Lambert in or out? Poll reset with majority 'in', 7th May

[pauliewalnuts]

nobody should be rewarded for failure. if Lambert gets us relegated he's history or should be. Who cares if he's the fifth manager in so many years.

Lots of people, and rightly so.

For starters, changing manager every season isn't cheap, it costs a fortune. Then there is the lack of continuity in ripping it up and starting again (which is now on my internal jukebox) every year.

Last summer, after last season but also with the cumulative shitness of the one before too, we were in a desperate mess. Sometimes that sort of situation takes longer, and more money, to sort out than you'd like.

Going back to not caring if we've had five managers in however much time, how often do teams with that sort of managerial turnover do well? And there's no point throwing Chelsea at me, because, well, firstly it is contestable, and secondly, we don't have a squad of world class players at our disposal.

[john e]

I have supported Lambert so far I like to think there is something good that might come out of this carnage of a season
But if he takes us down then I think he will have to go

[mr underhill]

i honestly find it impossible for Lambert apologists to justify  a case for keeping the bloke if he takes us down, when TSM was sacked for keeping us up. The managerial merry go round arguement is neither here nor there. Why stick with a manager that isn't performing? Especially as he has had more money to spend that McLeish did and for one reason or another has seemingly alienated  senior first team players who just might have helped the less experienced. Yet more compo probably doesn't come into it either. Even our lot are not so stupid as to have not put in clauses which obviate compensation payments in the event of relegation. Surely?

[Rip Van We Go Again]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

The thing is, where does it stop? If the next manager struggles when do we sack him? At some point a more reflective, less reactionary view has to prevail. The club surely must, at some point, have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment despite setbacks.

If we have a new manager for next season, we'll be on our 5th different manager in as many seasons. Surely, that must be time for even the most blood thirsty of you to stop and consider whether the approach is working.

Well said Chris, this is why The Tory Government should be given another five years when we get to the next election.
Sure, it's been a nightmare, but we need some continuity.

[pauliewalnuts]

i honestly find it impossible for Lambert apologists to justify  a case for keeping the bloke if he takes us down, when TSM was sacked for keeping us up. The managerial merry go round arguement is neither here nor there. Why stick with a manager that isn't performing?

That's the point.

You say "it is neither here nor there" as if you can just ignore that argument, but lots of people disagree with you.

As already said, a lot of us want to see Lambert given more time to build the club in the way he sees fit. What's more, we can also see that the amount of money to do so isn't going to be enormous, so wasting even more getting rid of him and his team to get a new team in looks daft.

re McLeish - you can't just pretend he didn't happen. We are one year further down the line, now. We've already wasted several million pounds getting shot of him and Peter Grant and god knows who else, and the club has that extra year of decline to get rid of.

The majority of Lambert supporters can see that there is a decent team in there somewhere, which would be improved immeasurably by one or two additions. We'd rather he got the chance to do that than just spunk all the suffering away and start afresh.

[Chris Smith]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

The thing is, where does it stop? If the next manager struggles when do we sack him? At some point a more reflective, less reactionary view has to prevail. The club surely must, at some point, have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment despite setbacks.

If we have a new manager for next season, we'll be on our 5th different manager in as many seasons. Surely, that must be time for even the most blood thirsty of you to stop and consider whether the approach is working.

Well said Chris, this is why The Tory Government should be given another five years when we get to the next election.
Sure, it's been a nightmare, but we need some continuity.

It's not an appropriate analogy, football clubs aren't a democracy and I won't get a vote on who manages us.

This debate has polarised almost completely now, I doubt any of us are going to change our minds.

[eastie]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

The thing is, where does it stop? If the next manager struggles when do we sack him? At some point a more reflective, less reactionary view has to prevail. The club surely must, at some point, have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment despite setbacks.

If we have a new manager for next season, we'll be on our 5th different manager in as many seasons. Surely, that must be time for even the most blood thirsty of you to stop and consider whether the approach is working.

Well said Chris, this is why The Tory Government should be given another five years when we get to the next election.
Sure, it's been a nightmare, but we need some continuity.

It's not an appropriate analogy, football clubs aren't a democracy and I won't get a vote on who manages us.

This debate has polarised almost completely now, I doubt any of us are going to change our minds.

Yes its going the same way as the O'Neill debate- almost a 50/50 split.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

The thing is, where does it stop? If the next manager struggles when do we sack him? At some point a more reflective, less reactionary view has to prevail. The club surely must, at some point, have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment despite setbacks.

If we have a new manager for next season, we'll be on our 5th different manager in as many seasons. Surely, that must be time for even the most blood thirsty of you to stop and consider whether the approach is working.

Well said Chris, this is why The Tory Government should be given another five years when we get to the next election.
Sure, it's been a nightmare, but we need some continuity.

It's not an appropriate analogy, football clubs aren't a democracy and I won't get a vote on who manages us.

We don't get a vote With Villa either, But Chris, you would get rid of the Tories tomorrow due to incompetence, what if I argued that
'they need more time to rectify the shit that the previous administration inflicted on us.'

[MarkM]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

The thing is, where does it stop? If the next manager struggles when do we sack him? At some point a more reflective, less reactionary view has to prevail. The club surely must, at some point, have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment despite setbacks.

If we have a new manager for next season, we'll be on our 5th different manager in as many seasons. Surely, that must be time for even the most blood thirsty of you to stop and consider whether the approach is working.

Well said Chris, this is why The Tory Government should be given another five years when we get to the next election.
Sure, it's been a nightmare, but we need some continuity.

It's not an appropriate analogy, football clubs aren't a democracy and I won't get a vote on who manages us.

This debate has polarised almost completely now, I doubt any of us are going to change our minds.

Yes its going the same way as the O'Neill debate- almost a 50/50 split.

If we go down I would forecast that the outs will be in the majority

[Nev]

I see no problem in getting rid of bad managers, coaches or players.

If any show some promise for the future then there is merit in sticking with someone through a bad patch.

As has been said before so little needed to be done this season to turn a terrible side into an adequate one, to see the club through a rocky spell and keep Premier League status intact. We may still be in the league by the end of May, but it won't be as a result of any positive action, more a "fingers crossed" dare I say it "we'll be ok" policy based on hope and little else.

That is not good enough for Aston Villa.

[MarkM]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

The thing is, where does it stop? If the next manager struggles when do we sack him? At some point a more reflective, less reactionary view has to prevail. The club surely must, at some point, have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment despite setbacks.

If we have a new manager for next season, we'll be on our 5th different manager in as many seasons. Surely, that must be time for even the most blood thirsty of you to stop and consider whether the approach is working.

Well said Chris, this is why The Tory Government should be given another five years when we get to the next election.
Sure, it's been a nightmare, but we need some continuity.

It's not an appropriate analogy, football clubs aren't a democracy and I won't get a vote on who manages us.

We don't get a vote With Villa either, But Chris, you would get rid of the Tories tomorrow due to incompetence, what if I argued that
'they need more time to rectify the shit that the previous administration inflicted on us.'

Don't try and use logic in a political debate!

[Chris Smith]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

The thing is, where does it stop? If the next manager struggles when do we sack him? At some point a more reflective, less reactionary view has to prevail. The club surely must, at some point, have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment despite setbacks.

If we have a new manager for next season, we'll be on our 5th different manager in as many seasons. Surely, that must be time for even the most blood thirsty of you to stop and consider whether the approach is working.

Well said Chris, this is why The Tory Government should be given another five years when we get to the next election.
Sure, it's been a nightmare, but we need some continuity.

It's not an appropriate analogy, football clubs aren't a democracy and I won't get a vote on who manages us.

We don't get a vote With Villa either, But Chris, you would get rid of the Tories tomorrow due to incompetence, what if I argued that
'they need more time to rectify the shit that the previous administration inflicted on us.'

I'd say I didn't vote for them last time and nothing they have done has convinced me that I was wrong. So I'd be remaining consistent.

I didn't have an opportunity to vote for Lambert.

It just doesn't work as an analogy.

I want him to be kept on because I think he has shown potential and because I'm sick and tired of the club lurching about like a drunk on Broad Street.

[supertom]

I have a question, and call me naive if you wish, but IF we go down then why on God's green Earth should we have to pay off Lambert if we want to sack him? He's surely failed at his job. To be perfectly honest I don't think McLeish should have got a cent in pay off because the job he did here was woeful. An abject failure.
I hate the way this game has gone where even crapness has to be rewarded and we have to pay to rid ourselves of shit managers.
I fully understand why someone like RDM should get compensation for being fired, but in the case of a whole season of abject shitness, Randy should be within his rights to turf a mo-fo out.

[saunders_heroes]

I'd hope he'd have the decency to resign if he relegates us. If not then he has to be removed from the job. Relegation is not acceptable to a club who has spent more time in the top division of English football than every other club in the land bar one. Sticking with him is just mental. Couldn't care less how much it would cost us. We are a proud club and relegation would be a humiliation. Sack him, and never let him darken our door again.

[stubbsyandy]

We are not going down