Brumstopdogs Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Sorry to say but no we don't all agree on this point. This is unrealistic in my view and here's why. Going back to the Poundworld analogy from earlier. After Lambert's 1st season in charge of Villa he was shopping in Poundworld for precisely 1 season. Now after 3 years in charge he has now been shopping there for 3 years. So why should we expect an improvement after a further 2 years of being forced to water down a Premier League squad? It is not a given when you are replacing bigger wages with smaller wages that you will improve. In fact it will invariably and inevitably have the opposite effect. This is what brings me back to Lerner. It's also why, regardless of who is in charge, if we continue down this route then it is an inevitability that we will go down. It will not be the manager's fault no matter who that is, although no doubt whoever happens to be in charge at the time will get more than their fair share of flack. For me the buck will stop categorically at the chairman's door. The notion that we have been shopping in Poundworld is incorrect IMO. In Lambert's time at the club* tell that to: Leicester - who we've spent more than double what they have. QPR - who we've spent more than them. Burnley - who we have spent approx. £50m more than. West Brom - who we've spent more than double what they have. Sunderland - who we've spent more than them Crystal Palace - who we've spent more than them. Stoke - who have spent less than half what we have. Swansea - who have spent far less than us. What shop have they been buying in? The 50p shop! Lambert has had the money. In a number of cases he has done well but in others he has chosen poorly. The purchasing of players in the right positions with the correct attributes has been one major failing for him. Lambert keeps making the same selection mistakes, the same tactical mistakes and the same failures to be able to influence games when they go wrong. Lambert out please. *based on overall transfer purchases less transfer sales. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Can someone put "19 games, 2 wins, 7 goals" in a sticky so we don't have to read it in every post? We can update this again tomorrow: 20 games 2 wins 7 goals Hopefully 20 games, 3 wins and 12 goals though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 6, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 6, 2015 Sorry to say but no we don't all agree on this point. This is unrealistic in my view and here's why. Going back to the Poundworld analogy from earlier. After Lambert's 1st season in charge of Villa he was shopping in Poundworld for precisely 1 season. Now after 3 years in charge he has now been shopping there for 3 years. So why should we expect an improvement after a further 2 years of being forced to water down a Premier League squad? It is not a given when you are replacing bigger wages with smaller wages that you will improve. In fact it will invariably and inevitably have the opposite effect. This is what brings me back to Lerner. It's also why, regardless of who is in charge, if we continue down this route then it is an inevitability that we will go down. It will not be the manager's fault no matter who that is, although no doubt whoever happens to be in charge at the time will get more than their fair share of flack. For me the buck will stop categorically at the chairman's door. The notion that we have been shopping in Poundworld is incorrect IMO. In Lambert's time at the club* tell that to: Leicester - who we've spent more than double what they have. QPR - who we've spent more than them. Burnley - who we have spent approx. £50m more than. West Brom - who we've spent more than double what they have. Sunderland - who we've spent more than them Crystal Palace - who we've spent more than them. Stoke - who have spent less than half what we have. Swansea - who have spent far less than us. What shop have they been buying in? The 50p shop! Lambert has had the money. In a number of cases he has done well but in others he has chosen poorly. The purchasing of players in the right positions with the correct attributes has been one major failing for him. Lambert keeps making the same selection mistakes, the same tactical mistakes and the same failures to be able to influence games when they go wrong. Lambert out please. *based on overall transfer purchases less transfer sales. We're better than 5 of the teams on that list. And we're not far off Palace or Stoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 We're better than 5 of the teams on that list. And we're not far off Palace or Stoke. The league table shows that apart from Leicester we're not much better than anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 the vast majority of fans want Lambert gone but don't want to not turn up for games sounds like you want your cake and eat it.....whatever protest the fans want, they don't want put themselves out do they IMO it mirrors the players..... half hearted. If there was a REAL passion for betterment, they would do what they ultimately know is the only thing that will change things. 25% have already made the sacrifice. If you go, you are basically saying you are enjoying it....if you are enjoying it,fine Lump it. Conversely, if you love the club, you put your money where your mouth is. If you stop caring you stop trying to help. Those fans that have stopped going mirror the owner. Now of course, that statement is no less a nonsense than the garbage you've put forward - every fan that goes has a reason to go and every fan that doesn't go has a reason not to. We're all different, BOF doesn't get to many games, neither does NurembergVillan - does anyone want to tell me that they're less of a fan than someone who lives around the corner from the ground and goes on a Saturday because they like a beer with their mates? Likewise, that 80 year old man that hasn't missed a game for 60 years in the Trinity, is he guilty of a lack of ambition for the club, a lack of love because he still goes. It's ridiculous. You can't judge people that way, and all it really tells us is that you've lost a perspective somewhere. You are going off on a tangent and it is not at all as you describe what I have said....I have said and I will repeat. Those that want change to try and achieve betterment will only achieve change by staying away.....It won't happen for all the reasons you put forward....of course there are a million and one reasons why people go, maybe they like the colour of the bricks.....it is no good paying your union subscriptions and then refusing to go on strike. To keep going and paying in.... is tantamount to saying its acceptable. as unpalatable as you may find my comments....I stand by them. the vast majority of fans want Lambert gone but don't want to not turn up for games sounds like you want your cake and eat it.....whatever protest the fans want, they don't want put themselves out do they IMO it mirrors the players..... half hearted. If there was a REAL passion for betterment, they would do what they ultimately know is the only thing that will change things. 25% have already made the sacrifice. If you go, you are basically saying you are enjoying it....if you are enjoying it,fine Lump it. Conversely, if you love the club, you put your money where your mouth is. If you stop caring you stop trying to help. Those fans that have stopped going mirror the owner. Now of course, that statement is no less a nonsense than the garbage you've put forward - every fan that goes has a reason to go and every fan that doesn't go has a reason not to. We're all different, BOF doesn't get to many games, neither does NurembergVillan - does anyone want to tell me that they're less of a fan than someone who lives around the corner from the ground and goes on a Saturday because they like a beer with their mates? Likewise, that 80 year old man that hasn't missed a game for 60 years in the Trinity, is he guilty of a lack of ambition for the club, a lack of love because he still goes. It's ridiculous. You can't judge people that way, and all it really tells us is that you've lost a perspective somewhere. You are going off on a tangent and it is not at all as you describe what I have said....I have said and I will repeat. Those that want change to try and achieve betterment will only achieve change by staying away.....It won't happen for all the reasons you put forward....of course there are a million and one reasons why people go, maybe they like the colour of the bricks.....it is no good paying your union subscriptions and then refusing to go on strike. To keep going and paying in.... is tantamount to saying its acceptable. as unpalatable as you may find my comments....I stand by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 But surely we all agree that there should have been some improvement. After his 3rd season in charge we really should be looking forward rather than going backwards and still worrying. Sorry to say but no we don't all agree on this point. This is unrealistic in my view and here's why. Going back to the Poundworld analogy from earlier. After Lambert's 1st season in charge of Villa he was shopping in Poundworld for precisely 1 season. Now after 3 years in charge he has now been shopping there for 3 years. So why should we expect an improvement after a further 2 years of being forced to water down a Premier League squad? It is not a given when you are replacing bigger wages with smaller wages that you will improve. In fact it will invariably and inevitably have the opposite effect. This is what brings me back to Lerner. It's also why, regardless of who is in charge, if we continue down this route then it is an inevitability that we will go down. It will not be the manager's fault no matter who that is, although no doubt whoever happens to be in charge at the time will get more than their fair share of flack. For me the buck will stop categorically at the chairman's door. Doug Ellis had a particularly consistent approach to the funding of players....He did'nt like doing it and was obstinate when trying to get funds from him. conversely Randy Lerner came in and for the first 4 years was quite liberal with his approach to funding players....Then turned in to Doug Ellis Mark 2 so explain where you think it all changed.....a radical change of thought, wouldn't you say....something changed this mans outlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 7, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2015 But surely we all agree that there should have been some improvement. After his 3rd season in charge we really should be looking forward rather than going backwards and still worrying.Sorry to say but no we don't all agree on this point. This is unrealistic in my view and here's why. Going back to the Poundworld analogy from earlier. After Lambert's 1st season in charge of Villa he was shopping in Poundworld for precisely 1 season. Now after 3 years in charge he has now been shopping there for 3 years. So why should we expect an improvement after a further 2 years of being forced to water down a Premier League squad? It is not a given when you are replacing bigger wages with smaller wages that you will improve. In fact it will invariably and inevitably have the opposite effect. This is what brings me back to Lerner. It's also why, regardless of who is in charge, if we continue down this route then it is an inevitability that we will go down. It will not be the manager's fault no matter who that is, although no doubt whoever happens to be in charge at the time will get more than their fair share of flack. For me the buck will stop categorically at the chairman's door. Doug Ellis had a particularly consistent approach to the funding of players....He did'nt like doing it and was obstinate when trying to get funds from him. conversely Randy Lerner came in and for the first 4 years was quite liberal with his approach to funding players....Then turned in to Doug Ellis Mark 2 so explain where you think it all changed.....a radical change of thought, wouldn't you say....something changed this mans outlook. Radical change indeed. When he came in he went for it (the CL). We almost got it on a few occasions but ultimately failed. Citeh completely changed the footballing landscape in the meantime and that coincided with us having a ~120% wage to turnover ratio. We had to downsize in order to go again but in the new landscape Randy appears to have decided that merely treading water with the smallest possible outlay is far more profitable than pumping millions into something that will only make you best of the rest. That's what I believe his change to be and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) But surely we all agree that there should have been some improvement. After his 3rd season in charge we really should be looking forward rather than going backwards and still worrying. Sorry to say but no we don't all agree on this point. This is unrealistic in my view and here's why. Going back to the Poundworld analogy from earlier. After Lambert's 1st season in charge of Villa he was shopping in Poundworld for precisely 1 season. Now after 3 years in charge he has now been shopping there for 3 years. So why should we expect an improvement after a further 2 years of being forced to water down a Premier League squad? It is not a given when you are replacing bigger wages with smaller wages that you will improve. In fact it will invariably and inevitably have the opposite effect. This is what brings me back to Lerner. It's also why, regardless of who is in charge, if we continue down this route then it is an inevitability that we will go down. It will not be the manager's fault no matter who that is, although no doubt whoever happens to be in charge at the time will get more than their fair share of flack. For me the buck will stop categorically at the chairman's door. Doug Ellis had a particularly consistent approach to the funding of players....He did'nt like doing it and was obstinate when trying to get funds from him. conversely Randy Lerner came in and for the first 4 years was quite liberal with his approach to funding players....Then turned in to Doug Ellis Mark 2 so explain where you think it all changed.....a radical change of thought, wouldn't you say....something changed this mans outlook. Radical change indeed. When he came in he went for it (the CL). We almost got it on a few occasions but ultimately failed. Citeh completely changed the footballing landscape in the meantime and that coincided with us having a ~120% wage to turnover ratio. We had to downsize in order to go again but in the new landscape Randy appears to have decided that merely treading water with the smallest possible outlay is far more profitable than pumping millions into something that will only make you best of the rest. That's what I believe his change to be and why. I believe City did change the landscape....I also believe we had a spell where we paid too much money in funds and wages for players that did not match up....everyone buys duff players ,we simply bought too many. I think Randy lost faith in managers spending good money on players and then finding the players did not match the fee's/wages. We had an opportunity they we have never had before and may never have again....and we blew it, buying substandard players. thats my penny worth. Edited February 7, 2015 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post P3te Posted February 7, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted February 7, 2015 I believe City did change the landscape....I also believe we had a spell where we paid too much money in funds and wages for players that did not match up....everyone buys duff players ,we simply bought too many. I think Randy lost faith in managers spending good money on players and then finding the players did not match the fee's/wages. We had an opportunity they we have never had before and may never have again....and we blew it, buying substandard players. thats my penny worth. This is entirely my belief too. We had the chance to get CL football before the City machine started rolling properly, and we blew it. We blew it by paying premium wages for cloggers. We blew it by signing close to 20 blokes we literally couldn't give away afterwards. We blew it by spending a quarter of a billion quid on what should've cost 20% of that. This "we finished where we should've finished for the money spent" is rubbish. We finished the absolute lowest acceptable position for the money we spent. For a period only Real Madrid outspent us in world football. Right time, right place, right backing, wrong manager, wrong approach from the chairman 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I believe City did change the landscape....I also believe we had a spell where we paid too much money in funds and wages for players that did not match up....everyone buys duff players ,we simply bought too many. I think Randy lost faith in managers spending good money on players and then finding the players did not match the fee's/wages. We had an opportunity they we have never had before and may never have again....and we blew it, buying substandard players. thats my penny worth. My take on this is more that Randy did not do the "due diligence" on what he was spending until it was too late. If you spend more on a group of players than you can afford long term, it doesn't really matter how good or bad they are (in the opinion of individual fans) - you just have to sell them and take the consequences. Plus, having realised he had spent beyond his means, he went on spending in an increasingly foolish fashion - N'Zogbia, Bent, for example. The club has been managed very badly since 2007 - maybe only topped by the disaster of the late 60s, and we know where that led us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Paul lamberts appointment was asked for BY the fans, Live with your FM decision and stick by your man and hope our team can turn things around No. He's a mumbling, incompetent tw*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 while you've still got an ounce of self-respect left, resign. If you don't, you deserve all of the stick and more that's going to be heading your way. Tantamount to bully boy tactics right there Yet I don't seem to recall the same level of condemnation when it was directed at the likes of O'Leary, Houllier and McLeish. Yet I dont seem to recall anyone ever saying to those managers 'go now or we'll hound you until you do and you'll deserve it' which is the sentiment at least of the post quoted. Can you show me those posts directed at the three managers you have mentioned? No, because VT's software automatically deletes posts once they reach a certain age. But you were hugely, massively and vehemently anti-O'Leary (quite correctly) which makes your continued support of Lambert all the more mystifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Net spend! Wages vs turnover! Yes! This is what I've always loved about football. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Net spend! Wages vs turnover! Yes! This is what I've always loved about football. Its about what Randy loves, not us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Net spend! Wages vs turnover! Yes! This is what I've always loved about football. We go again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Albert Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/feb/05/aston-villa-paul-lambert?CMP=share_btn_tw Only mick Mccarthy has a worse record than lambert, and he lasted 101 games. Lambert is reaching his 100th game in charge. That article is damning, it's nice to see the media have picked up on it at last rather than talking about cutbacks and the "who would do better" lines. Anyway the board try and dress it up its an utter disgrace they still have that man in charge of our club 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 put out a side worthy of Aston Villa what does that actually mean 19 games; 2 wins and 7 goals. Justify this with a team I personally think is not far off the standard of Southampton. Ohh, but they have a manager with a little tactical abilty.I would argue all day long with fans who continue to say no other manager could do better here. As I have just mentioned one of the best managers in the league who would (I have no doubt) have this team playing more confident tactical football, with an end product, i.e goals, and im sure a winning mentality, somethin Lambert has struggled with ever since he sighed that 1st contract.not sure how your post relates to my question posed there to be honest, maybe you quoted the wrong one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Really massive game today. We've beat them before at Villa Park so there is hope but more than anything we need a goal and a performance. This won't be the end of Lambert today so I really hope the protests or negative chants wait at the very least until after the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 For what it is worth I see Michael Owen recently made the following comments on Villa: "When you look at the starting eleven, I think that looks much stronger than it has been for a couple of years now.” So another pundit who thinks we have a stronger squad than previously but the results that are being achieved from it are worse. Aston Villa after 23 games last season: 10th place, 7 wins, 6 draws and 10 losses, -6 goal difference with 27 points. This season with the better squad after 23 games: 16th place, 5 wins, 7 draws and 11 losses, -19 goal difference with 22 points. Must be part of the continued improvement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts