Manager Paul Lambert

[StefanAVFC]

 

None of it is really a fair comparison.  PL has had to strip back and rebuild.

Perhaps it's better to compare the amount per player signed

 

 

That would be far too sensible.

[Guest]

None of it is really a fair comparison. PL has had to strip back and rebuild.

Perhaps it's better to compare the amount per player signed

That would be far too sensible.

Agree, a gif should suffice.

[briny_ear]

Wow, the wit on here sure is sparkling tonight.

[srsmithusa]

Wow, the wit on here sure is sparkling tonight.

Thanks for adding to the run..... Oh and thank me for doing the same.

[Rovers13]

Why do people think possession equals entertainment? To me chances and goals are what is entertaining, and Lamberts record shows that his team and the opponent will get their chances and score a lot of goals. Passing it around your own half is boring to me, and I can imagine it is to a lot of people as well.

[Isa]

Why do people think possession equals entertainment? To me chances and goals are what is entertaining, and Lamberts record shows that his team and the opponent will get their chances and score a lot of goals. Passing it around your own half is boring to me, and I can imagine it is to a lot of people as well.

Our football at home rarely resembles anything entertaining, possession or not.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Isa

[Shaw_nuff]

Why do people think possession equals entertainment? To me chances and goals are what is entertaining, and Lamberts record shows that his team and the opponent will get their chances and score a lot of goals. Passing it around your own half is boring to me, and I can imagine it is to a lot of people as well.

It's a subjective point that can't be taken from you.

 

It all depends what you like. When teams play great football it's like art. Watching Barcelona is like looking at a Dutch masterpiece. Villa, at the moment, is like looking at a two-year old's palm-print. Both can be entertaining I suppose. Depends what floats your boat.

[PaulC]

Why do people think possession equals entertainment? To me chances and goals are what is entertaining, and Lamberts record shows that his team and the opponent will get their chances and score a lot of goals. Passing it around your own half is boring to me, and I can imagine it is to a lot of people as well.

 

Yes I get bored with teams that pass it around their own half. No one can say the Southampton game wasn't good entertainment. 3 great villa goals! At times last season we played good football but lost now we are doing it the other way! Nice to have both of course but I think I'd rather win games than play pretty football.

[Avflife]

If we are to look at transfer fees spent by other teams (according to transfermarkt) in the same calibre and position in the league e.g. Newcastle, Swansea and Southampton, we have spent more than both Swansea and Newcastle, but like the two just mentioned, have been warped by Southampton's spending.

Since the start of the 2012/13 season, Newcastle have spent around 25m, Swansea around 37m, mainly on Bony and Shelvey and Southampton around 70m, mainly on Lovren, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Wanyama and Osvaldo.

We have spent around 40m, so now the debate continues has the players PL has brought worth the money we paid for them, out of the 15 players we have brought it I would say about 6 of them (2 still I'm undecided on) have been worth what we supposedly paid for them. 

Edited December 6, 2013 by Avflife

[P3te]

What has the player turnaround been like in the other clubs you mentioned? Between ins and outs we must be close to 30-35 for Lambert's time in charge. I can't imagine anyone else has done that kind of rebuilding

[Avflife]

What has the player turnaround been like in the other clubs you mentioned? Between ins and outs we must be close to 30-35 for Lambert's time in charge. I can't imagine anyone else has done that kind of rebuilding

Haven't got a clue, doesn't state the fees from player sales on transfermarkt, but can't off the top of my head think of anyone leaving those clubs for big bucks expect for Ba leaving Newcastle for Chelsea for around 7m,

[legov]

Con-text.

[samjp26]

 

What has the player turnaround been like in the other clubs you mentioned? Between ins and outs we must be close to 30-35 for Lambert's time in charge. I can't imagine anyone else has done that kind of rebuilding

Haven't got a clue, doesn't state the fees from player sales on transfermarkt, but can't off the top of my head think of anyone leaving those clubs for big bucks expect for Ba leaving Newcastle for Chelsea for around 7m,

 

 

He doesn't mean in millions of pounds, he means how many actual players have come in/out.

 

16 in since Lambert's arrival, 13 out permanently and 3 currently out on loan who were in the first team before Lambert came in.

 

So for what it is worth, if you say we've spent £40m it means we've spent £2.5m per player.

Edited December 7, 2013 by samjp26

[il_serpente]

Everyone keeps talking about spending as though the transfer fee is the only cost.  Don't forget that wages for the duration of the contract are often a bigger part of the cost of the player, particularly for the better known, established players.  Also, even if some other team spends the same amount per player on average, their wage bill will be a lot less if they're only buying and paying a few players vs. rebuilding an entire team like Villa.  Or, instead they can afford to bring in players that demand higher wages for the same total outlay.  People aren't counting Sissoko as having cost Newcastle anything because he was "free", but in reality they're spending much more than Villa did on, say Kozak, because of the wages.

 

The type of player that will play for the type of wages Villa can afford at the moment is naturally going to be one that costs less and is not well known.  But if they're all on similar wages to start with and some get improved contracts when they earn them, there is likely to be more of a sense of togetherness and willingness to fight for each other, even if some some of their teammates are (deservedly) getting paid more after a year or two.  Even if you can affort one big signing on big wages, dropping that player into the middle of a team on much lower wages who've fought together and built a team together may have a net negative effect.  Better to let the team improve together over a couple of years, give increases to those who play well and bring in replacements for those who don't.  The average wage will slowly rise to where we can afford to bring in a few better players on higher wages without upsetting the balance and chemistry, and the wage bill will be under control and sustainable.

 

I think this is how the wage bill is driving things at the moment and is the way the team can gradually get back closer to the top in a sustainable manner, and I also think it's showing signs of working.

[Jonoridge91]

 

We have spent around 40m, so now the debate continues has the players PL has brought worth the money we paid for them, out of the 15 players we have brought it I would say about 6 of them (2 still I'm undecided on) have been worth what we supposedly paid for them. 

 

I don't really think it's fair when you consider the amount of players that we've signed to assess them now opposed to assess them when they've seen out their initial contract.

 

I also think how you can judge the players already on their worth when nearly all of the signings excluding Vlarr, KEA & arguably Kozak were signed to look ahead to the future is a bit premature.

 

I mean look how long it has taken Delph to finally come good, not saying they'll all be like that nor should we expect that but there are people already on here condemning signings made this summer when they're all in their early 20's.

 

Just to add apparently during an AVTV interview a lot of the prices we paid for players is considerably lower than what has been reported.

[Morpheus]

Everyone keeps talking about spending as though the transfer fee is the only cost.  Don't forget that wages for the duration of the contract are often a bigger part of the cost of the player, particularly for the better known, established players.  Also, even if some other team spends the same amount per player on average, their wage bill will be a lot less if they're only buying and paying a few players vs. rebuilding an entire team like Villa.  Or, instead they can afford to bring in players that demand higher wages for the same total outlay.  People aren't counting Sissoko as having cost Newcastle anything because he was "free", but in reality they're spending much more than Villa did on, say Kozak, because of the wages.

 

The type of player that will play for the type of wages Villa can afford at the moment is naturally going to be one that costs less and is not well known.  But if they're all on similar wages to start with and some get improved contracts when they earn them, there is likely to be more of a sense of togetherness and willingness to fight for each other, even if some some of their teammates are (deservedly) getting paid more after a year or two.  Even if you can affort one big signing on big wages, dropping that player into the middle of a team on much lower wages who've fought together and built a team together may have a net negative effect.  Better to let the team improve together over a couple of years, give increases to those who play well and bring in replacements for those who don't.  The average wage will slowly rise to where we can afford to bring in a few better players on higher wages without upsetting the balance and chemistry, and the wage bill will be under control and sustainable.

 

I think this is how the wage bill is driving things at the moment and is the way the team can gradually get back closer to the top in a sustainable manner, and I also think it's showing signs of working.

Don't agree with some of that but it is however an excellent post. 

[Ulver]

 

None of it is really a fair comparison.  PL has had to strip back and rebuild.

Perhaps it's better to compare the amount per player signed

 

I agree with both of you guys but really it's a fruitless argument - Lambert is clearly working with meagre resources

 

- Southampton signed three players last season for £38m in total and we've spent about the same on 16 players

 

- If we are talking about net spend, to balance the books, in the same period Lambert has (had to) sell or loan out 12 players that cost us £75m and we recieved a total of £3m for them

 

- Newcastle have a strategy where they bring in Bosemans or buy players at the end of their contract - Sissoko may have only cost £2.5m but over four years his wages are another £14m

 

- Everton have had a manager who has been able to build a squad over 10 years

 

- Swansea have had a succession of good managers to build a style of play

 

Lambert has been here no time at all and has had to completely rebuild the squad from the ground up

 

It's sad that some fans have so little patience. We played some terrific stuff at the end of last year and have produced some memorable results already this season. A handful of games with a shed-load of injuries and we're throwing our toys out the pram

 

We have probably the quickest attack in the league so it would be stupid to nullify that with some kind of tika-taka bullshit that allows teams to get back behind the ball

 

We're very hard to beat now - Mid-table this season (10th-12th), with three or four good players coming in close season and we can look forward to even better next year. Patience, patience

 

 

 

1. Lambert chose to buy 16 players rather than 5

 

2. I've got plenty of patience. Lambert's been here nearly a season and a half now and i've not given him a round of **** for his useless brand of football at a match yet. I suspect like a LOT of others i've been sitting cringing and biting down on my tongue very hard. The very definition of patience to me

 

3. Did someone really suggest (in his defence) that his buys up to now were to get us to this position but aren't really capable of getting us any further?. If so thats some warped logic. If you buy players then they need to be long term solutions not cheap gap fixes to get a couple of places up the table before giving them away

 

4. So Everton, a team we've long been told haven't got a pot to piss in are suddenly outspending us are they ?, or was it they made some very shrewd loan signings and have a manager that plays a more pleasing and enjoyable brand of football ?

 

5. When will this fecking bullshit about our wage bill being unsustainable ever end ? DO THE MATHS

 

6. For the 42 million he's spent on players. We look, at best bog average bordering on absolutely turgid usually within the course of the same 90 minutes. 

 

Even if we're mid table come the final day, if the football has remained this dire he should get his P45

 

I don't like paying too watch this kind of crap to be perfectly honest. If so called lesser managers with so called lesser clubs and finance can produce teams that can string a few passes together and have a visible shape about them, then we should be able to to

 

Trolling

 

 

 

Yeah, cheers. Different view equals trolling now. Thanks big man

[briny_ear]

Everyone keeps talking about spending as though the transfer fee is the only cost.  Don't forget that wages for the duration of the contract are often a bigger part of the cost of the player, particularly for the better known, established players.  Also, even if some other team spends the same amount per player on average, their wage bill will be a lot less if they're only buying and paying a few players vs. rebuilding an entire team like Villa.  Or, instead they can afford to bring in players that demand higher wages for the same total outlay.  People aren't counting Sissoko as having cost Newcastle anything because he was "free", but in reality they're spending much more than Villa did on, say Kozak, because of the wages.

 

The type of player that will play for the type of wages Villa can afford at the moment is naturally going to be one that costs less and is not well known.  But if they're all on similar wages to start with and some get improved contracts when they earn them, there is likely to be more of a sense of togetherness and willingness to fight for each other, even if some some of their teammates are (deservedly) getting paid more after a year or two.  Even if you can affort one big signing on big wages, dropping that player into the middle of a team on much lower wages who've fought together and built a team together may have a net negative effect.  Better to let the team improve together over a couple of years, give increases to those who play well and bring in replacements for those who don't.  The average wage will slowly rise to where we can afford to bring in a few better players on higher wages without upsetting the balance and chemistry, and the wage bill will be under control and sustainable.

 

I think this is how the wage bill is driving things at the moment and is the way the team can gradually get back closer to the top in a sustainable manner, and I also think it's showing signs of working.

The key assumption here is that we will in time be able to increase average wage levels. Some of the current wage bill is wasted on high-wage players we don't want (Ireland, Bent, Hutton et al.) and, once they are gone, the money would, in principle,  be available to spend on higher wages for other players. But I don't see much evidence that over time we will increase the underlying level of wages. The overall aim seems to be to reduce the wages bill in relation to income so any increase in wage levels depends on proportionately  higher takings; or investment by the owner.

[samjp26]

So, VillaCas, who would you hire instead of Lambert since you want him to get his P45?

[CrackpotForeigner]

So, VillaCas, who would you hire instead of Lambert since you want him to get his P45?

 

You do VillaCas an injustice, sir. Ulver is the P45-waving loon.