Lambert's Vision for Villa

[Dante Lavelli]

In summary, we're no longer living outside our means = good.

I know what you mean, and I am playing devil's advocate here, but I can't resist asking why we weren't so pleased at not living outside our means when Ellis was in control?

I'm no authority on this as it was largely before my time, but Randy has ploughed money in, but never received the personal benefit of a stock market flotation - what was it 70m?.  Not to mention an annual salary.

Personally and maybe naively I feel Randy will always stump up 20m a year on transfer fees, however he should not also be expected to fund the wages.  Thereby if Randy chooses to walk away the club still exists as it does today in the future.  Previously, before the belt tightening, we were struggling to cover the wages based on our income, let alone sign players. 

Besides, I'm older now and find simply spending money to solve problems seems a bit vulgar whereas in my teens and early twenties - the ellis years - money was the single thing between me and a whole world of cleavages, sports cars and a James Bond-esque life style.

[brian green]

There is no plan.   There is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy no crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The concept of a plan by its very definition requires a beginning, a middle and a conclusion.   A plan to win a war, solve a crime or cure a disease starts somewhere, proceeds and finishes up somewhere, even if the "somewhere" it terminates is admission of failure.

Paul Lambert has had his job for a year and a half.   If there was a plan in place there must be evidence of it by now to prove its existence.   There is nothing whatsoever.   There have been bright spots of success, there have been short spells like a run of a few games at the end of last season which have been better than what has gone before but that is no proof of a plan.

It is like the gambler betting on the numbers of the birthdates of his family as an infallible system of winning a fortune.   Make enough bets and the number of your granny's birthday and your uncle's birthday will win now and again but that is not a betting plan, it is random choice.

We are being massaged into believing that the buying of Bennett and Helenius and Tonev and Kozak and KEA and Luna and Bacuna and Lowton and Woodward is all part of some grand plan to establish Villa as a force in the premiership.   The bare, unvarnished, unmassaged, unmanipulated facts, the statistics, show otherwise.   Lambert denies this by saying that "statistics fry your brain".   No they don't they demonstrate the reality behind the lie.

Make one simple test of the claim that there is a "brick on brick" plan in place.   Ask yourself why we signed Kozak for £7 million.   We already had Benteke, Weimann, Gabby, Fonz, Helenius and Bowery.   Our side was screaming out for midfield strengthening and has been ever since we sold Barry and Milner.   It was an unplanned impulse purchase of the very worst kind.   It was me walking through a tool shop or my wife walking through a handbag shop.

I do not want to see Lambert sacked.   My stand is that I do not think a new manager of any kind would make any difference whatsoever to our decline.   What I do want to see is Lambert to be his own man and stop being the mouthpiece of Faulkner and Lambert and insulting our collective intelligence by giving us the hard sell of a non existent master plan.

The sea change in our fortunes came when the owner and the CEO decided that Aston Villa Football Club was no longer a great and glorious page in the history of the Beautiful Game but a "brand" to be marketed.   The motor which is driving the direction in which we are heading is the desire by Paul Faulkner to impress the boss.   Every word and every statement which comes out of the club, whether it is in the media, on the public address system or in the junk mail we have cascading through our letter boxes is marbled through with American management and marketing methodology.

I do not want to see us go broke.   I do not want us to go down into the third division again, I have seen that movie.   I am in favour of solvency and good housekeeping.

What I am totally and absolutely and utterly against is the unforgivable lie that slashing the cost of owning the club is a plan for anything other than slashing the costs of owning the club.

As Ricky Tomlinson would say "Master plan My arse".

[saunders_heroes]

brian green, what a great post!

[Archie]

Nice post, Brian. Great post for many aspects. 
But I think that you are too harsh with the club.
Lambert may have - surely he has - overvalued a bunch of average young players, but unlike Arsenal for instance, even in the era of modern football the Villa remained a great but still familiar club, with a beautiful stadium (not an anonymous modern arena) that includes a clubhouse(the Holte) where you can meet the Legends after the game, a club that has traditional shared values,  a special eye for the fans  (to which is dedicated a lounge where they can meet before and after the game),  an ethic (think about what the club does for Acorns), and that oozes class everywhere. Lambert or not Lambert.

[Ad@m]

Well said Archie.

[claret and blue blood]

Whatever the plan may or may not be lose tomorrow and it  can be filed under the "failed" category.

[saunders_heroes]

Nice post, Brian. Great post for many aspects. 
But I think that you are too harsh with the club.
Lambert may have - surely he has - overvalued a bunch of average young players, but unlike Arsenal for instance, even in the era of modern football the Villa remained a great but still familiar club, with a beautiful stadium (not an anonymous modern arena) that includes a clubhouse(the Holte) where you can meet the Legends after the game, a club that has traditional shared values,  a special eye for the fans  (to which is dedicated a lounge where they can meet before and after the game),  an ethic (think about what the club does for Acorns), and that oozes class everywhere. Lambert or not Lambert.

You're right the Villa does ooze class all over, but sadly not on the pitch, and that is the most important bit.

[Ian.]

If the plan is a long term plan, how can it be deemed a failure?

[Dante Lavelli]

Nice post brian although I'm not sure I agree with the content.

Has the plan recently been to reduce the wages to a sustainable level whilst staying in the league?
If so, they've so far been successful.  Hopefully this plan has been supplemented by improvements to the scouting network, training facilities and other aspects which will help us long term.

[Jimbo]

It's not a question of whether the plan is failing or not. If the plan is merely to survive and balance the books then it's failing the fans who trudge up to watch such dreary rubbish week after week. People don't pay £40 a ticket to see a Villa team littered with lower league dross scrape through by the skin of its teeth. They want to see Villa compete at a level commensurate with the club's standing in the game. At the moment they've been reduced to hoping to see a first half goal at Villa Park. However successful the 'plan' is, it's failing the fans. They will not stay onside forever.

I'll say it again: if there's a plan, tell the fans who are ploughing their hard earnd cash into this 'project' what on earth it is.

[paulcomben]

Who is Woodward? Is he any good?

[Ad@m]

I'll say it again: if there's a plan, tell the fans who are ploughing their hard earnd cash into this 'project' what on earth it is.

If you'd read anything at all about the club since Lerner took over you'd know.  I've lost count of the times since day one when he said he wanted us to be self-sustaining.  Self-sustaining isn't spunking 90-odd percent of your turnover on wages.

If you want a bit more detail on why we are where we are, this is an excellent, and impartial assessment of our finances back in 2009 - http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/randy-lerners-money-talks-at-aston.html.  It's four and a half years old but the writing was on the wall back then.  We all know Randy gambled on Champions League - a gamble which failed when Sheik Mansour came in and upset the apple cart.  Only a mentalist would think we're within reach of Champions League for the foreseeable future so we have two choices - either carry on spending as though we think we'll make it and ultimately go the way of Portsmouth/Leeds/Sheffield Wednesday/etc or work within the realities of our finances and build from there.  The 'project' is the latter.

[RussellC]

My take is on Lener is simple. I think the takeover at Man City completely changed his outloook on owning Villa.

When he bought us I genuinely thought investing £100 million into the playing staff would give us a realistic chance of reaching the Champions League, and thus drastically increase our revenue. This was stage 1 of any "plan" but it was very much an "all or nothing" approach that, as we all know, ended in nothing. Subsequently the likes of Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurts have all had to spend more and more just to keep up with City and, when we weren't able to do so, Randy realised it was sheer folly to blow millions in order to keep us in and around the Europa League places. In addition to this he would have seen the likes of Swansea and Wigan winning silverware whilst not spending "silly money" and decided Villa should be able to follow suit.

In hindsight, had we picked-up a Laudrup or Martinez (or maybe even a Lambert) as soon as MON left we may be much further ahead than we are, say where Everton are now. The damage done by the Houllier and McLeish years however, has set the club-back drastically and given Lambert an incredibly big task of improving the side whilst cutting-back on the wage-bill.

[Steve kirk]

Who is Woodward? Is he any good?

Yeah who is Woodward?

[Ad@m]

My take is on Lener is simple. I think the takeover at Man City completely changed his outloook on owning Villa.

When he bought us I genuinely thought investing £100 million into the playing staff would give us a realistic chance of reaching the Champions League, and thus drastically increase our revenue. This was stage 1 of any "plan" but it was very much an "all or nothing" approach that, as we all know, ended in nothing. Subsequently the likes of Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurts have all had to spend more and more just to keep up with City and, when we weren't able to do so, Randy realised it was sheer folly to blow millions in order to keep us in and around the Europa League places. In addition to this he would have seen the likes of Swansea and Wigan winning silverware whilst not spending "silly money" and decided Villa should be able to follow suit.

In hindsight, had we picked-up a Laudrup or Martinez (or maybe even a Lambert) as soon as MON left we may be much further ahead than we are, say where Everton are now. The damage done by the Houllier and McLeish years however, has set the club-back drastically and given Lambert an incredibly big task of improving the side whilst cutting-back on the wage-bill.

Spot on.

Just to add to your point about the others spending increasing amounts of money just to try to keep up with Man City, Rodgers has spent over £100m on players since he took over at Liverpool 18 months ago.  In doing that he's taken a team that had finished 6th 12 months before he took over, got them to finish 7th in his first year and is currently 5th.  Yes, their football might be better to watch at the moment but that's not sustainable in the long term.