Paul Lambert on Randy Lerner .

[SheffieldVillain]

Managers by their date of appointment:

Wenger (30/09/96)
Pardew (6/12/10)
Allardyce (1/06/11)
Mackay (17/06/11)
Rodgers (1/06/12)
Lambert (2/06/12)
Bruce (8/06/12)

He'll probably be the fourth in the list very soon. Can't see Mackay or Allardyce being in their jobs too much longer.

[eastie]

Managers by their date of appointment:

Wenger (30/09/96)
Pardew (6/12/10)
Allardyce (1/06/11)
Mackay (17/06/11)
Rodgers (1/06/12)
Lambert (2/06/12)
Bruce (8/06/12)

Lambert just ahead of Bruce then although I wouldn't be surprised to see mackay and big sam depart very soon .

[paul_e]

So Lambert will go 5th soon given the situation in Cardiff and I wouldn't be surprised if Big Sam is gone before the end of the season.

That stat alone should be reason enough to stick with Lambert a little longer and see how he can evolve the strategy going forward, as I said on the other thread where you posted this I'm pretty sure that both Lambert and Lerner entered in to this thinking it was going to take a few years to get where we want to be.  Things aren't great right now but I don't think it's in the long-term benefit of the club to abandon the plan now.  What the numbers show more than anything is that the entire nature of the premier league is built around short term thinking and doesn't lend itself well to trying to build around youth like we are, which is why no one has tried it before.

[silhillvilla]

Thought about it long and hard and can't see the point in sacking him. Unless we lose v palace then he can pack his bags 

[Ad@m]

Lambert was appointed by Lerner in June 2012 and is now the sixth longest-serving manager in the Barclays Premier League - and the 27th in England as a whole.

Truly shocking in how the PL owners treat their Managers.

Jeez. Some things make you look open-gobbed in astonishment and this is one of them.

On the face of it that stat does look horrendous but football today isn't what it was.  The 'manager' in this context is very often now the Head Coach working underneath a Director of Football.  Where this works well a change in the Head Coach isn't as fundamental as it used to be as the DoF keeps things going in the same strategic direction set out at the top of the club. 

Back in the day when a football manager took entire control of all footballing matters it was a much bigger upheaval to sack one and I daresay that meant managers probably got given more time by Chairmen because it was a bigger risk for them.  In the DoF era, sacking your Head Coach carries much less risk.

[BoskoDjembaSalifou]

Personally, I like the fact that managers get sacked regularly. Look at Chelsea, they've done alright recently.

[Toronto Villa]

The Villa Park redevelopment was all done during Doug's reign - there's been no expansion of the stadium in the last seven years. The only difference is the Holte Pub refurb.

Villa Park is hugely different on the inside to how it looked when Doug sold the club. 

The Holte Suite has been completely redeveloped, almost every corporate facility in the Trinity Road Stand has been redeveloped, the tunnel area has been redeveloped, there's the new club shop on Witton Lane, the giant TV in the Holte End car park wasn't there when Doug was around I think, the William McGregor statue (and yes, I know Randy didn't pay for that but I'm sure he sanctioned it - DW will correct me if I'm wrong), VMF, I believe the Corner Flag Restaurant has been refurbished although I've not been in recently, etc, etc.

But Randy's major infrastructure legacy if he left tomorrow would be Bodymoor.  That's widely regarded as being one of the best facilities of its kind in the country.

It's what bothers me the most when some people say he doesn't care or he's given up. Yes, the football isn't right yet, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't care. He's trusting Lambert to get it right, as well as getting the finances fixed at the same time. It takes time and when we come out of it we'll on so much a better financial footing. Behind the scenes the club does look amazing and there is such is such attention to detail. I don't think for second he has turned a blind eye to the football side but that just takes a but longer to put right than items made of bricks and mortar.

[Toronto Villa]

Personally, I like the fact that managers get sacked regularly. Look at Chelsea, they've done alright recently.

Yes because Chelsea or Man City is comparable to most other clubs where they can get a new manager, and still spend £30-40m on the best players to keep winning.

[dave.woodhall]

The Villa Park redevelopment was all done during Doug's reign - there's been no expansion of the stadium in the last seven years. The only difference is the Holte Pub refurb.

Villa Park is hugely different on the inside to how it looked when Doug sold the club. 

The Holte Suite has been completely redeveloped, almost every corporate facility in the Trinity Road Stand has been redeveloped, the tunnel area has been redeveloped, there's the new club shop on Witton Lane, the giant TV in the Holte End car park wasn't there when Doug was around I think, the William McGregor statue (and yes, I know Randy didn't pay for that but I'm sure he sanctioned it - DW will correct me if I'm wrong), VMF, I believe the Corner Flag Restaurant has been refurbished although I've not been in recently, etc, etc.

But Randy's major infrastructure legacy if he left tomorrow would be Bodymoor.  That's widely regarded as being one of the best facilities of its kind in the country.

The statue was originally match-funded by Randy. Doug originally gave the go-ahead after several years of boardoom pithering around due to directors coming and going, then when Randy arrived the general rightaway said "You got it." We'd almost reached the target (or rather, the halfway point at which Randy would put the other half), when he said we'd done enough and he'd cover the shortfall. There are two people without whom the statue would still be a nice idea. Peter Warillow is one, Randy is the other.

[BoskoDjembaSalifou]

Personally, I like the fact that managers get sacked regularly. Look at Chelsea, they've done alright recently.

Yes because Chelsea or Man City is comparable to most other clubs where they can get a new manager, and still spend £30-40m on the best players to keep winning.

It helps, yes, but it's not all about who has the most money. Managers need to be able to get the best out of their squad.

[dave.woodhall]

Does that include managers whose clubs weren't in the Premier League when he was appointed, such as Mackay?

Wenger, pardew, Rodgers, Bruce and mackay - are they the five ?
If so then yes Bruce and mackay have not long been promoted.

So three managers have been at a Premier League club longer than Lambert, and one of them was a matter of hours.

[Toronto Villa]

Personally, I like the fact that managers get sacked regularly. Look at Chelsea, they've done alright recently.

Yes because Chelsea or Man City is comparable to most other clubs where they can get a new manager, and still spend £30-40m on the best players to keep winning.

It helps, yes, but it's not all about who has the most money. Managers need to be able to get the best out of their squad.

There's no denying that, but Lambert has been at the club around 18 months. Had he started where Martinez started at Everton and we were playing as we are I'd be with the majority asking serious questions. But his starting position was much, much worse.

[eastie]

Lambert was appointed by Lerner in June 2012 and is now the sixth longest-serving manager in the Barclays Premier League - and the 27th in England as a whole.

Truly shocking in how the PL owners treat their Managers.

Jeez. Some things make you look open-gobbed in astonishment and this is one of them.

On the face of it that stat does look horrendous but football today isn't what it was.  The 'manager' in this context is very often now the Head Coach working underneath a Director of Football.  Where this works well a change in the Head Coach isn't as fundamental as it used to be as the DoF keeps things going in the same strategic direction set out at the top of the club. 

Back in the day when a football manager took entire control of all footballing matters it was a much bigger upheaval to sack one and I daresay that meant managers probably got given more time by Chairmen because it was a bigger risk for them.  In the DoF era, sacking your Head Coach carries much less risk.

How many DOF are in operation in the premiership - I think there are quite a few managers who wouldn't work under those circumstances ?

[BoskoDjembaSalifou]

Personally, I like the fact that managers get sacked regularly. Look at Chelsea, they've done alright recently.

Yes because Chelsea or Man City is comparable to most other clubs where they can get a new manager, and still spend £30-40m on the best players to keep winning.

It helps, yes, but it's not all about who has the most money. Managers need to be able to get the best out of their squad.

There's no denying that, but Lambert has been at the club around 18 months. Had he started where Martinez started at Everton and we were playing as we are I'd be with the majority asking serious questions. But his starting position was much, much worse.

I hear what you're saying but there's no acceptable excuse for the recent performances IMO. He's lucky Lerner gives people time, a lot of other owners would've sacked him by now.

[Ad@m]

Lambert was appointed by Lerner in June 2012 and is now the sixth longest-serving manager in the Barclays Premier League - and the 27th in England as a whole.

Truly shocking in how the PL owners treat their Managers.

Jeez. Some things make you look open-gobbed in astonishment and this is one of them.

On the face of it that stat does look horrendous but football today isn't what it was.  The 'manager' in this context is very often now the Head Coach working underneath a Director of Football.  Where this works well a change in the Head Coach isn't as fundamental as it used to be as the DoF keeps things going in the same strategic direction set out at the top of the club. 

Back in the day when a football manager took entire control of all footballing matters it was a much bigger upheaval to sack one and I daresay that meant managers probably got given more time by Chairmen because it was a bigger risk for them.  In the DoF era, sacking your Head Coach carries much less risk.

How many DOF are in operation in the premiership - I think there are quite a few managers who wouldn't work under those circumstances ?

Not many but the trend is certainly for an increasing number of DoFs, just like the trend is for managers/head coaches to last less and less time in the job.