Mantis Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Most of the clubs mentioned there were able to pay higher wages than we were I bet. Don't get me wrong, I think Lambert did a poor job with the players he had but in the grand scheme of things he didn't have a lot to work with in terms of finances, at least in relation to the squad overhaul he had to undertake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lp_villa830 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Didn't the wage bill actually go up in his first season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Surely it doesn't matter what he had to spend. He couldn't get the team playing properly regardless towards the end and I saw nothing to suggest that more expensive signings or guys on higher wages would have changed that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 The point was that Hull have had a stack of money to spend as have QPR and Sunderland, whilst Lambert has not. During the time Lambert was in charge the reality is as follows in terms of overall transfer activity: Hull £54m QPR £44m Sunderland £38m Villa £49m (could have been £5m higher if Rickie Lambert accepted the move) Never mind clubs like Burnley, Crystal Palace, Leicester, Newcastle, Stoke, Swansea and West Brom who all had an overall transfer activity considerably less than Villa's over the period Lambert was at Villa. Lambert DID have the money and his transfers in on the whole weren't too bad. I think his poor management of a number of our players arguably contributed to us not getting maximum fees for some of them. When he left we were in the relegation zone with just 22 points from 25 games and only 12 goals scored! He left us as a failure and was rightly sacked - although he should have been chopped a lot earlier! Where did you get those figures from? I've just googled Hull's transfer spend over the last few years and the site I've pulled suggests that they spent 40 million just this season and 25 million the season before, weren't they even fined by FFP? Anyway he could have had an hundred million but if your not going to pay anyone the wages, it's hard to sign anyone decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Nobody has been fined for domestic ffp breaches in the pl because the initial assessment period isnt over yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Plus, Hull and QPR were in the Championship for part of Lambert's tenure here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post pooligan Posted March 19, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted March 19, 2015 As far as i am concerned ,there is only one word to describe Lambert as Villa manager and it is USELESS 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted March 19, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 19, 2015 As far as i am concerned ,there is only one word to describe Lambert as Villa manager and it is USELESS Thought 'useless' was a poster here.... .. maybe he's Lambert in disguise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I think people overrate our squad when they say it should be comfortably mid-table. Is this squad as bad as some of the horrendous runs of games without a win, or even a goal, that we regularly had to suffer under Lambert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 19, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 19, 2015 The point was that Hull have had a stack of money to spend as have QPR and Sunderland, whilst Lambert has not. During the time Lambert was in charge the reality is as follows in terms of overall transfer activity: Hull £54m QPR £44m Sunderland £38m Villa £49m (could have been £5m higher if Rickie Lambert accepted the move) Never mind clubs like Burnley, Crystal Palace, Leicester, Newcastle, Stoke, Swansea and West Brom who all had an overall transfer activity considerably less than Villa's over the period Lambert was at Villa. Lambert DID have the money and his transfers in on the whole weren't too bad. I think his poor management of a number of our players arguably contributed to us not getting maximum fees for some of them. When he left we were in the relegation zone with just 22 points from 25 games and only 12 goals scored! He left us as a failure and was rightly sacked - although he should have been chopped a lot earlier! Where did you get those figures from? I've just googled Hull's transfer spend over the last few years and the site I've pulled suggests that they spent 40 million just this season and 25 million the season before, weren't they even fined by FFP? Anyway he could have had an hundred million but if your not going to pay anyone the wages, it's hard to sign anyone decent. Don't get him started! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Pardew is a ridiculous human being. When his clubs start losing he seemingly has no way of stopping the rot. We will see how Sherwood handles it if the enthusiasm in the squad falls. What an odd post. I never mentioned Sherwood. Hehe...no I was just making a statement. Maybe Sherwood is like Pardew, when it gets tough the team wont know how to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I think people overrate our squad when they say it should be comfortably mid-table. Comfortably mid table is 3 wins a season more than we've been doing over the past 3 years. Do you not think the squad is good enough for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Our squad is as good as Newcastle's imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Where did you get those figures from? I've just googled Hull's transfer spend over the last few years and the site I've pulled suggests that they spent 40 million just this season and 25 million the season before, weren't they even fined by FFP? Anyway he could have had an hundred million but if your not going to pay anyone the wages, it's hard to sign anyone decent. I said overall transfer activity of £54m. Hull, spent about £70m but sold about £16m worth of players. Unless you look at both you'll miss what is going on - the Shane Long transfer in and out being an example of this. On the other point firstly there were a number of talented players in the squad anyway many of which are still at the club now. Also we were not the only club with wage restrictions - the problem wasn't so much the failure to sign decent players but it was more to do with knowing what to do with them once they were here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 If we'd have had all our players to pick from then maybe so but obviously we've had quite a bit of bad luck with injuries and players who we know have it in them to perform but for whatever reason haven't been doing so. No one will change my mind about Lambert doing a good job whilst he was here (can understand why he had to go in the end though, in special circumstanes). If I could go back in time and prevent Lambert from becoming our manager there is no way I would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Where did you get those figures from? I've just googled Hull's transfer spend over the last few years and the site I've pulled suggests that they spent 40 million just this season and 25 million the season before, weren't they even fined by FFP? Anyway he could have had an hundred million but if your not going to pay anyone the wages, it's hard to sign anyone decent. I said overall transfer activity of £54m. Hull, spent about £70m but sold about £16m worth of players. Unless you look at both you'll miss what is going on - the Shane Long transfer in and out being an example of this. On the other point firstly there were a number of talented players in the squad anyway many of which are still at the club now. Also we were not the only club with wage restrictions - the problem wasn't so much the failure to sign decent players but it was more to do with knowing what to do with them once they were here! The reason Hull could sell 16m worth of players is because they spent big on those players in the first place. Lambert had little to spend on players and so those players were less likely to fetch big fees when moved on, unless people are advocating that we sell the likes of Benteke and Westwood for big money fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatever happened to ..... Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 If we'd have had all our players to pick from then maybe so but obviously we've had quite a bit of bad luck with injuries and players who we know have it in them to perform but for whatever reason haven't been doing so. No one will change my mind about Lambert doing a good job whilst he was here (can understand why he had to go in the end though, in special circumstanes). If I could go back in time and prevent Lambert from becoming our manager there is no way I would do it. I would and Maclash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 =The reason Hull could sell 16m worth of players is because they spent big on those players in the first place. Lambert had little to spend on players and so those players were less likely to fetch big fees when moved on, unless people are advocating that we sell the likes of Benteke and Westwood for big money fees. We spent big on players - Lambert failed to get the most out of a number of them! Lambert did not have little to spend on players - he spent about twice as much as Stoke did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 We spent big on Benteke and Vlaar and they did alright. Stoke had spend heaps on their squad before Lambert had arrived at Villa. So they had a good base to work from. I don't think it can be denied that Lambert faced severe austerity measures even Lerner himself admitted so in one of his statements when praising the job Lambert had done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 We spent big on Benteke and Vlaar and they did alright. Stoke had spend heaps on their squad before Lambert had arrived at Villa. So they had a good base to work from. I don't think it can be denied that Lambert faced severe austerity measures even Lerner himself admitted so in one of his statements when praising the job Lambert had done. As had Villa before Lambert arrived! The good base of a team at Stoke finished 2 places different to us when McLeish was in charge. Since that point Lambert's transfer activity was about double that of Stoke's - yet look at the difference in the fortunes of the two teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts