Lerner/Lambert v Ellis/O'Leary

[LeeB]

Still all we get is anti- Ellis. What is pro-Lerner and pro-Lambert? That is more important because it is what we are left with.

Would you indulge with me with something I find at odds?

How come you were so staunchly pro-McLeish until the bitter end, but turned very quickly on Lambert?

I am not saying either opinion is wrong, just wondering at the difference.

Could you enlighten me how quickly I turned on Lambert please?

I think you were one of the first detractors of him last season. I am just curious as to why you defended McLeish to the hilt, but didn't afford Lambert the same leeway.

I usually side with the underdog in the first instance. As the shit gets heaped on them more and more, it makes me side with them even more. In this case, Lambert was not the underdog and I rumbled him early on. A similar question could be asked why people stand by Lambert when there is no justifiable reason.
Seconds away....

I don't really see anyone siding with Lambert as such. There are a few who want to give him until the end of the season and some who reckon he should be given till Christmas, both of which are fair enough.

Trouble with Christmas is, who would be around apart from sacked managers? Close season you have more chance of bending the ear of some still in a job.

You're right.

It's a tough call for me. I want him to succeed, but I've got to admit this season has made it hard to believe he will. And I think come the summer we, as a club will be in a better position to rebuild than we were two years before.

So maybe it would be wise to say thanks for all the hard work, but we're going to use someone else for the next phase.

My problem with that is we end up withunwanted players who don't fit in with the new bloke's ideas and in another 12 months time we are having similar threads on here just with a different name in the heading.

I haven't seen one convincing argument against allowing him the chance to see what happens with a couple more signings and a fully fit squad. I don't buy the availability in December argument, such is the churn with managers there are always people looking for jobs and if we are such a draw why is it any different mid season?

I think it's probably easier on the conscience of any manager to leave a post in the close season rather than halfway through, so we're less likely to go down.

Chris, I'm not entirely against giving him more time, in fact until very recently I would've insisted on it, but the sheer volume of shit football I've witnessed this season is testing, we're nearly two years down the line and there's little evidence of any pattern to our play and we seem to have lost the momentum we built after last seasons struggles completely.

[Toronto Villa]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

[LeeB]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

That's the crux of it, and I think you were right, either change it this summer or back him properly.

[Toronto Villa]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

That's the crux of it, and I think you were right, either change it this summer or back him properly.

The other thing Lee is that if you do back him properly, you then need to give him the required time to integrate those players. It would likely mean extending his contract which would be a highly controversial move by the board.

[LeeB]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

That's the crux of it, and I think you were right, either change it this summer or back him properly.

The other thing Lee is that if you do back him properly, you then need to give him the required time to integrate those players. It would likely mean extending his contract which would be a highly controversial move by the board.

Agreed, that's sort of what I meant by backing him properly. Not just with money but time too.

It's not the kind of decision I'd want to have to make.

[cheltenhamlion]

I have just written an article which concludes with just that.

[Chris Smith]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

Our position is unique in that we have just spent two years trying to shed the unwanted players from three former regimes. Just at the point where we might be able to exploit that it would be perverse to put ourselves in the position of having to do it again, particularly as there are no guarantees of any replacement doing any better. That then leaves us 12 months down the line having the same conversations.

Lambert might fall flat on his arse next year but as things stand I think he is better placed to make the most of the current situation than any potential replacement.

[Monty]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

Our position is unique in that we have just spent two years trying to shed the unwanted players from three former regimes. Just at the point where we might be able to exploit that it would be perverse to put ourselves in the position of having to do it again, particularly as there are no guarantees of any replacement doing any better. That then leaves us 12 months down the line having the same conversations.

Lambert might fall flat on his arse next year but as things stand I think he is better placed to make the most of the current situation than any potential replacement.

That's a pretty big statement, Chris. You really think there isn't a manager we might attract who'd be likely to do better?

[Toronto Villa]

I don't disagree entirely Chris. Believe me I'm massively torn on not wanting to see much more of this under Lambert and giving him the proper tools and resources to push us forward properly. I realise he's agreed to work within the parameters set by the club and done what they have asked of him, which in itself creates mutual loyalty. But at the same time there needs to be some tangible evidence of improvement even if it is marginal due to the resources provided. I think that's where the problem lies. I get the limitations. I get the argument to carry this on, but I'm not seeing on a consistent basis any tangible improvement. Bright spots for sure. Injuries haven't helped, but there should have been a bit more. Now, it might come together on Saturday and the other 5 games. We'll see I suppose. I'm just struggling with this a little and the idea of him staying longer.

[supertom]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

Our position is unique in that we have just spent two years trying to shed the unwanted players from three former regimes. Just at the point where we might be able to exploit that it would be perverse to put ourselves in the position of having to do it again, particularly as there are no guarantees of any replacement doing any better. That then leaves us 12 months down the line having the same conversations.

Lambert might fall flat on his arse next year but as things stand I think he is better placed to make the most of the current situation than any potential replacement.

That's a pretty big statement, Chris. You really think there isn't a manager we might attract who'd be likely to do better?

I think we're also in a position that our first 11 needs 4-5 new players anyway. A new manager would likely make that amount of signings, and you'd imagine at the very least, he'd be given 20 mill.
That a new man comes in inheriting the likes of Tonev, Sylla and Bowery is irrelivent. They don't cost us a great deal, and they don't have to be used.
Players like Bacuna, Westwood and obviously Benteke are good enough that a new man could use them. The rest may get their chance and if they don't, we get rid.

A new manager won't be inheriting a squad full over over priced, over paid, and past it players. It's a squad ready and primed to be built on.
A new man may not be able to do better with our current squad, but he would certainly have leighway to change the squad to fit his own vision. It may not be massive amount of leighway, but even 2-3 good quality additions and the right ideas and implementation could see us take a significant step up.

[cheltenhamlion]

Quite true, SuperTom. But that is why the board have to show their hand this summer.

If they have faith he is the man for the future they need to give him a new contract and throw a few quid at it in the summer.

If they aren't sure then it is the ideal time to move on to someone else.

Keeping him will make some unhappy but they need to make judgement early so we don't end up with a squad wondering about the future and short term signings to get us to mid table to secure the managers job but possibly undoing some of the work on shipping out high earning wasters.

It is a big call.

[Chris Smith]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

Our position is unique in that we have just spent two years trying to shed the unwanted players from three former regimes. Just at the point where we might be able to exploit that it would be perverse to put ourselves in the position of having to do it again, particularly as there are no guarantees of any replacement doing any better. That then leaves us 12 months down the line having the same conversations.

Lambert might fall flat on his arse next year but as things stand I think he is better placed to make the most of the current situation than any potential replacement.

That's a pretty big statement, Chris. You really think there isn't a manager we might attract who'd be likely to do better?

Unless you are shopping at the top end of the market any new appointment is a gamble, as our history over the past few years succinctly demonstrates. So, on balance of probabilities, I would say for the reasons I stated above that Lambert is better placed than the latest 'next big thing' we might try. 

[Monty]

Irrespective when a manager leaves a club there are always going to be unwanted players. It's better that the many of unwanted players are of the value we have paid as opposed to giving Lambert significant funds and then having to fire him. Like I said earlier, if we fire him in the middle of next season, a lot has gone wrong and a lot more money will have been spent on players Lambert will have identified and that ultimately won't have worked out.

Our position is unique in that we have just spent two years trying to shed the unwanted players from three former regimes. Just at the point where we might be able to exploit that it would be perverse to put ourselves in the position of having to do it again, particularly as there are no guarantees of any replacement doing any better. That then leaves us 12 months down the line having the same conversations.

Lambert might fall flat on his arse next year but as things stand I think he is better placed to make the most of the current situation than any potential replacement.

That's a pretty big statement, Chris. You really think there isn't a manager we might attract who'd be likely to do better?

Unless you are shopping at the top end of the market any new appointment is a gamble, as our history over the past few years succinctly demonstrates. So, on balance of probabilities, I would say for the reasons I stated above that Lambert is better placed than the latest 'next big thing' we might try. 

I have to admit it's not a very positive one, but it could be that the best argument for retaining the current manager is that he's about as good as our board could appoint.

[Dave]

Unless you are shopping at the top end of the market any new appointment is a gamble, as our history over the past few years succinctly demonstrates 

Even if you're shopping at the top end of the market it's still a gamble. Moyes? Scolari? Villas-Boas?

That doesn't mean you should never change just in case you end up with something worse, whether it's Man Utd, us or Crawley Town.

[Isa]

Any new appointment is a gamble full-stop. You can never guarantee the success of any but that doesn't mean you allow fear of the unknown to prevent removing a manager who is an abject failure.