purely aimed at the net spend argument not being relevant though which I think we agree on?

 

 

 Yes we do and in hindsight it was pretty irrelevant other than to perhaps highlight the point that McLeish was in terms of finances just as purely backed as Lambert when you look at the quality of players we lost and what he was given to spend to replace them with.

 

I think overall my point is this. McLeish and Lamberts records in terms of points gained and league positon are pretty much identical. They both received relatively poor backing from Lerner, they both had to contend with injuries to key players. One however was sacked after a year, the other has been given two and a half years even though we have made in terms of results and performances zero improvement. I know expectations have had to be lowered but surely not to the levels where what was unacceptable under McLeish is now considered acceptable.

 

 

I can understand why to some it would seem hypocritical but McLeish was just the wrong appointment for this club in so many ways.

 

Separate to the debate of whether or not Lambert should stay or go I do think that if Lambert had been properly backed in his first and second seasons we would be doing much better than we are which I don't think would have been the case with McLeish.

[KHV]

 

 

 

 

Good post Mark, I agree with most of it. My point was purely aimed at the net spend argument not being relevant though which I think we agree on?

 

 

 Yes we do and in hindsight it was pretty irrelevant other than to perhaps highlight the point that McLeish was in terms of finances just as purely backed as Lambert when you look at the quality of players we lost and what he was given to spend to replace them with.

 

I think overall my point is this. McLeish and Lamberts records in terms of points gained and league positon are pretty much identical. They both received relatively poor backing from Lerner, they both had to contend with injuries to key players. One however was sacked after a year, the other has been given two and a half years even though we have made in terms of results and performances zero improvement. I know expectations have had to be lowered but surely not to the levels where what was unacceptable under McLeish is now considered acceptable.

 

 

I can understand why to some it would seem hypocritical but McLeish was just the wrong appointment for this club in so many ways.

 

Separate to the debate of whether or not Lambert should stay or go I do think that if Lambert had been properly backed in his first and second seasons we would be doing much better than we are which I don't think would have been the case with McLeish.

 

I have to disagree with that. I think Lambert is very much a one trick pony, I dont think Lambert even with good financial backing would be that fantastic, I think he is very limited as a manger. His tactics are dreadful and work now and again, he has no ability to change a game during its course and he always looks totally puzzled on the touchline. Two and a half yars is long enough to at least make some sort of improvement but it just hasnt happened. We had one decent run at the back end of his first season and since then it has been largely dreadful stuff week in week out. It needs changing now because the club is stuck in a rut, it needs freshening up and Lambert is all that remains from the Lambert/Culverhouse/Karsa debacle and I have no idea how the hell Lambert managed to let that get so far ou of control being as he is the manager. We need to get someone in who can organise a team because this team doesnt half get itself in a mess at times. We are never going to be a passing team but some simple passing and movement wouldnt go a miss, Villa are the only team in the premier league I watch and wonder what on Earth they are doing at times. We play the worst football in the league, 30-35% possession on average is criminal  I can barely watch our games anymore

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

 

 

Good post Mark, I agree with most of it. My point was purely aimed at the net spend argument not being relevant though which I think we agree on?

 

 

 Yes we do and in hindsight it was pretty irrelevant other than to perhaps highlight the point that McLeish was in terms of finances just as purely backed as Lambert when you look at the quality of players we lost and what he was given to spend to replace them with.

 

I think overall my point is this. McLeish and Lamberts records in terms of points gained and league positon are pretty much identical. They both received relatively poor backing from Lerner, they both had to contend with injuries to key players. One however was sacked after a year, the other has been given two and a half years even though we have made in terms of results and performances zero improvement. I know expectations have had to be lowered but surely not to the levels where what was unacceptable under McLeish is now considered acceptable.

 

 

I can understand why to some it would seem hypocritical but McLeish was just the wrong appointment for this club in so many ways.

 

Separate to the debate of whether or not Lambert should stay or go I do think that if Lambert had been properly backed in his first and second seasons we would be doing much better than we are which I don't think would have been the case with McLeish.

 

I have to disagree with that. I think Lambert is very much a one trick pony, I dont think Lambert even with good financial backing would be that fantastic, I think he is very limited as a manger. His tactics are dreadful and work now and again, he has no ability to change a game during its course and he always looks totally puzzled on the touchline. Two and a half yars is long enough to at least make some sort of improvement but it just hasnt happened. We had one decent run at the back end of his first season and since then it has been largely dreadful stuff week in week out. It needs changing now because the club is stuck in a rut, it needs freshening up and Lambert is all that remains from the Lambert/Culverhouse/Karsa debacle and I have no idea how the hell Lambert managed to let that get so far ou of control being as he is the manager. We need to get someone in who can organise a team because this team doesnt half get itself in a mess at times. We are never going to be a passing team but some simple passing and movement wouldnt go a miss, Villa are the only team in the premier league I watch and wonder what on Earth they are doing at times. We play the worst football in the league, 30-35% possession on average is criminal  I can barely watch our games anymore

 

 

A lot of very broad, sweeping statements there. I can't say you are wrong because it is of course your personal opinion, but that is all it is for me for the most part. I know what I offered to begin with was personal opinion as well though which is indicative of this sort of discussion.

 

I just don't agree which much of what you've wrote. Guess it's what a forum is for though right? 

[KHV]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good post Mark, I agree with most of it. My point was purely aimed at the net spend argument not being relevant though which I think we agree on?

 

 

 Yes we do and in hindsight it was pretty irrelevant other than to perhaps highlight the point that McLeish was in terms of finances just as purely backed as Lambert when you look at the quality of players we lost and what he was given to spend to replace them with.

 

I think overall my point is this. McLeish and Lamberts records in terms of points gained and league positon are pretty much identical. They both received relatively poor backing from Lerner, they both had to contend with injuries to key players. One however was sacked after a year, the other has been given two and a half years even though we have made in terms of results and performances zero improvement. I know expectations have had to be lowered but surely not to the levels where what was unacceptable under McLeish is now considered acceptable.

 

 

I can understand why to some it would seem hypocritical but McLeish was just the wrong appointment for this club in so many ways.

 

Separate to the debate of whether or not Lambert should stay or go I do think that if Lambert had been properly backed in his first and second seasons we would be doing much better than we are which I don't think would have been the case with McLeish.

 

I have to disagree with that. I think Lambert is very much a one trick pony, I dont think Lambert even with good financial backing would be that fantastic, I think he is very limited as a manger. His tactics are dreadful and work now and again, he has no ability to change a game during its course and he always looks totally puzzled on the touchline. Two and a half yars is long enough to at least make some sort of improvement but it just hasnt happened. We had one decent run at the back end of his first season and since then it has been largely dreadful stuff week in week out. It needs changing now because the club is stuck in a rut, it needs freshening up and Lambert is all that remains from the Lambert/Culverhouse/Karsa debacle and I have no idea how the hell Lambert managed to let that get so far ou of control being as he is the manager. We need to get someone in who can organise a team because this team doesnt half get itself in a mess at times. We are never going to be a passing team but some simple passing and movement wouldnt go a miss, Villa are the only team in the premier league I watch and wonder what on Earth they are doing at times. We play the worst football in the league, 30-35% possession on average is criminal  I can barely watch our games anymore

 

 

A lot of very broad, sweeping statements there. I can't say you are wrong because it is of course your personal opinion, but that is all it is for me for the most part. I know what I offered to begin with was personal opinion as well though which is indicative of this sort of discussion.

 

I just don't agree which much of what you've wrote. Guess it's what a forum is for though right? 

 

Hopefully villa will get better one way or another over the next few weeks. I guess we can all agree its not going very well at the moment. You are right, forums would be very dull if we all had the same opinions!! 

[romavillan]

Well FWIW I think we'll be fine, really fine and we go again after the internationals.

 

[avfc1982am]

We'd be playing in a lower league right now with mcleish at the helm

 We may well be playing in a lower league this time next year with Lambert at the helm.

[briny_ear]

Well FWIW I think we'll be fine, really fine and we go again after the internationals.

 

I think you have hit on the one thing we can all agree on.

 

We certainly will Go Again.

Edited November 12, 2014 by briny_ear

[Shaw_nuff]

 

The appointment of McLeish remains the most inexplicable and bizarre decision made by Aston Villa in my time as a fan.

 

Truly baffling.

Dunno, Lambert's new four-year contract runs it very close.

 

Absolutely on the money.

 

In Lerner's warped logic he thought he was going to curry favour with the fans by 'snatching' the bluenoses manager from right underneath their noses; a manager who had doubled their entire trophy haul.

 

Once the 'blues effect' had worn off we'd be ecstatic to have such a winner in our midst.

 

Idiotic maybe, but you can at least trace the flawed logic.

 

The new contract, on the other hand, is truly head-scratching stuff. Must've been scared of Barca coming in for Lambert.

[bobzy]

I don't know how well Lambert is paid or how much he'd earn in the 4 year period or if there's a clause etc. etc. BUT...

 

 

...would people rather pay Lambert off for, say, £6m or have the £6m to spend in January (presumably on top of, errrr... maybe another £6m)?

[DCJonah]

Get rid of lambert. I don't think we need £6 million to spend in Jan to see us safe. I think the squad has enough about it and a better manager will get more from it.

[GENTLEMAN]

To be fair to Lerner, we were sitting third in the league and just had our best start since 1998 when Lambert signed his new deal. However appointing AM was truly shocking, especially after we all celebrated SHA's relegation with pride at VP a few weeks earlier. But not only did we appoint Eck (and his cronies), we paid a sizable compensation package to our bitter rivals for the prestigious honour. Bonkers! 

Edited November 12, 2014 by GENTLEMAN