Paul Lambert

[SikhInTrinity]

How is Marlon Harewood a relevant example for money spent? The financial situation and club aspirations where completely different then.

 

It's an example of what money spunked actually is, by not having a resale value, IMO if we sold Luna or Bennett we would recoup the money spent on them.

[Cliffy Biro]

But you replied anyway.

 

To refute your replies to arguments that i didnt even make. As i said i choose to post if i want too its not dictated by whether or not the mighty sikhintrinity agrees with my point of view.

[bobzy]

Clearly since Lambert has been here there has been improvement in one area only and that is to rid ourselves of players who weren't deserving of their fat luxurious contracts.

Should that be enough to be apathetic towards his result record when you also factor in the chairman's lack of investment in the team compared to other Premiership teams?

To answer the first question any other manager taking the job would have had to deal with the wage issue and would have acted accordingly so I'm not sure that should be something you can base any defence of Lambert on. The follow on argument from that is well while removing those players and revamping the squad he has managed to keep us in the Premiership.

The opportunity to revamp a squad with reasonable funding, to be allowed to build your own team is something that most managers would see as a welcome challenge, certainly a manager who would want to enhance his reputation and knowing that you were following a manager who was ultimately hated by the majority of the fan base would be seen by many as a no lose situation.

Considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild and backing his own judgement in the transfer market the manager and chairman would have at the very least have expected to retain our Premiership status. I mean like any other manager coming into Villa Park he would not have expected to worry about relegation so managing to keep us in the Premiership with some very poor teams around us would have been a starting point of expectancy and not really something to be praised for.

I've often wondered to myself what was Lambert's expectations when he came to our club. He would have come here with confidence knowing that he promoted Norwich and with very little investment managed to get them to mid table playing some good football while beating us with comfort in his last game.

Since we have been ever present in the Premier League there is no praise here for being promoted and certainly no praise for being in a relegation battle in season one and lying just above the relegation zone in season two. So in his own mind has he deemed himself a failure at Villa Park or does he gage success by replicating his placement with Norwich?

Reading his comments in the press one would assume that he realises the expectation levels here are higher here than they were at Norwich so with that in mind he must be particularly disappointed with our performances in his second season with us as we are currently heading in the wrong direction yet again.

So with very little money and with an inferior squad to our own he overachieved at Norwich. With better players at our club and 40+m to spend achieving one relegation dogfight and struggling to stay mid table he has been deemed by some on here as doing a good job for this club.

You then wonder why those who have had the nerve to criticise Lambert get so exasperated with the stated points of defence above.

 

I don't understand some of your points here.  For example; Lambert has improved Villa by removing players on "fat luxurious contracts", but should also do better "considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild".  Which is it?  He should've let them go or he should've kept them?

 

Following on from this, you stated that Lambert shouldn't be praised - he's not being praised!  This isn't a black or white situation between fans of "he's shit sack him" or "he's the messiah, keep him forever"; the fact is that Lambert has done an average job.  A job that was to be expected but he has neither failed at nor exceeded.  You could certainly argue it's been worse than hoped for - I'm sure most people (the manager included) would agree - but it hasn't been a mitigating disaster.

 

The bit in bold; why did Roberto Martinez turn down this easy, dream job for any manager wishing to enhance their reputation?  It's a no lose situation after all, perfect. He must be mad to have passed up on the opportunity.

 

The bit in underlined italics; we're in 13th place.  This isn't lying just above the relegation zone; we're closer to the top half.  By all means argue on the aesthetic value of the football we play, the poor results at home or the disappointing cup defeats.  In terms of real movement, we're placed higher in the table and are on a better financial footing.  Lambert isn't a genius for this by any stretch, but it's happening.

 

Maybe heading up the table is moving in the wrong direction for some people because it means Lambert won't be sacked, though?  Haters gonna hate.

 

 

All of this overlooks so many different factors as well such as the time it takes for new players to get used to the Premier League or for an entirely new squad to gel and settle together.  Electric_Avenue asked somewhere further back in the thread about timescales for "pro-Lambert fans" - as has been said many, many times; this summer is key and Lambert has until Christmas (if seriously relegation threatened) / the end of next season in my eyes.  If there's no improvement over 3 seasons, that's a major worry.  However, I definitely don't expect us to be tearing up trees after a season and 2/3's.

 

I think this is the problem with football; insta-success and history matter too much.  There's a pretty unrealistic view on "where teams should be".  David Moyes to be sacked after 1 season because Man Utd are 7th for example.  Change takes time and stability is incredibly important in football - just look at the bottom of the league to be reminded of this.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs.

3 million? I'm pretty sure Bennett cost that (or more) just by himself.

 

Correct Isa, people go oh he only cost under a million (due to other players costing that apparently), fact is Joe Bennett cost us £3.5mil from Boro, their forums was saying that was fee.

At time he was an England U21 left back and young, english  players come from a price.

 

Lambert could have done FAR better with the money given that spend that on Joe Bennett and even Tonev was £2.5mil, as Celtic was willing to pay that for him as well.

 

 

Just seen the fee 2.75m was reported for Bennett, Luna 1million, Bertrand loan, is that not less than 4.5million paid for Harewood.

 

But you replied anyway.

 

To refute your replies to arguments that i didnt even make. As i said i choose to post if i want too its not dictated by whether or not the mighty sikhintrinity agrees with my point of view.

 

 

See your replying again.

[Villan4Life]

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs. As for 5 Lump strikers you mention, One was Benteke, without that lump we'd be in the Championship, No2 Kozak, without his contribution in terms of goals, we'd be further down the table, Bowery, Helenius and Holt,  thats a lot of money spunked that is. As for Lambert I'm either here nor there if he stays or goes, the bigger problem is the man sitting across the pond, and until that is rectified, this Aston Villa being in the doldrums will continue. But I do like how Lambert has wasted money on left backs and strikers.

 

We paid £3.5mil for Benett and £1.7mil for Luna..Not sure why you think we paid less (I suppose it's because apparently Westwood, Bacuna & Lowton all cost under 1mil, which i don't believe Lambert for saying) the prices being mentioned for those 3 was (Westwood 2.2mil, Bacuna 1.9mil and Lowton 3mil)

[Villan4Life]

http://fansonline.net/middlesbrough/mb//view.php?id=3577760

 

Middlebro forum, one of them

 

 

"We have no assets" 

When Joe Bennett gets sold for £3m odd, don't be too surprised when another crazy offer comes in, especially for a English player.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Villan4Life

[Villan4Life]

http://avillafan.com/site/6329/fee-agreed-for-antonio-luna-spanish-media/

 

2million euros is: £1647080.1 rounded off to £1.7mil as i said above

 

 

Several media sources in Spain are reporting Villa are close to signing Left Back Antonio Luna.

 

News has broke over in Spain via a number of media sources including Vavel, Orgullodenervion, Eldesmarque. All sources are implying that the 22 year old left back will leave Sevilla after the clubs agreed a fee for two million euros.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Villan4Life

[SikhInTrinity]

 

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs. As for 5 Lump strikers you mention, One was Benteke, without that lump we'd be in the Championship, No2 Kozak, without his contribution in terms of goals, we'd be further down the table, Bowery, Helenius and Holt,  thats a lot of money spunked that is. As for Lambert I'm either here nor there if he stays or goes, the bigger problem is the man sitting across the pond, and until that is rectified, this Aston Villa being in the doldrums will continue. But I do like how Lambert has wasted money on left backs and strikers.

 

We paid £3.5mil for Benett and £1.7mil for Luna..Not sure why you think we paid less (I suppose it's because apparently Westwood, Bacuna & Lowton all cost under 1mil, which i don't believe Lambert for saying) the prices being mentioned for those 3 was (Westwood 2.2mil, Bacuna 1.9mil and Lowton 3mil)

 

 

Bacuna was one of seven signings made in the close season and his £750,000 fee from FC Groningen already appears a shrewd piece of business, fulfilling owner Randy Lerner’s remit of discovering and developing young players. (Groningen reported this fee, they have a 20% sell on fee).

 

Bennett completed his move to Villa Park after the two clubs agreed an undisclosed fee, believed to be around the £2.5million mark. (Daily Mail)

 

Anyway bored of this now, he's had money, some have worked some haven't but he hasn't had the money to buy proven players.

Edited April 9, 2014 by SikhInTrinity

[Villan4Life]

 

 

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs. As for 5 Lump strikers you mention, One was Benteke, without that lump we'd be in the Championship, No2 Kozak, without his contribution in terms of goals, we'd be further down the table, Bowery, Helenius and Holt,  thats a lot of money spunked that is. As for Lambert I'm either here nor there if he stays or goes, the bigger problem is the man sitting across the pond, and until that is rectified, this Aston Villa being in the doldrums will continue. But I do like how Lambert has wasted money on left backs and strikers.

 

We paid £3.5mil for Benett and £1.7mil for Luna..Not sure why you think we paid less (I suppose it's because apparently Westwood, Bacuna & Lowton all cost under 1mil, which i don't believe Lambert for saying) the prices being mentioned for those 3 was (Westwood 2.2mil, Bacuna 1.9mil and Lowton 3mil)

 

 

Bacuna was one of seven signings made in the close season and his £750,000 fee from FC Groningen already appears a shrewd piece of business, fulfilling owner Randy Lerner’s remit of discovering and developing young players. (Groningen reported this fee, they have a 20% sell on fee).

 

find the article then!!

[SikhInTrinity]

Find the article when your quoting fans forums haha.

[penguin]

Didn't the accounts that were published prove that Lambert had understated players transfer fees?

[Cliffy Biro]

Didn't the accounts that were published prove that Lambert had understated players transfer fees?

 

Don't lt that get in the way of someone who thinks they are right without any facts.

[Zatman]

 

To be fair to Lambert. Having had just 45m to improve a side that were allegedly diabolical (yet still stayed up under a supposed even more diabolical manager in McLeish) must've been tough

 

eh no allegedly about it

[Cliffy Biro]

I would argue were atleast as equally diabolical now as we were under mcleish, similar record so far.

[villabromsgrove]

I seem to remember Lambert saying that Culverhouse is invaluable to him, because he spots and evaluates the potential signings …. suggests tactical changes from the touchline during matches …. coaches the first team squad. Maybe Culverhouse ain't good enough, and poor old Lambert's taking the blame. Shame on you Ian!

[Ulver]

Following on from this, you stated that Lambert shouldn't be praised - he's not being praised!  This isn't a black or white situation between fans of "he's shit sack him" or "he's the messiah, keep him forever"; the fact is that Lambert has done an average job.  A job that was to be expected but he has neither failed at nor exceeded.  You could certainly argue it's been worse than hoped for - I'm sure most people (the manager included) would agree - but it hasn't been a mitigating disaster.

 

Change takes time and stability is incredibly important in football - just look at the bottom of the league to be reminded of this.

 

 

1. No it's not a FACT, it's your opinion.

 

2. Alternatively you could look at the top of the league and see that you DON'T have to keep a manager that's been failing for years because of this 'much needed stability', 4 out of the top 5 show that quite clearly.

 

Stability means nothing unless the person in the job is doing a good one. Now that is a FACT

[Ulver]

I seem to remember Lambert saying that Culverhouse is invaluable to him, because he spots and evaluates the potential signings …. suggests tactical changes from the touchline during matches …. coaches the first team squad. Maybe Culverhouse ain't good enough, and poor old Lambert's taking the blame. Shame on you Ian!

 

**** me, if Culverhouse does all that what the **** does Lambert do ? Ha

[Big_John_10]

How can breaking a 140 year old club record and losing 47% of the time be classed as average?

[KSV]

 

I seem to remember Lambert saying that Culverhouse is invaluable to him, because he spots and evaluates the potential signings …. suggests tactical changes from the touchline during matches …. coaches the first team squad. Maybe Culverhouse ain't good enough, and poor old Lambert's taking the blame. Shame on you Ian!

 

**** me, if Culverhouse does all that what the **** does Lambert do ? Ha

 

 

Someone has to pick the players up and make sure they go again...

[Mantis]

How can breaking a 140 year old club record and losing 47% of the time be classed as average?

That means **** all in the grand scheme of things. The latter stat is far more important.