| Do NOT sack Lambert 21:43 - Jan 25 with 608 views | Lblock |
The jock version of Sparkless Hughes
Keep him there as doing a great job
Midlanders take note, alright skip? |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |  |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 21:45 - Jan 25 with 598 views | TGRRRSSS |
I actually think he's a decent manager in a tricky situation, still much to admire about Villa in the long term but they need a couple of signings experienced players who know what to do in the sort of situation they are in.
Obviously them going down would benefit us, but I do think they are doing or attempting to do the right thing in many ways as a club. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 21:52 - Jan 25 with 555 views | Lblock |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 21:45 - Jan 25 by TGRRRSSS |
I actually think he's a decent manager in a tricky situation, still much to admire about Villa in the long term but they need a couple of signings experienced players who know what to do in the sort of situation they are in.
Obviously them going down would benefit us, but I do think they are doing or attempting to do the right thing in many ways as a club. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
I kind of agree
But if we are to drop I wouldn't want them to drop with us as they would surely piss it next season
Dropping instead of us would be very nice though | |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 21:59 - Jan 25 with 523 views | FDC |
Yeah if they go down they'll be ok. We on the other hand... Doesn't bear thinking about. |  | | |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 22:21 - Jan 25 with 475 views | N12Hoop |
And if they do go down they have a top quality Championship manager.
Imagine if them and Newcastle went down. Wouldn't want to be the third team having to fight them for auto promotion! |  |
| |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 22:48 - Jan 25 with 422 views | Northernr |
I don't think they will sack him and I don't think they should. The chickens are coming home to roost at Villa, they've made scores of mistakes as a club over the past three years and because they started with such a good team and a big fan base it's taken a while for those mistakes to actually hurt them - whereas a club like ours feels its mistakes very quickly.
They should have realised what they had with O'Neill - competitive team, finishing sixth three years running. That's as good as Villa are going to get in their current form and the way the league is. Instead, much like Charlton, they trotted out this "taken us as far as he can" bullsht, criticised O'Neill for not moving them on into Champions League contention and engineered a situation where the best manager they've had for years walked out right on the eve of a season.
Since then, two lousy mangerial appointments - Houllier going there was hilarious, the only surprise being that it took him as long as six months to have the inevitable heart attack - after upsetting 3/4 of the playing staff. Just when you thought they couldn't do any worse they brought in McRelegator. In the meantime, just when they really needed to spend some serious money to cover up the deficiencies of the managers they appointed, they started cutting back and selling their best players.
So Lambert has inherited a situation here where th team has been dreadfully managed by two dreadful managers for the last two years, it's had all its best players sold, and it's aiming to cut down on expenditure further. He's gone about it the right way - academy graduates and well scouted lower league players - but the momentum has been heading in one way for a while now and it's difficult to turn that around. Also, he's been rather baby and bathwater about it all by deliberately not picking any of the experienced players at all - Bent, Warnock, Dunne - who'd probably be able to add some experience and knowhow to the current situation.
But overall it's not his fault. If they can survive this season I think he'll drive them on. At the moment I don't think they will survive this season. Either way, they'd be best off keeping him - the alternatives out there aren't great, and even when there were some good alternatives out there they appointed Gerrard Houllier and Alex bloody McLeish.
That said - Lambert either seems to do a great job or a bad job in his career so far. He fits well at some clubs and not at others. So he shouldn't just be allowed to carry on regardless. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 22:55 - Jan 25 with 403 views | Juzzie |
If Lambert was sacked tonight, any new manager will have a week before the transfer window closes, assuming they'd have any money given to spend.
I think he's there until the season ends at least. We get all the stick for being badly run with our wanton spending but many other clubs are badly run in different ways and Villa are one.
|  | | |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 23:12 - Jan 25 with 371 views | TacticalR |
@Northernr 'They should have realised what they had with O'Neill - competitive team, finishing sixth three years running. That's as good as Villa are going to get in their current form and the way the league is. Instead, much like Charlton, they trotted out this "taken us as far as he can" bullsht, criticised O'Neill for not moving them on into Champions League contention and engineered a situation where the best manager they've had for years walked out right on the eve of a season.'
I wonder if that really explains events? And does it explain why O'Neill's departure was so sudden? Another more likely explanation is that having spent a lot of money to get to sixth, Lerner had decided it wasn't worth it, wanted to cut costs, and it was that that led to O'Neill's departure. In other words O'Neill's departure was not cause but effect.
Given that context, both McLeish and Lambert have simply been following Lerner's plan. The situation was summed up rather well by a headline in today's papers: 'Villa back Lambert - but not with cash'. |  |
| |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 23:17 - Jan 25 with 362 views | Northernr |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 23:12 - Jan 25 by TacticalR |
@Northernr 'They should have realised what they had with O'Neill - competitive team, finishing sixth three years running. That's as good as Villa are going to get in their current form and the way the league is. Instead, much like Charlton, they trotted out this "taken us as far as he can" bullsht, criticised O'Neill for not moving them on into Champions League contention and engineered a situation where the best manager they've had for years walked out right on the eve of a season.'
I wonder if that really explains events? And does it explain why O'Neill's departure was so sudden? Another more likely explanation is that having spent a lot of money to get to sixth, Lerner had decided it wasn't worth it, wanted to cut costs, and it was that that led to O'Neill's departure. In other words O'Neill's departure was not cause but effect.
Given that context, both McLeish and Lambert have simply been following Lerner's plan. The situation was summed up rather well by a headline in today's papers: 'Villa back Lambert - but not with cash'. |
Oh absolutely, from O'Neill's POV he definitely walked out because he wanted more money to spend and Lerner said no. But very few Villa fans, even now, are sorry that he went when in fact a compromise should have been reached because they haven't had a manager that good since. You don't know what you've got until it's gone, and Villa certainly didn't. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 23:37 - Jan 25 with 326 views | TacticalR |
But I wonder what the compromise would have been?
Isn't the problem that the spending power of Manchester Utd, Manchester City, and Chelsea, coupled with the focus on Europe, seems to have cut the ground from under established top-flight teams like Villa and Liverpool? Even the cup triumphs of yesteryear have been taken from them, as the big clubs tend to win those as well. | |
| |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 23:50 - Jan 25 with 300 views | Northernr |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 23:37 - Jan 25 by TacticalR |
But I wonder what the compromise would have been?
Isn't the problem that the spending power of Manchester Utd, Manchester City, and Chelsea, coupled with the focus on Europe, seems to have cut the ground from under established top-flight teams like Villa and Liverpool? Even the cup triumphs of yesteryear have been taken from them, as the big clubs tend to win those as well. |
Well O'Neill is now the Sunderland manager, so he clearly wasn't looking for riches on a Sheikh Mansour level. | | | |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 00:41 - Jan 26 with 265 views | TacticalR |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 23:50 - Jan 25 by Northernr |
Well O'Neill is now the Sunderland manager, so he clearly wasn't looking for riches on a Sheikh Mansour level. |
Maybe. The fact that O'Neill went so suddenly suggests to me that Lerner must have sprung some kind of nasty surprise on him.
On a related note...according to this article (about the great Director of Football debate) McLeish was appointed at Villa based on the recommendation of one Alex Ferguson:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/aston-villa-why-randy-lerner-must-15 | |
| |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 00:49 - Jan 26 with 255 views | Northernr |
Hmmmmm. I think we've seen with Robson, Hughes, Keane, Kidd and others that suckling at the withered teet of Sir Alex doth not necessarily a great manager make. | | | |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 01:26 - Jan 26 with 240 views | Pommyhoop |
| Do NOT sack Lambert on 00:49 - Jan 26 by Northernr |
Hmmmmm. I think we've seen with Robson, Hughes, Keane, Kidd and others that suckling at the withered teet of Sir Alex doth not necessarily a great manager make. |
Ewwww
 |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
