The Paul Lambert thread - poll reset after our capitulation to Hull

[rob_bridge]

I really admire your defence of the indefensible. To those of us who see Mr Lambert with less rosy glasses, just exactly why do you believe he is worth persevering with when his record on every  KPI is a total disaster?

He can have no complaints if he is sacked.

However do not be at all surprised if the replacement, be it sooner or later, transpires to be even worse.

This has been said a lot, and granted the board's record of appointees is terrible, but the shortlist last time was Martinez, Lambert and Solskjær - that's a list which is not only consistent, but at the time was consistent with the search for a young, ambitious manager with a reputation for good football. Of course anyone who paid to appoint McLeish deserves the closest scrutiny when it comes to future decisions, but that shortlist last time was a good one.

Well I'm not sure about OGS. The Fergie accolyte put me off somewhat. The other two certainly were though.

However I believe the very same decision makers will recruit the next manager and they cannot be trusted. Part of Lambert being retained is they must realise how inept thet will look if we have to a 7th person n charge of 1st team affairs in less than 4 years.

[VillaAlways]

If there's a takeover, he's gone. If there isn't, he stays. That's basically how I see it. I live in a simple world.

Events this week point to him being retained. Albeit his authority has been undermined.

So if he finishes below 40 points after 2 seasons , when Mcleish was sacked after one for doing the same thing,they would keep him?

I'd like to see how they'd spin the justification in that at the end of the season.

[Monty]

I really admire your defence of the indefensible. To those of us who see Mr Lambert with less rosy glasses, just exactly why do you believe he is worth persevering with when his record on every  KPI is a total disaster?

He can have no complaints if he is sacked.

However do not be at all surprised if the replacement, be it sooner or later, transpires to be even worse.

This has been said a lot, and granted the board's record of appointees is terrible, but the shortlist last time was Martinez, Lambert and Solskjær - that's a list which is not only consistent, but at the time was consistent with the search for a young, ambitious manager with a reputation for good football. Of course anyone who paid to appoint McLeish deserves the closest scrutiny when it comes to future decisions, but that shortlist last time was a good one.

Well I'm not sure about OGS. The Fergie accolyte put me off somewhat. The other two certainly were though.

However I believe the very same decision makers will recruit the next manager and they cannot be trusted. Part of Lambert being retained is they must realise how inept thet will look if we have to a 7th person n charge of 1st team affairs in less than 4 years.

Well I'm not so sure about Lambert either, but there's no doubt that, at the time, that list looked very good, and was as good as anyone could have compiled.

[rob_bridge]

If there's a takeover, he's gone. If thiere isn't, he stays. That's basically how I see it. I live in a simple world.

Events this week point to him being retained. Albeit his authority has been undermined.

So if he finishes below 40 points after 2 seasons , when Mcleish was sacked after one for doing the same thing,they would keep him?

I'd like to see how they'd spin the justification in that at the end of the season.

I'm sure the CEO will be able to come up with Corporate Speak. I think they will do anything to avoid picking another manager.

[edgysatsuma89]

If there's a takeover, he's gone. If there isn't, he stays. That's basically how I see it. I live in a simple world.

Events this week point to him being retained. Albeit his authority has been undermined.

So if he finishes below 40 points after 2 seasons , when Mcleish was sacked after one for doing the same thing,they would keep him?

I'd like to see how they'd spin the justification in that at the end of the season.

Not defending them at all (I want him gone), but they would simply point to the cost cutting and mass change of players which Lambert has had to do. Onwards and upwards blah blah books balanced blah blah.

[themossman]

I get the impression the board really want to be seen as the antidote to the short term/trigger happy structures in place at most clubs. Which is basically a good thing, but makes it a lot more likely that Lambert will get another season or several.

[London Villan]

I still think he will be gone if he doesnt beat TSM's points total.

[supertom]

If there's a takeover, he's gone. If thiere isn't, he stays. That's basically how I see it. I live in a simple world.

Events this week point to him being retained. Albeit his authority has been undermined.

So if he finishes below 40 points after 2 seasons , when Mcleish was sacked after one for doing the same thing,they would keep him?

I'd like to see how they'd spin the justification in that at the end of the season.

I'm sure the CEO will be able to come up with Corporate Speak. I think they will do anything to avoid picking another manager.

It would seem in two years that our ambitions have appeared to fall even lower. I think survival is enough for Randy. I think we're at a point now where Randy will be incredibly resistant to sacking Lambert due to the cost. Having paid off O Neill, Houllier and McLeish (all who associated with those managers in terms of staff), it's a whole different kettle of fish now compared to McLeish.

I suppose as well, Randy might assume we'll be slightly more patient with Lambert because he doesn't have the Blose connection.

We could finish below the 38 points McLeish got, but I'd still imagine Randy and Faulkner will try and find a positive spin and excuses. But that said, simply surviving may well be enough if he believes a takeover could be on the horizon in the near future. As long as we're Premier League that's all that matters. We retain buyability.

If I were a betting man (which I'm not because I'd be flat broke) I would put money on Lambert walking before he's pushed. Can he re-adapt with new coaches after years working with a very close knit team? I also think the stance the club have made regarding this incident, and the way in which Lambert has been separated from his cohorts, suggests that he's probably not going to get sacked. Ultimately Lambert is responsible for his team.

[VillaAlways]

Whether he is here or not next season will depend on how he finishes this one. He's in last chance saloon in my opinion

[mr underhill]

so what I'm picking up here is that in spite of being total gash, we, i.e. Randy, will stick with him only because we can't be trusted to appoint someone else and because we were probably stupid enough not to have any KPI's inserted into his contract which may obviate the sort of third world debt alleviating compensation pay-outs we have made our own in the last few years. What nonsense. If Lambert carries on as he has, and there is nothing to indicate that he won't, come December we will have to sack him anyway. And appoint someone else. Simples.

[ez]

I still think he will be gone if he doesnt beat TSM's points total.

Or even his own total last season. Really anything less than 40 points is a disaster. To show reasonable improvement we need to end  on 50 points or more. Mid table was the target this season, not just stopping up.

[rob_bridge]

so what I'm picking up here is that in spite of being total gash, we, i.e. Randy, will stick with him only because we can't be trusted to appoint someone else and because we were probably stupid enough not to have any KPI's inserted into his contract which may obviate the sort of third world debt alleviating compensation pay-outs we have made our own in the last few years. What nonsense. If Lambert carries on as he has, and there is nothing to indicate that he won't, come December we will have to sack him anyway. And appoint someone else. Simples.

Paying 15m in compensation in return for zilch to the previous failed/under performing regimes should have meant some base targets were in Lambert's contract - then again 4 weeks ago a 3 year extension was being mooted.

[Morpheus]

Lambert has been very fortunate indeed to be at our club.

If he had produced the same set of results anywhere else in the Premiership he would have been gone last season and before last season's improvement in the run in.

With the debacle concerning our coaches which deflected the pressure away from his position earlier this week and then Southampton missing several chances and being denied a stonewall penalty Lambert has got lucky again and will now see the season out as Villa manager.

Has also just said that Gabby was excellent today.

Please God make Lambert disappear when the season ends.

[CAitken]

I still think he will be gone if he doesnt beat TSM's points total.

Or even his own total last season. Really anything less than 40 points is a disaster. To show reasonable improvement we need to end  on 50 points or more. Mid table was the target this season, not just stopping up.

I'm sorry, I don't get this points total being a barometer of improvement. We could finish mid table with 40 points. That's improvement. We could also finish 16th with 40 points which will be seen as stagnation.

[Billy Walker]

We are not going to get out of this cycle of under performance until the ambitions of those in the Villa boardroom change.