Paul Lambert

[The_Steve]

Whether it's a lack of experience or simply taking an easier option but there are 3 or 4 players in the squad guilty of playing one too many long passes (Guzan, Clark, Vlaar and Westwood).

[shaggy]

So what we are saying then is that despite consistent rubbish results over a period of nearly two seasons which would have seen any other Premiership manager sacked our boss is nevertheless still doing a good job because not many other managers could have bettered Lamberts record in the circumstances.

I can understand why some would make that argument particularly our chairman who in sacking Lambert would then by its own definition point to an admittance of yet another calamitous appointment but I'm not at all sure you can excuse Lamberts record purely on circumstance when there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that another manager wouldn't have made better signings given the limited budget available per player.

I would also guess that our original expectation of Lambert has fallen well short of actual performance but that can also be excused by some through a drop in individual expectation level.

[Risso]

No Risso I didn't. I said I thought his spending was around £30m based upon the reported fee's and the comments made by the manager himself.

 

I have never claimed his total spend was £20m.

 

You quoted £20m and accused me of calling the manager a liar.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Erm, there's also absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that another manager would have made better signings given the limited budget available per player.

 

The original expectation of Lambert was based on the budget given to the two previous, inferior managers, and considering the drop in available budget, some have sensibly lowered their expectation level.

[Mantis]

So what we are saying then is that despite consistent rubbish results over a period of nearly two seasons which would have seen any other Premiership manager sacked our boss is nevertheless still doing a good job because not many other managers could have bettered Lamberts record in the circumstances.

I can understand why some would make that argument particularly our chairman who in sacking Lambert would then by its own definition point to an admittance of yet another calamitous appointment but I'm not at all sure you can excuse Lamberts record purely on circumstance when there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that another manager wouldn't have made better signings given the limited budget available per player.

I would also guess that our original expectation of Lambert has fallen well short of actual performance but that can also be excused by some through a drop in individual expectation level.

This constantly gets thrown around but it's a bit of meaningless statement. The situation at each club is different. Saying Lambert would've been sacked if he'd got these results at another Premier League club is pointless because of the different situations.

[ArteSuave]

So what we are saying then is that despite consistent rubbish results over a period of nearly two seasons which would have seen any other Premiership manager sacked our boss is nevertheless still doing a good job because not many other managers could have bettered Lamberts record in the circumstances.

Yep, that's exactly it. You've nailed it in one there. Our results have been consistently rubbish enough to get any other Premiership (sic) manager in history sacked.

[TrentVilla]

 

No Risso I didn't. I said I thought his spending was around £30m based upon the reported fee's and the comments made by the manager himself.

 

I have never claimed his total spend was £20m.

 

You quoted £20m and accused me of calling the manager a liar.

 

 

Sorry but you are wrong.

 

I estimated his spend to be around £30m and accused you of calling the manager a liar  The accounts have shown I was wrong on my estimate of his spending, I've no issue with that, but I never said his spending came to £20m as the two posts below from the conversation you are talking about show.

 

 

It really isn't and as I previously showed the figures reported on various sites are inaccurate.

It is around £30m.

So who would you like to replace him?

 

 

He hasn't had bugger all money. He's had a fair amount, certainly enough for us to be better than we are under him.

Roughly £30m on 15 players. That is bugger all in my book.

 

[Cliffy Biro]

Erm, there's also absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that another manager would have made better signings given the limited budget available per player.

 

The original expectation of Lambert was based on the budget given to the two previous, inferior managers, and considering the drop in available budget, some have sensibly lowered their expectation level.

 

Cant argue with any of that except i dont think our expectations were ever as low as some of the low points since hes been here.

[DelboyVilla]

Oh no did someone mention the 'E' word?

 

Be careful that can may be full of burrowing invertebrates used for fishing?

 

Paul Lambert!!!!! Liar, lair pants on fire!

[The_Lions_Roar]

Oh dear don't mention expectations!

[suttonpaul]

37.5m the exact net figure for Lamberts spending over his time with us

[Risso]

It would be interesting if somebody pointed out to Lambert that the players he's purchased appear to have cost more than he realises.....

[ArteSuave]

It would be interesting if somebody pointed out to Lambert that the players he's purchased appear to have cost more than he realises.....

Do you think it's more than he realises or more than he says? Is he being devious and only referring to transfer fees rather than all costs of player acquisitions?

[DelboyVilla]

Well other than making himself look a bit of a dick I don't really see what he has achieved?

[Big_John_10]

Well other than making himself look a bit of a dick I don't really see what he has achieved?

Looks a dick to the small amount who look into the details, makes himself look better to the rest.

[Big_John_10]

The original expectation of Lambert was based on the budget given to the two previous, inferior managers,

Really? There were plenty absolutly creaming their pants over what Lambert did in his first transfer window and certainly the relegation thread last year showed what people first expected from him.

[sharkyvilla]

So what we are saying then is that despite consistent rubbish results over a period of nearly two seasons which would have seen any other Premiership manager sacked our boss is nevertheless still doing a good job because not many other managers could have bettered Lamberts record in the circumstances.

I can understand why some would make that argument particularly our chairman who in sacking Lambert would then by its own definition point to an admittance of yet another calamitous appointment but I'm not at all sure you can excuse Lamberts record purely on circumstance when there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that another manager wouldn't have made better signings given the limited budget available per player.

I would also guess that our original expectation of Lambert has fallen well short of actual performance but that can also be excused by some through a drop in individual expectation level.

There seems to me to be little rhyme or reason to when bosses get sacked in the Prem. All I know is that Lambert fulfils Lerner's expectations of keeping us up while we sort out the finances, which is the biggest factor.

[villan_007]

 

The original expectation of Lambert was based on the budget given to the two previous, inferior managers,

Really? There were plenty absolutly creaming their pants over what Lambert did in his first transfer window and certainly the relegation thread last year showed what people first expected from him.

 

 

So whether we are for or against Lambert, considering the latest accounts, do we stick with him and keep treading water? or would anyone else geniunely be able to come in under the same conditions and improve us the way we want. We'd still miss out on top targets to anyone who offers more wages than us, and that includes pretty much anyone in the bottom half of the league.

 

This poo sarnie looks life it's been made into a foot long with a constant refill.

 

I just don't know what this club is doing anymore.

[markavfc40]

 

The original expectation of Lambert was based on the budget given to the two previous, inferior managers, and considering the drop in available budget, some have sensibly lowered their expectation level.

 

Houllier I will give you. He had the best part of 30 mill to spend and dramatically increased the wage bill. However McLeish brought in 37 mill and spent around 16 mill whilst cutting the wage bill.

 

In terms of a net transfer budget compared to McLeish Lambert has had a lot more to spend. Where he of course has been hindered is in terms of the wages we are willing to pay.

Edited March 6, 2014 by markavfc40

[samjp26]

 

 

The original expectation of Lambert was based on the budget given to the two previous, inferior managers, and considering the drop in available budget, some have sensibly lowered their expectation level.

 

Houllier I will give you. He had the best part of 30 mill to spend and dramatically increased the wage bill. However McLeish brought in 37 mill and spent around 16 mill whilst cutting the wage bill.

 

In terms of a net transfer budget compared to McLeish Lambert has had a lot more to spend. Where he of course has been hindered is in terms of the wages we are willing to pay.

 

 

And also the amount of players he has had to remove/bring in.

 

I don't think it is fair to give McLeish credit for the amount of money brought in by players that left, it isn't like that would have had anything to do with him at all. Just the same as if we got £30m for Benteke, you could however credit Lambert for buying him but not the sale.

 

As for McLeish apparently bringing the wage bill down - Given, Hutton and Zoggy all on 5 year deals. Mental.