Brumstopdogs Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Sensible when the team has been stripped to its bare bones prior to the arrival of the current manager. Any additional sales would only have meant an even smaller playing squad with even less quality to choose from. Like people have said, plenty of sticks to beat Lambert with, this isn't one of them. Was it really stripped to the bare bones? You could argue Lambert's involvement in the bomb squad meant that many players values were vastly reduced when that was created. Regardless he took a team that was 16th (under Mcleish) and that wasn't deemed good enough. From that point only 8 teams have a net spend higher and we're often as bad as we were under Mcleish IMO. Other managers have also managed to develop players and sell them on at a profit in order to then strengthen the squad. Who are the players Lambert has made a profit on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 If we had Mourhino or Ferguson we'd have a bit of an honeymoon period but in the long run we wouldn't be much better than we are now, midtable at best. Likewise if you were to put Lambert in charge of Chelsea he'd be challenging for the title with them. I think I strongly disagree with this. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 If we had Mourhino or Ferguson we'd have a bit of an honeymoon period but in the long run we wouldn't be much better than we are now, midtable at best. Likewise if you were to put Lambert in charge of Chelsea he'd be challenging for the title with them. So if Mcleish was manager of Chelsea they would be challenging for the title????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 If we had Mourhino or Ferguson we'd have a bit of an honeymoon period but in the long run we wouldn't be much better than we are now, midtable at best. Likewise if you were to put Lambert in charge of Chelsea he'd be challenging for the title with them. If you put Lambert in charge of Chelsea he would drop Fabregas, Hazard and Costa! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 If we had Mourhino or Ferguson we'd have a bit of an honeymoon period but in the long run we wouldn't be much better than we are now, midtable at best. Likewise if you were to put Lambert in charge of Chelsea he'd be challenging for the title with them. I think I strongly disagree with this. So where do think we'd finish under Ferguson or Mourhino? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be any better than half way up the table. And as for Chelsea challenging for title under Lambert I say that because I reckon any manager in the top four leagues would have them challenging for the title with the money they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcowans21 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Okay, all these posters who want Lambert sacked straight away are very vocal that the ones who want him to be given more time are in the very low minority (excuse merchants i believe one poster referred to us by). I ask you this, if there are 99% of the fan base wanting him out so badly then we are there no mass protests at games such as there was with Pardew at Newcastle. I put it to you, that you are actually in the minority and most fans realise these excuses put forward are in fact reality at Villa and not even Mourinho could do much better than tread water here given the constraints. 1. Ok, here is the Mourinho post. 2. Will find the Ferguson one tommorow, off to bed. Thankyou and Goodnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 We're talking about two of the greatest managers of all time and you think they'd perform about the same as Lambert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Sensible when the team has been stripped to its bare bones prior to the arrival of the current manager. Any additional sales would only have meant an even smaller playing squad with even less quality to choose from. Like people have said, plenty of sticks to beat Lambert with, this isn't one of them. Was it really stripped to the bare bones? You could argue Lambert's involvement in the bomb squad meant that many players values were vastly reduced when that was created. Regardless he took a team that was 16th (under Mcleish) and that wasn't deemed good enough. From that point only 8 teams have a net spend higher and we're often as bad as we were under Mcleish IMO. Other managers have also managed to develop players and sell them on at a profit in order to then strengthen the squad. Who are the players Lambert has made a profit on? Stripped to the bare bones in terms of quality assets, yes. The last few were sold off under McLeish. If Lambert had been in charge when Downing and Young were sold would he not have a close to break even net spend? As I said before, Plenty of sticks to beat Lambert with. Using the net spend argument for me is just clutching at straws as it doesn't take into account a number of factors. You could say that AVB had a relatively small net spend because he happened to be in charge when Bale was sold, Did he contribute to making him the player that he is though or was he just fortunate enough to be there when he was sold? Same with McLeish. He had a negative net spend purely because he happened to be in charge when Downing and Young were sold. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) If we had Mourhino or Ferguson we'd have a bit of an honeymoon period but in the long run we wouldn't be much better than we are now, midtable at best. Likewise if you were to put Lambert in charge of Chelsea he'd be challenging for the title with them. I think I strongly disagree with this. I as well. Imo the idea that rich teams are self playing pianos or that a talented manager can't improve a mediocre teams performance without tons of money is ludicrous. Lambert is out of his depth here, at Chelsea he'd be schooled by the janitor Edited December 1, 2014 by sne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 1, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted December 1, 2014 Is that not saying that Mourinho would do better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 We're talking about two of the greatest managers of all time and you think they'd perform about the same as Lambert? I didn't say that though, they'd might get us a little further up the table and even have us playing more attractive football but there would be ceiling and if they had the same constraints to work under as Lambert I'd think them doing well just to keep us in the league. Put it like this who would you rather have at the club Randy and Mourhinio or Abramovich and Lambert? I know which duo I'd back to get us further up the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 He hasn't got the balls to kick 2 no mark coaches into touch until it got out of hand, never mind keep a team of 50 Million pound players disiplined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 I'm not saying there is no point in sacking Lambert if things get worse, a new manager might give us an initil lift and play a more attractive style of football, just that in the long run I'd expect us to revert back to being pretty similar to how we have been under Lambert, Mcleish and Houllier in terms of struggling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Stripped to the bare bones in terms of quality assets, yes. The last few were sold off under McLeish. If Lambert had been in charge when Downing and Young were sold would he not have a close to break even net spend? As I said before, Plenty of sticks to beat Lambert with. Using the net spend argument for me is just clutching at straws as it doesn't take into account a number of factors. You could say that AVB had a relatively small net spend because he happened to be in charge when Bale was sold, Did he contribute to making him the player that he is though or was he just fortunate enough to be there when he was sold? Same with McLeish. He had a negative net spend purely because he happened to be in charge when Downing and Young were sold. The point is Mcleish got 16th place the season after Downing and Young had been sold. Therefore in a season without those players we came 16th (under Mcleish) and that was deemed a total failure. As I have stated previously of the 11 clubs Lambert has outspent net since he's been here Southampton and Spurs are two examples where big transfer sales have been recouped. AVB can take some credit for Bale's performance as he gave him a platform to show off his talents and he scored 21 goals in one season while AVB was there. If Bale was at Villa at that time would Lambert have got that level of performance from him - IMO no! Who has Lambert made a profit on? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 I really wish you'd give up this net transfer spend argument, it's totally useless, and actively unhelpful in understanding finances. Let's say there are two clubs. One lets Fabian Delph leave for a free, and then signs Tom Cleverley for £8m. Another sells Aguero for £50m and buys Suarez for £58m. In your model, these two football clubs should be considered to be equal in terms of ability. You cannot understand the value of a business by looking only at its trading activity, while specifically ignoring the value of its assets. It's absurd. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 I really wish you'd give up this net transfer spend argument, it's totally useless, and actively unhelpful in understanding finances. Let's say there are two clubs. One lets Fabian Delph leave for a free, and then signs Tom Cleverley for £8m. Another sells Aguero for £50m and buys Suarez for £58m. In your model, these two football clubs should be considered to be equal in terms of ability. You cannot understand the value of a business by looking only at its trading activity, while specifically ignoring the value of its assets. It's absurd. To start off with: Club A: Has Delph Club B: Has Aguero Therefore to start off with Club B is ALREADY in a superior position than club A as it ALREADY has a superior and more valuable player. Both teams then, in your example, increase their net transfer spend by £8m. The final outcome is club A is still superior therefore totally logical! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Great. So can you stop comparing our league position negatively to Southampton and Spurs, given that it's extremely obvious that their assets are more valuable than ours? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Great. So can you stop comparing our league position negatively to Southampton and Spurs, given that it's extremely obvious that their assets are more valuable than ours? They are the extreme examples - there are still another 9 teams beyond them! As for say Saints, they've developed players and sold players at a profit and then reinvested. Who has Lambert made a profit on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 He's doing such a terrible job it's deflecting from the awful chairman. Lambert is a good distraction for Lerner to have hanging around. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) Great. So can you stop comparing our league position negatively to Southampton and Spurs, given that it's extremely obvious that their assets are more valuable than ours? They are the extreme examples - there are still another 9 teams beyond them! As for say Saints, they've developed players and sold players at a profit and then reinvested. Who has Lambert made a profit on? So now Lambert has to emulate the entire club that is Southampton or he is a failure? Is Lambert supposed to bring youth players through and make vast sums of money off them in 2 and a half years? Is he supposed to have made major profits on his signings in that time? His signings up until the last window were all on 20k per week or less and the best we could hope for most at that price is that they would come into the team and perform to a decent enough standard to help keep us competitive in the League! Wow you don't half have some seriously high expectations of a manager who has been working under really tight constraints. Try be a bit more realistic when your digging for more shit to throw at the manager, it's getting more pathetic by the day. Edited December 2, 2014 by Bunnski 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts