Randy Lerner

[Clampy]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

[tomd2103]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

I agree with that.  Although we've hardly been spending massive amounts, we've spent enough not to be in the position we currently find ourselves in. 

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

[brian green]

It also raises a less discussed problem we appear to have, namely the performance in the field of those who watch and evaluate our potential signings. All those listed by Paulie above plus a string of others have been seen as inferior after a few games for us. Some, like Westwood have not actually been good enough but have commanded a starting place because the others make them look better than they actually are.

The great unspoken failure at Villa is the failure of the quality of players we buy.  Those whose job it is to be the eyes and ears of the club in the world miss the Vardys and spot the Tonev's.

[Villa in Denmark]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

I think that is absolutely the most salient point. Players such as Lowton / Bennett / Westwood from that batch or Clark from the home grown bunch may well have developed into reasonable players at that level if they'd been integrated gradually into a team with some experience around them and allowed to develop.  Instead they were pretty much all thrown into the first time to sink or swim.

That period from December to March in Lambert's first season possibly curtailed / ruined 4 or 5 careers.

[fbriai]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

I completely agree with Paulie. We got lucky that season, in that we signed Benteke too, while we also had Delph coming through the ranks. We still had an effective Darren Bent and a more effective Gabby as well.

For me, this summer, they've followed a similar strategy: not invested a great deal, when you consider the money they've recouped on sales, while buying younger, unproven players with the intention of putting them straight into the first team. Again, I think we've bought some good young players, with potential, but most of them should be on the bench and coming on to gain experience when they can and pushing the first team, not be the first names on the team-sheet.

The trouble is, on the back of the last few seasons, the squad was already thread-bare, so we don't have any of the other options to fall back on and we haven't unearthed a Benteke either. The fact that the best signing is out for months as well obviously hasn't helped either.

[themossman]

It also raises a less discussed problem we appear to have, namely the performance in the field of those who watch and evaluate our potential signings. All those listed by Paulie above plus a string of others have been seen as inferior after a few games for us. Some, like Westwood have not actually been good enough but have commanded a starting place because the others make them look better than they actually are.

The great unspoken failure at Villa is the failure of the quality of players we buy.  Those whose job it is to be the eyes and ears of the club in the world miss the Vardys and spot the Tonev's.

Agree Brian. And the thing that throws people off the scent is that Benteke was the anomaly that proved the rule.

Take him out of the equation and we probably went down a couple of seasons ago directly due to the poor quality of the squad.

[PeterWithe]

Remember a few years ago when we had an influx of Cleveland Browns fans on the board having a nose, things turned out almost exactly the way they said they would.

[Irish villain]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Quoting you here Clampy but could just as easily have been Cheltenham or VID. To me this all sounds like a 'technicality' style argument. 'Technically' each manager since MON had a bit of money to spend, about what £15m per year. OK, fair enough that might work if the squad did not need serious investment on account of sales/retirement of key players.

However, the team that finished sixth three years in a row lost players like Barry, Young, Milner and, eventually Barry's initial replacement in terms of a player purchase, Downing bought with the money Barry' sale brought in. Conservative estimate, those sales brought in a profit of about £35m.

After Milner's sale hurt us Bent was then signed to keep us up when we got into trouble and he did but when we stayed up we sold his supply line! We bought the enigmatic N'Zogbia to do the job of Young and Downing and he has proved one of the worst signings in our history. That season we also had the Petrov diagnosis which essentially meant our most influential player had to retire. Who did we buy in the following summer? El Ahmadi and Westwood with Vlaar in as our replacement for James Collins and new captain. Again, can we consider those signings an improvement/adequate replacements? The point being, we had a budget alright but to replace the quality we lost it was inadequate and left us shopping in inferior leagues like the Dutch and lower leagues. In my view KEA and Vlaar were as much punts as Westwood, Lowton etc. To fill those gaps in the squad we should have been spending at least double what we paid for Vlaar, Westwood, KEA. West Ham got James Collins and he is still a key player for them. Vlaar is now where?

Then, after a season fighting relegation we bought some of the worst players I have ever seen play for villa: Tonev being the embodiment of what we ended up with. Again, after just about staying up surely we needed better quality and therefore a bigger budget? Blaming Lambert here doesn't  cut it. I am sure he, like any manager, would have chased better players if he had the money.

Then we saw the arrival of Kieran Richardson, Joe Cole, Senderos in the following summer. Ample investment for a team that had finished on 38 points?

Last summer we sold the two players instrumental in us staying up, recouped £40m and lost Cleverley. SUre we bought some good players to improve the quality at left back, centre midfield and wide forward but does anybody seriously believe Gestede was an adequate replacement for Benteke's goals? Goals that kept us up three years in a row?

When you sell the kind of talent we have since 2010 you need to replace it properly. I always use the analogy of Dwight York's sale funding Merson and Dublin. Our decline began with taking Ireland for Milner -when we had no manager so go figure- and subsequent managers having to replace quality premier league players like Downing, Young, Petrov, and last year Benteke with a limited budget.

Our midfield was decimated in 2010-2011 and never adequately replaced. It is the story of our decline.

[JasonStevens]

Wasn't there a rumour that our "transfer committee" wanted to sign Vardy, but Sherwood wanted Gestede?

[pbavfckuwait]

The quality of players we have signed has not been off a standard to replace some of the players we have sold, but we have then gone and made the situation worse by not getting on the whole what we have paid out back when we sell, also I cannot remember apart from the odd 1 or 2 of any player that has come to the club that we have actually improved, especially the last 5 years.
No do not blame Randy for the money he has spent, blame him for allowing it to be spent poorly and also not having a good enough technical people at the club to improve players, including basics like fitness.
Technically inept players with a lack of fitness you could not make it up, only at the Villa.

[dave.woodhall]

I agree with the general consensus above. Lambert's three summers had three different approaches - mainly lower divisions, mainly lesser European leagues, mainly grizzled old pros. A mix of the three throughout might have seen his approach work, but instead you had players such as Westwood, Lowton and possibly Bennett, plus our home-growns, thrown in as regulars and playing when they were clearly in need of being dropped. The same has happened now with Guzan.

[glasses]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Quoting you here Clampy but could just as easily have been Cheltenham or VID. To me this all sounds like a 'technicality' style argument. 'Technically' each manager since MON had a bit of money to spend, about what £15m per year. OK, fair enough that might work if the squad did not need serious investment on account of sales/retirement of key players.

However, the team that finished sixth three years in a row lost players like Barry, Young, Milner and, eventually Barry's initial replacement in terms of a player purchase, Downing bought with the money Barry' sale brought in. Conservative estimate, those sales brought in a profit of about £35m.

After Milner's sale hurt us Bent was then signed to keep us up when we got into trouble and he did but when we stayed up we sold his supply line! We bought the enigmatic N'Zogbia to do the job of Young and Downing and he has proved one of the worst signings in our history. That season we also had the Petrov diagnosis which essentially meant our most influential player had to retire. Who did we buy in the following summer? El Ahmadi and Westwood with Vlaar in as our replacement for James Collins and new captain. Again, can we consider those signings an improvement/adequate replacements? The point being, we had a budget alright but to replace the quality we lost it was inadequate and left us shopping in inferior leagues like the Dutch and lower leagues. In my view KEA and Vlaar were as much punts as Westwood, Lowton etc. To fill those gaps in the squad we should have been spending at least double what we paid for Vlaar, Westwood, KEA. West Ham got James Collins and he is still a key player for them. Vlaar is now where?

Then, after a season fighting relegation we bought some of the worst players I have ever seen play for villa: Tonev being the embodiment of what we ended up with. Again, after just about staying up surely we needed better quality and therefore a bigger budget? Blaming Lambert here doesn't  cut it. I am sure he, like any manager, would have chased better players if he had the money.

Then we saw the arrival of Kieran Richardson, Joe Cole, Senderos in the following summer. Ample investment for a team that had finished on 38 points?

Last summer we sold the two players instrumental in us staying up, recouped £40m and lost Cleverley. SUre we bought some good players to improve the quality at left back, centre midfield and wide forward but does anybody seriously believe Gestede was an adequate replacement for Benteke's goals? Goals that kept us up three years in a row?

When you sell the kind of talent we have since 2010 you need to replace it properly. I always use the analogy of Dwight York's sale funding Merson and Dublin. Our decline began with taking Ireland for Milner -when we had no manager so go figure- and subsequent managers having to replace quality premier league players like Downing, Young, Petrov, and last year Benteke with a limited budget.

Our midfield was decimated in 2010-2011 and never adequately replaced. It is the story of our decline.

Great post, and that last line I am in total agreement with.

People will laugh when I way this, but we also lost NRC in the summer we sold Young and Downing. OK, he wasn't a world beater, but he pisses all over any central midfielder bar Delph since.

[pauliewalnuts]

I agree with the general consensus above. Lambert's three summers had three different approaches - mainly lower divisions, mainly lesser European leagues, mainly grizzled old pros. A mix of the three throughout might have seen his approach work, but instead you had players such as Westwood, Lowton and possibly Bennett, plus our home-growns, thrown in as regulars and playing when they were clearly in need of being dropped. The same has happened now with Guzan.

The young and hungry thing was, I thought, incredibly naive. At the centre of it were two enormous miscalculations

1. That if you threw the kids into the premier league, it'd be hard, but they'll blossom into decent performers - "they just will".

2. That if you convince yourself that it'll work, it will work, despite the obvious fact that, were it that easy, everyone would be doing it.

I feel sorry for some of the players involved. Villa in Denmark above it absolutely correct, had it been one or two of these kids, they might have developed, but almost a team full of them and it just isn't going to work.

What we really, really needed at that time was Stiliyan Petrov, both on the pitch and in the dressing room. I wonder who else they looked to for guidance / inspiration?

I wonder what the cost on these young players themselves is, whether their careers have been negatively impacted by it all?

[Villa in Denmark]

Irish Villain, I wouldn't argue with the analysis of what was done.

But we could just as easily have used the same money differently. As Dave says we seemed to go shopping in just one market in each of Lambert's  three summers.
Year 1. Lower leagues + Vlaar and Benteke
Year 2. 2nd tier European leagues
Year 3. Scrap heap.

Before you even get into the persistent rumours that he never actually spent all of the funding available to him, the chance to have brought in a couple of experienced heads, maybe as free transfers, could have made a vast difference to year 1.

Which could have left us with a couple more players settled in and competent for year 2. Have we still got anyone from year 2? Forget all of the signings and make 2 or 3 signings of competent quality for similar combined fees and wages and supplement from the U-21s as necessary.

Suddenly you get to last summer without having spent much more but with a totally different squad and possibly a couple of our own academy players contributing and we've never signed Kieron Richardson.