maqroll Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 It's clear as day. Lerner has written into Lamberts brief that managing the wage bill is a key objective. Bent on 80k a week is a pure luxury we can't afford He's gone Then you'd think Lerner would want him showcased and scoring goals before January, instead of rotting on the bench... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 There's no doubt the wages issue is still about but there's no way Lerner would force Lambert to sell bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Then you'd think Lerner would want him showcased and scoring goals before January, instead of rotting on the bench... Unless the deals done already in which case it may be the exact opposite and cotton wool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 It's got **** all to do with wages. It's down to the fact tekkers is a better fit in the team atm. The "Bents being forced out cus we can't afford his wages" line is Bollocks. If that was the case we had.a summer to get rid but no, what we will do is keep him, but still stick him on for the last 10 mins so he picks up a hefty appearnce fee on top of his wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 There's no doubt the wages issue is still about but there's no way Lerner would force Lambert to sell bent. After the last 4 years antics how on earth can you say that with any sort of credit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Ive very little doubt in my mind that we are among the premier leagues bottom 6 clubs. What I havent decided yet is whether we are bottom 3 or not. I look at our squad and think it is one of the worst i've seen as a villa fan. I havent see the hunger that others talk about in our players (just the youth). I support Lambert but I dont trust him (you earn that), I believe Randy would let him take us down. I dont think Darren Bent will be with us (or wants to be with us) after January. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Haha Ok son. I haven't chose to ignore any facts. You've openly admitted to not giving houllier and Mcleish a chance and then jumped on Morpheus for doing exactly the same with Lambert. It's hilarious. Because the writing was already on the wall before either of them 2 managers arrived at the club. Everyone knew they where going to offer piss all in terms of improvement etc. Let's be honest who the hell did want them 2 here anyway? and as many as might have, it would not have been as much as a near 90% of Villa Fans who wanted Lambert here to bring fresh ideas and a fresh new approach. So to compare the whole thing and class it as 'Hilarious' maybe so in your view but Lambert has more going for him than what either of those 2 had. The point is that no matter what manager came here the axe would be out for them before the off. Valid reasons as pointed out a hundred times now why the axes where out for Foolier and Eck before the off, what's the excuse against Lambert? Trouble is there is not one and after 9 games the doomers have just latched onto 'a poor start' as a valid reason for Lambert to be gone. Mind you, Lambert, Redknapp, or any other manager for that 'of which had more going for them' than Foolier of Eck had, would also be touted for getting the sack after 9 games thanks to the great impatience bug circling fickle fans at this moment in the season. Using the logic that well 'you never gave Eck & Houllier a chance so Morpheus is not giving Lambert a chance is just missing the point of fact by miles, totally pathetic and a naive childish logic being displayed... or then again quite hilarious? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidp Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I'm watching the Chelsea Utd game. 2nd string for both (well kind of). The movement and speed of passing makes me so frustrated with the past few years at Villa. We've been so poor for so many years apart from a few occasions under MON. No idea how we put it right given we've had so many managers not able to change the deep rooted malaise that permeates B6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 No idea how we put it right Get taken over by an Abramovich or the Glazers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 It's got **** all to do with wages. It's down to the fact tekkers is a better fit in the team atm. The "Bents being forced out cus we can't afford his wages" line is Bollocks. If that was the case we had.a summer to get rid but no, what we will do is keep him, but still stick him on for the last 10 mins so he picks up a hefty appearnce fee on top of his wage. Id say its everything to do with his wages. Over a season Bent will get your more goals than Bentekke - as we will probably find out to our cost.Unlike ipb.global.registerReputation( 'rep_post_785689', { domLikeStripId: 'like_post_785689', app: 'forums', type: 'pid', typeid: '785689' }, parseInt('0') ); from the faraway stables Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2012 No chance Bent is being forced out because of wages. The reason Lerner allowed us to buy him in the first place was to keep us in the league. He's hardly going to force us to sell him when doing so might (MIGHT) cause the opposite to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'm watching the Chelsea Utd game. 2nd string for both (well kind of). The movement and speed of passing makes me so frustrated with the past few years at Villa. We've been so poor for so many years apart from a few occasions under MON. No idea how we put it right given we've had so many managers not able to change the deep rooted malaise that permeates B6. I thought the same. Seeing a triangle of passes - find a striker - bang- goal......I just wonder can it really be that difficult ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Because the players we have with the exception of a few are crap They have about as much technical ability as a herd of elephants on ice skates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Because the writing was already on the wall before either of them 2 managers arrived at the club. Everyone knew they where going to offer piss all in terms of improvement etc. Let's be honest who the hell did want them 2 here anyway? and as many as might have, it would not have been as much as a near 90% of Villa Fans who wanted Lambert here to bring fresh ideas and a fresh new approach. So to compare the whole thing and class it as 'Hilarious' maybe so in your view but Lambert has more going for him than what either of those 2 had. The point is that no matter what manager came here the axe would be out for them before the off. Valid reasons as pointed out a hundred times now why the axes where out for Foolier and Eck before the off, what's the excuse against Lambert? Trouble is there is not one and after 9 games the doomers have just latched onto 'a poor start' as a valid reason for Lambert to be gone. Mind you, Lambert, Redknapp, or any other manager for that 'of which had more going for them' than Foolier of Eck had, would also be touted for getting the sack after 9 games thanks to the great impatience bug circling fickle fans at this moment in the season. Using the logic that well 'you never gave Eck & Houllier a chance so Morpheus is not giving Lambert a chance is just missing the point of fact by miles, totally pathetic and a naive childish logic being displayed... or then again quite hilarious? Again that's all very nice but its a long post of pure irrelevance. YOU think Lambert has something going for him and YOU thought it was obvious how poor houllier and Mcleish would be. Your reluctance to give either of those managers a chance is exactly the same as someone choosing to not give Lambert a chance. Actually it could be argued that giving Lambert 9 games is giving more of a chance to a manager than you have to either of the ones who came before him. You say there's valid reasons why it was right to not give houllier and Mcleish a chance and then dismiss our worst ever start in the prem as a reason for people to not be impressed with Lambert. The hypocrisy is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 There's no doubt the wages issue is still about but there's no way Lerner would force Lambert to sell bent. or that lambert would put up with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 It's amazing what people will put up with for a seven figure salary and progress on the cv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Again that's all very nice but its a long post of pure irrelevance. YOU think Lambert has something going for him and YOU thought it was obvious how poor houllier and Mcleish would be. Your reluctance to give either of those managers a chance is exactly the same as someone choosing to not give Lambert a chance. Actually it could be argued that giving Lambert 9 games is giving more of a chance to a manager than you have to either of the ones who came before him. You say there's valid reasons why it was right to not give houllier and Mcleish a chance and then dismiss our worst ever start in the prem as a reason for people to not be impressed with Lambert. The hypocrisy is amazing. Would you have allowed Houllier or Eck to be our manager for 3 years would you? You are missing the point, whether it be on purpose I am not so sure. Other posters seem to not have trouble where I am coming from with this, why is it so hard for you and others to grasp and understand it?? We will agree to disagree. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Would you have allowed Houllier or Eck to be our manager for 3 years would you? You are missing the point, whether it be on purpose I am not so sure. Other posters seem to not have trouble where I am coming from with this, why is it so hard for you and others to grasp and understand it?? We will agree to disagree. . Its you who is actually failing to see the point. You have criticized me for not giving Lambert a chance while clearly stating you didn't want GH or Mcleish from the start. You also are prepared to give Lambert more time based on him getting promotion yet wouldn't give the time of day to managers who have won trophies. Therein lies your hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Its you who is actually failing to see the point. You have criticized me for not giving Lambert a chance while clearly stating you didn't want GH or Mcleish from the start. You also are prepared to give Lambert more time based on him getting promotion yet wouldn't give the time of day to managers who have won trophies. Therein lies your hypocrisy. Sure. You might realise where I am coming from as time goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Would you have allowed Houllier or Eck to be our manager for 3 years would you? You are missing the point, whether it be on purpose I am not so sure. Other posters seem to not have trouble where I am coming from with this, why is it so hard for you and others to grasp and understand it?? We will agree to disagree. . It doesn't matter what I think of houllier and Mcleish. If it helps though I completely agree, I didn't want either of them at villa and I believe Lambert should be given time and will do well here. The whole point you're missing is that you choosing to not back houllier or Mcleish is exactly the same as anyone choosing to not back lambert now which you're jumping on people for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts