ozvillafan Posted May 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2015 Neither was offering Lambert a new four-year deal. Lerner is quite simply a moron. Lets put that in the context of the time it was done, shall we? - Lambert is in his 3rd season - He has dropped the high earners and has a squad made up entirely of his own players - He has had a stella start to the season - The club is up for sale and needs to convey the idea of stability to be attractive to prospective buyers - He has nobody at the club to tell him otherwise (post Faulkner, pre Fox) Suddenly that decision doesn't seem so daft - especially when we don't know the full details of the deal (including possible clauses for being bloody awful). In hindsight, he was bloody awful and it was a poor decision to make... .. but everything is easy in hindsight. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 In hindsight? At the time many fans questioned it. The only person who doesn't question something odd is Lerner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2015 I've said before but I reckon the new contract was just a pay rise which had been agreed at the start of Lambert's tenure. Keep us in the league for 2 seasons, cut the wages by x amount and we'll negotiate a new contract after 2 seasons. It was just the timing of when it happened that made us all think he'd been handed a contract after a couple of good games. I'm basing this on nothing, just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Neither was offering Lambert a new four-year deal. Lerner is quite simply a moron. Lets put that in the context of the time it was done, shall we? - Lambert is in his 3rd season - He has dropped the high earners and has a squad made up entirely of his own players - He has had a stella start to the season - The club is up for sale and needs to convey the idea of stability to be attractive to prospective buyers - He has nobody at the club to tell him otherwise (post Faulkner, pre Fox) Suddenly that decision doesn't seem so daft - especially when we don't know the full details of the deal (including possible clauses for being bloody awful). In hindsight, he was bloody awful and it was a poor decision to make... .. but everything is easy in hindsight. Taking your points in order: Agreed Not completely true, he still had the likes of Hutton, Given and Bent. It was FOUR games. Not nearly long to see if that was enough. If you're trying to sell something, it could actually be argued that NOT giving the manager a new contract was the correct thing to do, as it ties a potential new owner into a manager they may not want. Not true, the new contract was signed after Fox had started. Fox said this at the time "We have a long-term vision for Villa. Paul is completely integrated into our plan to manage the club carefully and ambitiously back to a position in the Premier League appropriate to our history and collective expectations." It was a terrible idea, and one that does not need the power of hind sight to see just what a terrible idea it was. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Neither was offering Lambert a new four-year deal. Lerner is quite simply a moron. Lets put that in the context of the time it was done, shall we? - Lambert is in his 3rd season - He has dropped the high earners and has a squad made up entirely of his own players - He has had a stella start to the season - The club is up for sale and needs to convey the idea of stability to be attractive to prospective buyers - He has nobody at the club to tell him otherwise (post Faulkner, pre Fox) Suddenly that decision doesn't seem so daft - especially when we don't know the full details of the deal (including possible clauses for being bloody awful). In hindsight, he was bloody awful and it was a poor decision to make... .. but everything is easy in hindsight. Taking your points in order: Agreed Not completely true, he still had the likes of Hutton, Given and Bent. It was FOUR games. Not nearly long to see if that was enough. If you're trying to sell something, it could actually be argued that NOT giving the manager a new contract was the correct thing to do, as it ties a potential new owner into a manager they may not want. Not true, the new contract was signed after Fox had started. Fox said this at the time "We have a long-term vision for Villa. Paul is completely integrated into our plan to manage the club carefully and ambitiously back to a position in the Premier League appropriate to our history and collective expectations." It was a terrible idea, and one that does not need the power of hind sight to see just what a terrible idea it was. Lambert was offered the contract when he kept us up the season before. Whether it was a good or bad decision or liked or not liked having a manager on a long term contract gives the sense of stability. Ultimately the only difference it made was to Lamberts pocket as I don't think it affected the decision to sack him as Lerner is probably too loyal. Thankfully Fox seems to have that ruthless streak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Lets put that in the context of the time it was done, shall we? - Lambert is in his 3rd season - He has dropped the high earners and has a squad made up entirely of his own players - He has had a stella start to the season - The club is up for sale and needs to convey the idea of stability to be attractive to prospective buyers - He has nobody at the club to tell him otherwise (post Faulkner, pre Fox) Suddenly that decision doesn't seem so daft - especially when we don't know the full details of the deal (including possible clauses for being bloody awful). In hindsight, he was bloody awful and it was a poor decision to make... .. but everything is easy in hindsight. Nothing to do with hindsight, you're saying it like there was some sort of consensus over it at the time. Hindsight would be me blasting him for hiring Lambert in the first place but the rewarding him with a new contract after the shambles of the previous season (which he should never have survived) was unforgivably irrational. None of the points you've drawn up further vindicate it. It was ridiculous at the time and it remains even more so now. Lerner basically believed in stability for the sake of stability - so yeah, he's a moron. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted May 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2015 Don't get me wrong - I was highly critical of Lambert at the time he got the new contract. If you're trying to sell something, it could actually be argued that NOT giving the manager a new contract was the correct thing to do, as it ties a potential new owner into a manager they may not want. Yes, it can be argued that way. Good point. Not true, the new contract was signed after Fox had started. Fox said this at the time "We have a long-term vision for Villa. Paul is completely integrated into our plan to manage the club carefully and ambitiously back to a position in the Premier League appropriate to our history and collective expectations." Thanks for pointing that out - I was unaware. Seeing as Fox is being credited with so much of the good decisions being made.... ... how, exactly, did he walk away from criticism over this decision while Lerner is a "moron"?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Don't get me wrong - I was highly critical of Lambert at the time he got the new contract. If you're trying to sell something, it could actually be argued that NOT giving the manager a new contract was the correct thing to do, as it ties a potential new owner into a manager they may not want. Yes, it can be argued that way. Good point. Not true, the new contract was signed after Fox had started. Fox said this at the time "We have a long-term vision for Villa. Paul is completely integrated into our plan to manage the club carefully and ambitiously back to a position in the Premier League appropriate to our history and collective expectations." Thanks for pointing that out - I was unaware. Seeing as Fox is being credited with so much of the good decisions being made.... ... how, exactly, did he walk away from criticism over this decision while Lerner is a "moron"?! That's a fair question. I'm assuming that people think he didn't have a lot to do with the decision, and that he hasn't made any errors since, whereas Lerner is on the back of several years of woeful mismanagement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 It was announced not long after Fox assumed his position so he had little to do with it I think. There is no way he saw enough in two weeks of knowing him to conclude that Lambert warrants such a show of faith. It clearly was already in the pipeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw95 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I love it when a thread degenerates from reasonable discussion to name calling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted May 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2015 It was announced not long after Fox assumed his position so he had little to do with it I think. There is no way he saw enough in two weeks of knowing him to conclude that Lambert warrants such a show of faith. It clearly was already in the pipeline. Then my original assertion (post Faulkner, pre Fox - little input from anyone else) stands true. Can't have it both ways. Bad decision? Yep. Mitigated? Certainly not in your eyes but definitely in mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I love it when a thread degenerates from reasonable discussion to name calling. Technically it's an adjective. Then my original assertion (post Faulkner, pre Fox - little input from anyone else) stands true. Can't have it both ways. Bad decision? Yep. Mitigated? Certainly not in your eyes but definitely in mine. Both ways? Lerner not being capable of understanding that was a poor decision without consultation really just qualifies all that I've said methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted May 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2015 Both ways? Lerner not being capable of understanding that was a poor decision without consultation really just qualifies all that I've said methinks. He just hired Fox to run the club while he was out of the country. Are you really trying to tell me he didn't consult Fox? Or is Fox's involvement an inconvenient truth for the common "Lerner = bad, Fox = good" view that is perpetrated by so many here (perhaps even yourself)? It's simply not that black and white and Lerner is not the pantomime villain he is made out to be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 He just hired Fox to run the club while he was out of the country. Are you really trying to tell me he didn't consult Fox? Or is Fox's involvement an inconvenient truth for the common "Lerner = bad, Fox = good" view that is perpetrated by so many here (perhaps even yourself)? It's simply not that black and white and Lerner is not the pantomime villain he is made out to be. For the reasons given above, I think the contract announcement was in the offing before Fox had taken charge - he wouldn't have been in a position in regards to the job Lambert was doing at the club to hold an informed position either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted May 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2015 For the reasons given above, I think the contract announcement was in the offing before Fox had taken charge - he wouldn't have been in a position in regards to the job Lambert was doing at the club to hold an informed position either way. Yet you had an opinion. I had an opinion too - that a long term contract was a bad idea. But Fox had no opinion? And then came out in the press stating Lambert was the way forward? Come now. The decision was awful - but you cannot pin it all on Lerner considering the situation he was in and who was around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Yet you had an opinion. I had an opinion too - that a long term contract was a bad idea. But Fox had no opinion? And then came out in the press stating Lambert was the way forward? Come now. The decision was awful - but you cannot pin it all on Lerner considering the situation he was in and who was around. Well he wasn't going to say much else once it happened. Again, it's highly unlikely contract talks suddenly began only once Fox had assumed office. Maybe Fox did endorse it, it was still instigated and importantly sanctioned by Lerner. For what it's worth, if it was a one off thing, I'd be a lot more leniant here. But his reign has been plagued by bone-headed decisions and gross mismanagement from the start. So he gets no benefit of the doubt or pass from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Neither was offering Lambert a new four-year deal. Lerner is quite simply a moron. Lets put that in the context of the time it was done, shall we? - Lambert is in his 3rd season - He has dropped the high earners and has a squad made up entirely of his own players - He has had a stella start to the season - The club is up for sale and needs to convey the idea of stability to be attractive to prospective buyers - He has nobody at the club to tell him otherwise (post Faulkner, pre Fox) Suddenly that decision doesn't seem so daft - especially when we don't know the full details of the deal (including possible clauses for being bloody awful). In hindsight, he was bloody awful and it was a poor decision to make... .. but everything is easy in hindsight. Many were calling it daft at the time, I certainly was. Lambert was incredibly lucky not to have been sacked after the Spurs game when he flew to America and we all assumed that would be to terminate his deal, I think from some of his interviews since he left he was expecting that outcome aswell. It wasn't like there was major interest from other clubs so there was no rush to give him an extended deal. The logical thing would've been to give him one at xmas if he'd managed to keep up the good form until xmas so some actual some consistant form, not four games that included a dire 0-0 with Newcastle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Don't get me wrong - I was highly critical of Lambert at the time he got the new contract. If you're trying to sell something, it could actually be argued that NOT giving the manager a new contract was the correct thing to do, as it ties a potential new owner into a manager they may not want. Yes, it can be argued that way. Good point. Not true, the new contract was signed after Fox had started. Fox said this at the time "We have a long-term vision for Villa. Paul is completely integrated into our plan to manage the club carefully and ambitiously back to a position in the Premier League appropriate to our history and collective expectations." Thanks for pointing that out - I was unaware. Seeing as Fox is being credited with so much of the good decisions being made.... ... how, exactly, did he walk away from criticism over this decision while Lerner is a "moron"?! When did we actually appoint Fox? I think maybe things with the new deal were probably so advanced he couldn't overrule. It's clear from Lambert's leaving statement Tom Fox and him didn't get on so I think Fox had worked our pretty early on Lambert wasn't going to stay very long but convincing Lerner of this was a bit harder until the Hull result made things untenable. Just checked, he joined us August 21st this season and Lambert got his new deal what two weeks later so don't really think he had enough time to judge and try to talk Lerner out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 He would have never have talked Lerner out of giving Lambert a new contract. And to be fair the news of that contract was greeted in a positive light on this forum at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I mean if Randy had a way of knowing we wouldn't be relegated under Lambert then Lambert would still be here now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts