Lambert Out?

[Risso]

Take a look at other clubs owners that don't give the manager money, time or get the club into serious debt. Randy is good, made 1 mistake, was a big mistake granted, but he's working towards making it better. Give him half a chance.

How many people have taken charge of the first team in the two and a bit years since O'Neill left?

And this thread is called?

Lambert out.  Which is a suggestion that a not one single person has made on this thread.

[dave.woodhall]

One manager resigned for his own selfish reasons, another was unable to continue. In different circumstances either would still be here so I don't think Lambert has to worry about Randy being trigger-happy.

Do we now know the facts about what happened in that case then?  I thought we ended up paying him compensation via the tribunal.

I think it's safe to assume his prime interest in the case was himself.

[hilts_coolerking]

I think it's safe to assume his prime interest in the case was himself.

Quite but it doesn't necessarily follow that Lerner was blameless in the matter.  There must have been a reason why we were obliged to compensate him.

[dave.woodhall]

I think it's safe to assume his prime interest in the case was himself.

Quite but it doesn't necessarily follow that Lerner was blameless in the matter.  There must have been a reason why we were obliged to compensate him.

I'm not saying he was blameless, but I do think Randy would rather have kept him than not, albeit under different circumstances than in his first four years.   

[Risso]

I think it's safe to assume his prime interest in the case was himself.

Quite but it doesn't necessarily follow that Lerner was blameless in the matter.  There must have been a reason why we were obliged to compensate him.

I'm not saying he was blameless, but I do think Randy would rather have kept him than not, albeit under different circumstances than in his first four years.   

That was never, ever going to happen.  It would have essentially meant Saint Martin admitting to his mistakes, and that would have been as likely as McLeish being appointed as the Barcelona manager.

[hilts_coolerking]

I'm not saying he was blameless, but I do think Randy would rather have kept him than not, albeit under different circumstances than in his first four years.

Agreed.  And given what's happened since, so would I - which is quite an admission.

[dave.woodhall]

I don't think it would have meant O'Neill admitting he was wrong so much as him having to face the prospect of slipping backwards and the image he'd built for himself as the New Clough slipping - and that was never going to happen. A pity in a way, because it would have been interesting to see whether he could have worked under restrictions and more importantly whether he could have got Milner, Young & Barry to stay for longer.

[Risso]

I'm not saying he was blameless, but I do think Randy would rather have kept him than not, albeit under different circumstances than in his first four years.

Agreed.  And given what's happened since, so would I - which is quite an admission.

I can see where you're coming from with that, but how much use would O'Neill actually have been under the economic conditions of the last two and a bit years?  He did OK when he could spend £40m a season and then replace his defence en masse the year after.  But having to get all the big earners off the wage bill would have seen us with similar results to the last two years I reckon.  But like I say, it was never a possibility, he had a reputation to protect.

[Risso]

I don't think it would have meant O'Neill admitting he was wrong so much as him having to face the prospect of slipping backwards and the image he'd built for himself as the New Clough slipping - and that was never going to happen. A pity in a way, because it would have been interesting to see whether he could have worked under restrictions and more importantly whether he could have got Milner, Young & Barry to stay for longer.

Milner had already decided to go hadn't he?

[dave.woodhall]

I don't think it would have meant O'Neill admitting he was wrong so much as him having to face the prospect of slipping backwards and the image he'd built for himself as the New Clough slipping - and that was never going to happen. A pity in a way, because it would have been interesting to see whether he could have worked under restrictions and more importantly whether he could have got Milner, Young & Barry to stay for longer.

Milner had already decided to go hadn't he?

It all got a bit confusing from what I remember. Didn't O'Neill say something about him wanting a move then Milner denied it, or similar?

[hilts_coolerking]

I can see where you're coming from with that, but how much use would O'Neill actually have been under the economic conditions of the last two and a bit years?  He did OK when he could spend £40m a season and then replace his defence en masse the year after.  But having to get all the big earners off the wage bill would have seen us with similar results to the last two years I reckon.  But like I say, it was never a possibility, he had a reputation to protect.

Yes it's speculative isn't it.  But I always thought that we played some of our best stuff under him in that first season where he had to make do and mend for a while so it might not have been too bad if he'd stayed.  I agree though that his monumental ego was always going to become a problem sooner or later.

[Risso]

I don't think it would have meant O'Neill admitting he was wrong so much as him having to face the prospect of slipping backwards and the image he'd built for himself as the New Clough slipping - and that was never going to happen. A pity in a way, because it would have been interesting to see whether he could have worked under restrictions and more importantly whether he could have got Milner, Young & Barry to stay for longer.

Milner had already decided to go hadn't he?

It all got a bit confusing from what I remember. Didn't O'Neill say something about him wanting a move then Milner denied it, or similar?

I think Milner did deny it, but then wasn't the fact that O'Neill wanted all the Milner money to spend and Lerner saying no the major tipping point?

[dave.woodhall]

I don't think it would have meant O'Neill admitting he was wrong so much as him having to face the prospect of slipping backwards and the image he'd built for himself as the New Clough slipping - and that was never going to happen. A pity in a way, because it would have been interesting to see whether he could have worked under restrictions and more importantly whether he could have got Milner, Young & Barry to stay for longer.

Milner had already decided to go hadn't he?

It all got a bit confusing from what I remember. Didn't O'Neill say something about him wanting a move then Milner denied it, or similar?

I think Milner did deny it, but then wasn't the fact that O'Neill wanted all the Milner money to spend and Lerner saying no the major tipping point?

God knows. I think in hindsight the signs had been there that all wasn't well for some time. There were a few rumours about what might have happened had we won the League Cup for a start.

[Ad@m]

I don't think it would have meant O'Neill admitting he was wrong so much as him having to face the prospect of slipping backwards and the image he'd built for himself as the New Clough slipping - and that was never going to happen. A pity in a way, because it would have been interesting to see whether he could have worked under restrictions and more importantly whether he could have got Milner, Young & Barry to stay for longer.

Milner had already decided to go hadn't he?

It all got a bit confusing from what I remember. Didn't O'Neill say something about him wanting a move then Milner denied it, or similar?

I think Milner did deny it, but then wasn't the fact that O'Neill wanted all the Milner money to spend and Lerner saying no the major tipping point?

The only one who knows is MON but that's how I understood it.  It also stacks up that MON then argued Lerner had made his position untenable by not giving him the money and that was how MON got a payoff from the tribunal.

[Dave Clark Five]

I don't think it would have meant O'Neill admitting he was wrong so much as him having to face the prospect of slipping backwards and the image he'd built for himself as the New Clough slipping - and that was never going to happen. A pity in a way, because it would have been interesting to see whether he could have worked under restrictions and more importantly whether he could have got Milner, Young & Barry to stay for longer.

Milner had already decided to go hadn't he?

It all got a bit confusing from what I remember. Didn't O'Neill say something about him wanting a move then Milner denied it, or similar?

I think Milner did deny it, but then wasn't the fact that O'Neill wanted all the Milner money to spend and Lerner saying no the major tipping point?

The only one who knows is MON but that's how I understood it.  It also stacks up that MON then argued Lerner had made his position untenable by not giving him the money and that was how MON got a payoff from the tribunal.

That would surely not have amounted to a sum anywhere near what he is rumoured to have got. Is it not just possible that he was sacked?