On-going progress..

[saunders_heroes]

I'm not happy with Villa under Lerner, no, but that's mostly because of decisions. He didn't really know anything about football when he arrived - still could know more - and gave the bulk of his money to the wrong man. Yes, most of us supported that man as well, but as chairman his job is to know better than fans and frankly he knew worse than many, especially towards the end. The two managers who followed? One was a noble-ish error, one might be the worst single decision the club has made in decades. In appointing Lambert he's gone some way to getting it right.

But why are you focusing so much on Lerner? Did Lerner tell Lambert to buy Kozak? Does Lerner come down to the training pitch and disrupt ball-retention exercises? Perhaps you could relax your apparently monomaniacal obsession with Lerner, and think about Lambert, think about what football is now in the Premier League, and maybe cut them some slack? Not everything is a 'disgrace' or a 'scandal' or an 'outrage' you know.

Christ don't start me on Lambert or I'll be at it all day. The pair of them are like Stan and Ollie, and they're in charge of our club

You remind me of Republicans going on about how Obama is the worstest most really really bad President ever times infinity. Without burdening yourself with unnecessary perspective, you've just decided that what's happening is the worst thing that could possibly be happening, that the chairman is the worst, that the manager - who knows more about football than you know about anything - is the worst, that it's all a disgrace, an outrage and all sorts of hyperbolic nonsense. Seriously - are you okay? You sound like something's made you sad. And if you say that something is Villa then it's not new signings you need, it's a psychologist.

No need to be personal.

[dave.woodhall]

I'm not happy with Villa under Lerner, no, but that's mostly because of decisions. He didn't really know anything about football when he arrived - still could know more - and gave the bulk of his money to the wrong man. Yes, most of us supported that man as well, but as chairman his job is to know better than fans and frankly he knew worse than many, especially towards the end. The two managers who followed? One was a noble-ish error, one might be the worst single decision the club has made in decades. In appointing Lambert he's gone some way to getting it right.

But why are you focusing so much on Lerner? Did Lerner tell Lambert to buy Kozak? Does Lerner come down to the training pitch and disrupt ball-retention exercises? Perhaps you could relax your apparently monomaniacal obsession with Lerner, and think about Lambert, think about what football is now in the Premier League, and maybe cut them some slack? Not everything is a 'disgrace' or a 'scandal' or an 'outrage' you know.

Christ don't start me on Lambert or I'll be at it all day. The pair of them are like Stan and Ollie, and they're in charge of our club

You remind me of Republicans going on about how Obama is the worstest most really really bad President ever times infinity. Without burdening yourself with unnecessary perspective, you've just decided that what's happening is the worst thing that could possibly be happening, that the chairman is the worst, that the manager - who knows more about football than you know about anything - is the worst, that it's all a disgrace, an outrage and all sorts of hyperbolic nonsense. Seriously - are you okay? You sound like something's made you sad. And if you say that something is Villa then it's not new signings you need, it's a psychologist.

No need to be personal.

No need to be ironic.

[saunders_heroes]

I'm not happy with Villa under Lerner, no, but that's mostly because of decisions. He didn't really know anything about football when he arrived - still could know more - and gave the bulk of his money to the wrong man. Yes, most of us supported that man as well, but as chairman his job is to know better than fans and frankly he knew worse than many, especially towards the end. The two managers who followed? One was a noble-ish error, one might be the worst single decision the club has made in decades. In appointing Lambert he's gone some way to getting it right.

But why are you focusing so much on Lerner? Did Lerner tell Lambert to buy Kozak? Does Lerner come down to the training pitch and disrupt ball-retention exercises? Perhaps you could relax your apparently monomaniacal obsession with Lerner, and think about Lambert, think about what football is now in the Premier League, and maybe cut them some slack? Not everything is a 'disgrace' or a 'scandal' or an 'outrage' you know.

Christ don't start me on Lambert or I'll be at it all day. The pair of them are like Stan and Ollie, and they're in charge of our club

You remind me of Republicans going on about how Obama is the worstest most really really bad President ever times infinity. Without burdening yourself with unnecessary perspective, you've just decided that what's happening is the worst thing that could possibly be happening, that the chairman is the worst, that the manager - who knows more about football than you know about anything - is the worst, that it's all a disgrace, an outrage and all sorts of hyperbolic nonsense. Seriously - are you okay? You sound like something's made you sad. And if you say that something is Villa then it's not new signings you need, it's a psychologist.

No need to be personal.

No need to be ironic.

Stirring again, Dave.

[dave.woodhall]

Stirring again, Dave.

Wind your neck in. You've been lashing out at all and sundry since the match finished last night but anybody has a go back at you and you act like an outraged virgin. 

[Irish villain]

I wrote something about 'unforced club errors' in the post-match thread. On reflection, it would have been more appropriate to post it here.

I really feel we are responsible where we find ourselves right now. Modern football is crap but we had so much going for us. We had lots of money and things several other clubs didn't have: a world class stadium, a huge fanbase and an illustrious history. The 'modern' era should have been an opportunity for a club like us but we seem to be regressing. Major trophies in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s but nothing now since 1996 and not much prospect of anything for the foreseeable.

I feel that bad decisions at villa, particularly since 2010 have created this vortex where getting to 40 points asap, and making a profit on bargain signings which can then be reinvested, is the height of our ambition. We have been spectacularly badly run. There's such a thing as taking a step back to go forward by a few but I'm to be convinced that is what we are doing. We were beating the likes of Ajax in Europe five years ago.  Now we are envious of the likes of Swansea's play and club strategy!

[hilts_coolerking]

I agree with a lot of what's been said, mainly by Monty, but as regards our budget I'm genuinely in the dark as to what Lerner's attitude is.  Is it:

a) he wants to spend more but simply doesn't have any more over and above that which we are already spending;

b) he does have more money in reserve but for whatever reason doesn't want to spend any more on the Villa than he has to;

c) he doesn't have any more money and wouldn't spend it on the Villa even if he did.

Unless he's had some catastrophic financial misfortune that I've not yet read about I find it hard to believe that a and c are true.  Which leaves b.  After O'Neill's profligacy I can understand he's now much more cautious with his money and I would be too.  But I can't help wondering whether this caution is more motivated by what's best for Lerner as opposed to what's best for the Villa.  I mean, since O'Neill left we've basically been getting two-thirds of the points we got under him and flirted with relegation at least twice.

I think we all recognise what a difference a £10M midfielder would make to our first team.  Okay, maybe Lambert couldn't find one and, rather than not spend the money, bought Kozak in perhaps with one eye on Benteke not being here much longer.  I'd like to think that in January, unless someone really steps up, we'll try our very best to get one one in then but we were in a similar position last January and, if I recall correctly, didn't address our defensive weakness.  It's that sort of thing which makes me wonder whether Lerner is really doing everything he can to give us the best possible chance to succeed.

[saunders_heroes]

Stirring again, Dave.

Wind your neck in. You've been lashing out at all and sundry since the match finished last night but anybody has a go back at you and you act like an outraged virgin. 

Lashing out? There's just posts on a forum. Nothing aggressive, nothing nasty. No need to get so narky about it.

[paul_e]

I made wrote something about 'unforced club errors' in the post-match thread. On reflection, it would have been more appropriate to post it here.

I really feel we are responsible where we find ourselves right now. Modern football is crap but we had so much going for us. We had lots of money and things several other clubs didn't have: a world class stadium, a huge fanbase and an illustrious history. The 'modern' era should have been an opportunity for a club like us but we seem to be regressing. Major trophies in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s but nothing now since 1996 and not much prospect of anything for the foreseeable.

I feel that bad decisions at villa, particularly since 2010 have created this vortex where getting to 40 points asap, and making a profit on bargain signings which can then be reinvested, is the height of our ambition. We have been spectacularly badly run.

That's opinion not fact and nullifies most of the rest of it.  Everyone knows that things have gone wrong in the last few years but that doesn't mean the club are happy to coast along.  If we were I'd suggest we'd be employing a safer strategy in terms of recruitment, buying lots of decent pros with premier league experience, rather than going out of our way to get rid of those players and replace them with youngsters with something to prove.

[Monty]

Hilts, I think that it's more Lerner's got his eye on Financial Fair Play (which, admittedly, isn't going to be much of a problem - our prospects for Europe aren't spectacular). I think he also got his fingers burnt with MON, and doesn't want to end up paying loads of money for unwanted players. Which further suggests that he doesn't totally trust the manager, but who the hell knows.

They want the club to be 'sustainable' and 'self-sufficient'. That will be a good thing in years to come, but it's a bumpy road.

[dave.woodhall]

I agree with a lot of what's been said, mainly by Monty, but as regards our budget I'm genuinely in the dark as to what Lerner's attitude is.  Is it:

a) he wants to spend more but simply doesn't have any more over and above that which we are already spending;

b) he does have more money in reserve but for whatever reason doesn't want to spend any more on the Villa than he has to;

c) he doesn't have any more money and wouldn't spend it on the Villa even if he did.

Unless he's had some catastrophic financial misfortune that I've not yet read about I find it hard to believe that a and c are true.  Which leaves b.  After O'Neill's profligacy I can understand he's now much more cautious with his money and I would be too.  But I can't help wondering whether this caution is more motivated by what's best for Lerner as opposed to what's best for the Villa.  I mean, since O'Neill left we've basically been getting two-thirds of the points we got under him and flirted with relegation at least twice.

I think we all recognise what a difference a £10M midfielder would make to our first team.  Okay, maybe Lambert couldn't find one and, rather than not spend the money, bought Kozak in perhaps with one eye on Benteke not being here much longer.  I'd like to think that in January, unless someone really steps up, we'll try our very best to get one one in then but we were in a similar position last January and, if I recall correctly, didn't address our defensive weakness.  It's that sort of thing which makes me wonder whether Lerner is really doing everything he can to give us the best possible chance to succeed.

Let's say that he does spend heavily - along the lines of an inflation-adjusted Darren Bent so maybe £25 million. The player will be looking for another £15 million or so in wages so you've just added £40 million of debt onto the club. That's coming out of the owner's pocket, which leaves the obvious question - how far can you go getting deeper into debt and relying on the goodwill of your club's owner to continually finance progress? It's no good blithely saying "speculate to accumulate". There isn't a single successful club that wouldn't have been in administration long ago if they were anything other than a bank or a football club.

[dave.woodhall]

Stirring again, Dave.

Wind your neck in. You've been lashing out at all and sundry since the match finished last night but anybody has a go back at you and you act like an outraged virgin. 

Lashing out? There's just posts on a forum. Nothing aggressive, nothing nasty. No need to get so narky about it.

I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier post.

[Concrete John]

Around this time last year we won away to Man City's reserves.  Last night we lost at home to Spurs' reserves.  If one isn't a reason to get carried away, then the other isn't reason to be too despondent, especailly as league results are better so far this season.

It's a bump in the road.
 

The problem though John, is that we've all seen what can happen to us after one thorough tonking. The last thing we need is a repeat of last December. We now have the delight of hosting Man City and I'm not expecting us to fare much better than last night. I honestly don't see who'll score the goals for us at the moment. I'll stop now before I make mention of Darren Bent...

I'm hoping for an instant reaction, and honestly, if we're gonna get buggered royally it may as well be in the league cup, but get pancaked by City and Hull will really be fancying themselves against us. And then...fucking Spurs again.

I actually agree with that.  The destruction of the team's confidence started by Chelsea last season took a long time to get back and without that patch we'd have been pretty comfortable through most of the season.  So it's a test to see how, if at all, last night effects things.  Doesn't mean we have to win the game, but a narrow defeat will say to me their heads haven't dropped.

It's just very early days and the majority of what people are predicting and/or expecting, be it good or bad, is based on very little actual evidence.  So I'm just in more of a "Let's wait and see" frame of mind.   

[paul_e]

You're also missing:

d) Lerner is giving Lambert the money he asks for.

I've said it repeatedly over the last year, where is there any evidence that Lerner won't allow Lambert to spend more on players?  There is the wage bill consideration, and I'm convinced that a target is set for that, but I just don't see that with transfer fees, it seems to be that Lambert won't spend above his valuation of a player more than him operating to a tight budget.

[dave.woodhall]

You're also missing:

d) Lerner is giving Lambert the money he asks for.

I've said it repeatedly over the last year, where is there any evidence that Lerner won't allow Lambert to spend more on players?  There is the wage bill consideration, and I'm convinced that a target is set for that, but I just don't see that with transfer fees, it seems to be that Lambert won't spend above his valuation of a player more than him operating to a tight budget.

This was seen last August. He didn't get that left-back from Ipswich so within hours he'd bought Bennett. Couldn't agree a fee for the Charlton midfielder so he signed Westwood. Genk stated pissing about; within minutes he'd agreed a fee for Dempsey. This year Kozak suddenly arrives. Maybe it's shrewd business practice, maybe its a blind spot but Paul Lambert does seem to have a fixed value for every target and won't be budged.

[hilts_coolerking]

You're also missing:

d) Lerner is giving Lambert the money he asks for.

I've said it repeatedly over the last year, where is there any evidence that Lerner won't allow Lambert to spend more on players?  There is the wage bill consideration, and I'm convinced that a target is set for that, but I just don't see that with transfer fees, it seems to be that Lambert won't spend above his valuation of a player more than him operating to a tight budget.

Yep, it's a possibility but that would make Lambert one of the few managers in world football who imposes financial limits on himself, rather than have them imposed by the owner.  And I'd be more persuaded that it is true of Lambert if our requirement for a top class midfielder wasn't so blatant.