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

[Marlon's Hairy Wood]

Lambert's played a blinder getting this new contract. Why the need to renew after 4 games, if we ignore the humiliation in the cup, I have no idea. Under almost any other circumstances he would have been sacked back in May, if not earlier back in January.

Like the appointment of McLeish, Lerner has a very personal way of judging his managers. Lambert has tactically played Lerner superbly. A fool and his money..

As for stability..I guess it really depends on the type of stability you're looking for. It's certainly no longer a club that functions as a meritocracy, quite the opposite in fact. Still, well done, Paul. Money for old rope.

So you're moaning because Lerner didn't sack him in May, despite him being right not to as we're now doing extremely well and the club's in a healthy place?

Christ.

You didn't read my post, did you?

You're calling Lerner a fool for giving Lambert his money and getting a new contract out of him?

If that's not what you've just said then i apologise, sounded like it though.

Just out of interest, if we had sacked him in May, who would you have realistically wanted in as a replacement?

[peter w]

Lambert's played a blinder getting this new contract. Why the need to renew after 4 games, if we ignore the humiliation in the cup, I have no idea. Under almost any other circumstances he would have been sacked back in May, if not earlier back in January.

Like the appointment of McLeish, Lerner has a very personal way of judging his managers. Lambert has tactically played Lerner superbly. A fool and his money..

As for stability..I guess it really depends on the type of stability you're looking for. It's certainly no longer a club that functions as a meritocracy, quite the opposite in fact. Still, well done, Paul. Money for old rope.

We could quite easily lose the next 3 or 4. What chance of a positive to middling reaction to a contract extension then. We need stability throughout the club and getting the manager tied down to a long-term deal certainly stops uncertainty relating to players that Lambert might want to sign, or even existing ones being offered new contracts.

I agree re the importance of stability, but it looks like in the reference to the next 3 or 4 games, you're suggesting that we'd best give him a new deal now, in case he loses the next few matches?

I'm saying its a lot easier to give a contract now than in 3 or 4 games time.

[London Villan]

Well let's hope it's the end of the poor home record, players out of their depth, millions wasted on players that never play and maybe just maybe a proper go in the Cup...

[pauliewalnuts]

So you're moaning because Lerner didn't sack him in May, despite him being right not to as we're now doing extremely well and the club's in a healthy place?

Christ.

Hang on, though, "we're now doing extremely well" - that's the sort of thing that makes me chuckle.

I am as glad as the next man we're second in the league, but we're FOUR games into the season, and we've still managed to get our arses handed to us at home by a League One club (again).

"Extremely well" means absolutely nothing after four games.

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

When he signed, I said he needs 5 years to have a chance of producing a good team.

After 1 season I wasn't sure.

After 2 seasons I thought in 5 years we'll be in division 1.

After 4 games in season 3 we look ok and, unlike season 2, I now believe we won't get relegated (based on 4 games).

Looking forward, was I thinking he should have 5 seasons or should he have gone before now? Who knows? Not I!

I'm past guessing how we'll go on from here...

[Dave]

Lambert's played a blinder getting this new contract. Why the need to renew after 4 games, if we ignore the humiliation in the cup, I have no idea. Under almost any other circumstances he would have been sacked back in May, if not earlier back in January.

Like the appointment of McLeish, Lerner has a very personal way of judging his managers. Lambert has tactically played Lerner superbly. A fool and his money..

As for stability..I guess it really depends on the type of stability you're looking for. It's certainly no longer a club that functions as a meritocracy, quite the opposite in fact. Still, well done, Paul. Money for old rope.

We could quite easily lose the next 3 or 4. What chance of a positive to middling reaction to a contract extension then. We need stability throughout the club and getting the manager tied down to a long-term deal certainly stops uncertainty relating to players that Lambert might want to sign, or even existing ones being offered new contracts.

I agree re the importance of stability, but it looks like in the reference to the next 3 or 4 games, you're suggesting that we'd best give him a new deal now, in case he loses the next few matches?

From a PR perspective that's probably the case. If the club had decided over the summer that he was getting a new contract regardless (for whatever reason), then announcing it when we're second in the table it's going to make it a more palatable decision than after we've just lost four in a row.

It wouldn't astonish me to find out that this had been decided a while ago and it was just a case of deciding when to announce it.

[pauliewalnuts]

Lambert's played a blinder getting this new contract. Why the need to renew after 4 games, if we ignore the humiliation in the cup, I have no idea. Under almost any other circumstances he would have been sacked back in May, if not earlier back in January.

Like the appointment of McLeish, Lerner has a very personal way of judging his managers. Lambert has tactically played Lerner superbly. A fool and his money..

As for stability..I guess it really depends on the type of stability you're looking for. It's certainly no longer a club that functions as a meritocracy, quite the opposite in fact. Still, well done, Paul. Money for old rope.

We could quite easily lose the next 3 or 4. What chance of a positive to middling reaction to a contract extension then. We need stability throughout the club and getting the manager tied down to a long-term deal certainly stops uncertainty relating to players that Lambert might want to sign, or even existing ones being offered new contracts.

I agree re the importance of stability, but it looks like in the reference to the next 3 or 4 games, you're suggesting that we'd best give him a new deal now, in case he loses the next few matches?

I'm saying its a lot easier to give a contract now than in 3 or 4 games time.

Why though?

In case we lose them?

He's either worth a new contract or he isn't. Not waiting another 3 or 4 games to do it in case we lose them suggests that the whole idea is based on some seriously shonky reasoning.

[Marlon's Hairy Wood]

Lambert's played a blinder getting this new contract. Why the need to renew after 4 games, if we ignore the humiliation in the cup, I have no idea. Under almost any other circumstances he would have been sacked back in May, if not earlier back in January.

Like the appointment of McLeish, Lerner has a very personal way of judging his managers. Lambert has tactically played Lerner superbly. A fool and his money..

As for stability..I guess it really depends on the type of stability you're looking for. It's certainly no longer a club that functions as a meritocracy, quite the opposite in fact. Still, well done, Paul. Money for old rope.

So you're moaning because Lerner didn't sack him in May, despite him being right not to as we're now doing extremely well and the club's in a healthy place?

Christ.

You didn't read my post, did you?

I'm not against this contract in the slightest, but we have achieved absolutely nothing yet, so it's a bit stupid to be claiming Lerner to be right after 4 games of the new season.

It's not really stupid is it? Yes the seasons only just started, but the whole point of sacking someone is if they can't do the job right. He didn't sack him and the clubs in a great place from top to bottom, and we've started off this season better than any other manager could probably do. At the moment not sacking him is justified.

[pauliewalnuts]

Lambert's played a blinder getting this new contract. Why the need to renew after 4 games, if we ignore the humiliation in the cup, I have no idea. Under almost any other circumstances he would have been sacked back in May, if not earlier back in January.

Like the appointment of McLeish, Lerner has a very personal way of judging his managers. Lambert has tactically played Lerner superbly. A fool and his money..

As for stability..I guess it really depends on the type of stability you're looking for. It's certainly no longer a club that functions as a meritocracy, quite the opposite in fact. Still, well done, Paul. Money for old rope.

We could quite easily lose the next 3 or 4. What chance of a positive to middling reaction to a contract extension then. We need stability throughout the club and getting the manager tied down to a long-term deal certainly stops uncertainty relating to players that Lambert might want to sign, or even existing ones being offered new contracts.

I agree re the importance of stability, but it looks like in the reference to the next 3 or 4 games, you're suggesting that we'd best give him a new deal now, in case he loses the next few matches?

Or from a PR perspective. If the club had decided over the summer that he was getting a new contract regardless (for whatever reason), then announcing it when we're second in the table it's going to make it a more palatable decision than after we've just lost four in a row.

To be fair, if they're worried about what the fans think, they'd have binned him at the end of last season when he had next to no support.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's not really stupid is it? Yes the seasons only just started, but the whole point of sacking someone is if they can't do the job right. He didn't sack him and the clubs in a great place from top to bottom, and we've started off this season better than any other manager could probably do. At the moment not sacking him is justified.

How is the club in a great place top to bottom?

In what way does doing well over four games make up for the utter dross of the last two years?

There's also a difference between "not sacking him" which I'd agree with and "giving him a four year contract", which, whilst I am not going to lose much sleep over, strikes me as undeserved.

[Marlon's Hairy Wood]

So you're moaning because Lerner didn't sack him in May, despite him being right not to as we're now doing extremely well and the club's in a healthy place?

Christ.

Hang on, though, "we're now doing extremely well" - that's the sort of thing that makes me chuckle.

I am as glad as the next man we're second in the league, but we're FOUR games into the season, and we've still managed to get our arses handed to us at home by a League One club (again).

"Extremely well" means absolutely nothing after four games.

If any other club was a universal favourite to go down and after four games were second in the league after beating Liverpool away, we'd be saying 'Fairplay they're doing extremely well, considering expectations'

It's just a fact, we are doing extremely well. We might not be come next month, but we have started the season much better than anyone anticipated 

[SoccerHQ]

So you're moaning because Lerner didn't sack him in May, despite him being right not to as we're now doing extremely well and the club's in a healthy place?

Christ.

Hang on, though, "we're now doing extremely well" - that's the sort of thing that makes me chuckle.

I am as glad as the next man we're second in the league, but we're FOUR games into the season, and we've still managed to get our arses handed to us at home by a League One club (again).

"Extremely well" means absolutely nothing after four games.

Only thing I'd query on this is for the first time in a long while there's a feelgood factor around the club which hopefully will continue on Saturday so this possibly adds to it.

Personally 4 years is very very generous (a lot can and probably will change in that period e.g. new owners so PL is financially settled for a long time) and I'd have waited until xmas to offer him a deal depending on results as key players have had to wait for contract offers.

[pauliewalnuts]

So you're moaning because Lerner didn't sack him in May, despite him being right not to as we're now doing extremely well and the club's in a healthy place?

Christ.

Hang on, though, "we're now doing extremely well" - that's the sort of thing that makes me chuckle.

I am as glad as the next man we're second in the league, but we're FOUR games into the season, and we've still managed to get our arses handed to us at home by a League One club (again).

"Extremely well" means absolutely nothing after four games.

If any other club was a universal favourite to go down and after four games were second in the league after beating Liverpool away, we'd be saying 'Fairplay they're doing extremely well, considering expectations'

It's just a fact, we are doing extremely well. We might not be come next month, but we have started the season much better than anyone anticipated 

I'm not denying we've done well so far - well, except the humiliating cup exit - but it is four games!

We beat Liverpool away in his first season. We beat Arsenal away on the first day of last season.

It's such a small number of games you can't possibly decide a manager is brilliant or awful, it's way too short to decide.

Doing well after 4 matches means very little, certainly not the difference between sacking a manager and giving him a four year deal.

[Dave]

Lambert's played a blinder getting this new contract. Why the need to renew after 4 games, if we ignore the humiliation in the cup, I have no idea. Under almost any other circumstances he would have been sacked back in May, if not earlier back in January.

Like the appointment of McLeish, Lerner has a very personal way of judging his managers. Lambert has tactically played Lerner superbly. A fool and his money..

As for stability..I guess it really depends on the type of stability you're looking for. It's certainly no longer a club that functions as a meritocracy, quite the opposite in fact. Still, well done, Paul. Money for old rope.

We could quite easily lose the next 3 or 4. What chance of a positive to middling reaction to a contract extension then. We need stability throughout the club and getting the manager tied down to a long-term deal certainly stops uncertainty relating to players that Lambert might want to sign, or even existing ones being offered new contracts.

I agree re the importance of stability, but it looks like in the reference to the next 3 or 4 games, you're suggesting that we'd best give him a new deal now, in case he loses the next few matches?

Or from a PR perspective. If the club had decided over the summer that he was getting a new contract regardless (for whatever reason), then announcing it when we're second in the table it's going to make it a more palatable decision than after we've just lost four in a row.

To be fair, if they're worried about what the fans think, they'd have binned him at the end of last season when he had next to no support.

It's not necessarily a case of being worried about what the fans think. It's a case of taking the easiest possible route through things.

I don't think anybody with any clout has got the energy for another round of "find new manager/get rid of the players that he doesn't fancy/buy a few new ones", and then do it again in a couple of years.

Keep the bloke who doesn't quite relegate us. Give him enough money to keep us ticking over. Be pleasantly surprised with the start to the new season and use that as an opportunity to announce that we're keeping him.

Do it a time when it looks like a reward for achievement rather a case of just keeping things ticking over. Without wanting to go all sihillvilla on things, they might not get another chance.

[Marlon's Hairy Wood]

It's not really stupid is it? Yes the seasons only just started, but the whole point of sacking someone is if they can't do the job right. He didn't sack him and the clubs in a great place from top to bottom, and we've started off this season better than any other manager could probably do. At the moment not sacking him is justified.

How is the club in a great place top to bottom?

In what way does doing well over four games make up for the utter dross of the last two years?

There's also a difference between "not sacking him" which I'd agree with and "giving him a four year contract", which, whilst I am not going to lose much sleep over, strikes me as undeserved.

Randy still cares and is providing contracts and signing to ensure we maintain our premiership status
New CEO who's suppose to be the dogs bollocks
Lambert & Keane combination appears to be working excellently
very strong first team and for the first time in a long while - a strong squad

It's all good, lets ride the crest of a wave and be happy, rather than anticipating the worst and being generally pessimistic like Villa fans tend to be