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

[saunders_heroes]

He also signed Jordan Bowery who was so out of his depth I felt sorry for him.

He signed some who worked, some who didn't.

Lambert was a disaster as a manager and we should have binned him ages ago, but his transfer record was pretty good.

I don't agree with that. He signed some of the poorest players I've ever seen at this club.

True, most managers buy the occasional stinker but I just think Lambert signed far too many of them.

You could say that about every manager.

[dave shelley]

For a bit of balance.  When Lambert came in, and his policy was to purchase from abroad and from the lower leagues for relatively small fees and low wages.  There were comments on here about some of the individuals signed that, if they didn't work out so we haven't lost much.  So some of them failed.  This is, IMO, isn't fair to add the fees of the failure's together and use it as a stick to beat him with.  He turned out to be a poor manager and ended up what looks like a broken man.  All transfers are a gamble, we should leave it at that.

[Ad@m]

I don't think anyone would pay more than £20m for him given his injury record to date.

We're working in a market place though where Shane Long costs £12m, Danny Wellbeck costs £16m and Romelu Lukaku costs £28m. I agree we probably wouldn't get £35m if we decided to sell, but I bet we'd get a fair bit more than £20m.

What's do you class as a fair bit more than £20m though?

Shane Long has gone for more money than he's worth for years - he's a complete anomoly.  Similarly, I think most people would say Everton paid way over the odds for Lukaku.  And I don't think Benteke is that much better than Welbeck at the moment.

Looking at it the other way, Sanchez cost Arsenal £37m, Costa £33m, Aguero £40m and Van Persie (in his prime) £27m.  Benteke's nowhere near the level any of these guys were at the point they were transferred so wouldn't command anywhere near the fee.  And if you consider that in two and a half seasons he's spent a season out injured the risk factor would bring the price down.

[pauliewalnuts]

Even if Benteke went for "only" 20m that'd be almost three times what we paid for him.

[pauliewalnuts]

I don't think there haven't been any "unqualified" successes.  Even Benteke, who was superb in his first season, has been hugely disappointing this season.

He has been disappointing this season, but he has still been a complete success as a transfer.

82 appearances, 38 goals.

As near as dammit to a one in two striker, one who cost us peanuts and who we could easily sell for 5 times as much as he cost us if we wanted.

That's absolutely a success by any measure.

I agree he's a been a success but I think your numbers are wrong.  I thought the general view was that he cost us £8m, which isn't exactly peanuts, and if we were to try to sell him now I don't think anyone would pay more than £20m for him given his injury record to date.

You're right, I was thiniing he cost us 3.5 for some reason.

[Dave]

I don't think anyone would pay more than £20m for him given his injury record to date.

We're working in a market place though where Shane Long costs £12m, Danny Wellbeck costs £16m and Romelu Lukaku costs £28m. I agree we probably wouldn't get £35m if we decided to sell, but I bet we'd get a fair bit more than £20m.

What's do you class as a fair bit more than £20m though?

Shane Long has gone for more money than he's worth for years - he's a complete anomoly.  Similarly, I think most people would say Everton paid way over the odds for Lukaku.  And I don't think Benteke is that much better than Welbeck at the moment.

Looking at it the other way, Sanchez cost Arsenal £37m, Costa £33m, Aguero £40m and Van Persie (in his prime) £27m.  Benteke's nowhere near the level any of these guys were at the point they were transferred so wouldn't command anywhere near the fee.  And if you consider that in two and a half seasons he's spent a season out injured the risk factor would bring the price down.

I would assume around the same as Lukaku, given their careers so far.

Wellbeck has been a 1 goal in 4 player for his whole career, and has been this season as well. Benteke is at slightly worse than 1 in 4 this season, but has a career of being a 1 goal in 2 striker for the rest of his time playing. So the fact that Benteke is having his first bad season doesn't mean that he's worth the same as somebody who has been at that level the whole time.

As for the other players that you list, Van Persie was a 29 year old with 12 months remaining on his contract rather than a 24 year old with 2 and a half years on his contract, Costa left for that amount because Chelsea met the buy-out clause in his contract and Aguero was half a decade ago. Sanchez scores about a goal every third game (albeit not as a main striker) and has bettered that rate this season. So the £37m that Arsenal paid for a 1 in 3 player turned out to be very good value.

I don't see the logic of a team paying no more than half of that for a player is both younger and who has scored more frequently across his career.

[Ad@m]

I don't see the logic of a team paying no more than half of that for a player is both younger and who has scored more frequently across his career.

Because whilst he's shown definite promise he's hardly been consistent.  He had one good season for Genk but the Belgian league is not exactly the best standard.  And he's had two halves of good seasons for us (ie the 2nd half of his first season and the 1st half of his second).  Since he's come back from injury his record is 1 in 5 and whilst the tactics we've played during that time has probably impacted that ratio, in the world of FFP I can't see anyone paying more than £20m for him until he proves he can recapture his previous form.  Transfer history is littered with strikers who had a very good first season and never did it again.

[Toronto Villa]

I think it is worth pointing out what Benteke offers when fully fit. He is not only an outstanding centre forward in the traditional sense; big, powerful and dominant in the air, but he can score from every conceivable positon in the final third. He has tremendous footwork, touch and creativity for such a big man. It puts him in a very unique situation in Europe in that he can pretty much play in any system for any of the major teams. He was incredibly unfortunate to get injured when he did and not go to the WC. Because if had and he showcased his talents he might not be with us right now. Don't let the last 12 months cloud your judgement of him. Go back to his first season and look at the sheer variety and quality of his goals. He is quite outstanding and will be again.

[Dave]

I can't see anyone paying more than £20m for him until he proves he can recapture his previous form.  Transfer history is littered with strikers who had a very good first season and never did it again.

Agreed, but he's not just had a very good first season. He's had one excellent season, one very good season interrupted by injuries and this season's horrible one.

And nobody wanting to pay more than £20m for him is fine by me - because there is no way on earth we would sell him for that.

[john e]

Lambert was a poor manager not because of his signings but because he is a poor manager

Like I said before, there is often 8/9 Lambert signings in the first team and I'm hoping Sherwood can get more out of them and get them playing a lot better football

If your looking at a mid table team. Guzan, Vlaar, Okore, Westwood, Benteke, Lowton, whilst not being world beaters would easily fit into most teams around that position then throw in the undecided ones like Gill, Sinclair, Sanchez, Kozac and it might get better still

he was a shit manager, yet his signings might win us the FA Cup for the first time in nearly 60 years, because we have a different manager now, who is getting more out of them

[DrGonzo]

Lambert Out!

[pauliewalnuts]

Lambert's problem wasn't so much the players he did sign as those he didn't.

[Dave]

Lambert's problem wasn't so much the players he did sign as those he didn't.

Indeed. And what he did with those that he did sign.

If he'd spent the Kozak fee on a really good (as I like to call them) number ten, then I wonder if he might have stumbled over a formula that would have kept him a job.

[Toronto Villa]

I can't see anyone paying more than £20m for him until he proves he can recapture his previous form.  Transfer history is littered with strikers who had a very good first season and never did it again.

Agreed, but he's not just had a very good first season. He's had one excellent season, one very good season interrupted by injuries and this season's horrible one.

And nobody wanting to pay more than £20m for him is fine by me - because there is no way on earth we would sell him for that.

When you consider we got £20m for that roach Downing, there is no way we'd sell Benteke for that. The market will establish the price for a 24yr old CF with immense upside and the most recent domestic transaction was Lukaku at £28m. Benteke is at least worth that.

[Ad@m]

I can't see anyone paying more than £20m for him until he proves he can recapture his previous form.  Transfer history is littered with strikers who had a very good first season and never did it again.

Agreed, but he's not just had a very good first season. He's had one excellent season, one very good season interrupted by injuries and this season's horrible one.

And nobody wanting to pay more than £20m for him is fine by me - because there is no way on earth we would sell him for that.

When you consider we got £20m for that roach Downing, there is no way we'd sell Benteke for that. The market will establish the price for a 24yr old CF with immense upside and the most recent domestic transaction was Lukaku at £28m. Benteke is at least worth that.

Again Downing is not a fair comparison. That was around the same time Liverpool spent £35m on Andy Carroll. They had money to burn and everyone else took the piss.