| Lamberts contract 12:46 - Feb 2 with 4953 views | ColchesterBlue1985 |
I know this has been done to death but something that doesn’t add up to me is why I’m out financial state are we dishing out 5 year contracts to a very highly paid league one manager?
He didn’t even hand MM a 5 year deal after finished 5th???
All you hear is lambert saying we cannot afford loans etc well maybe our coaching budget is too high then? After all what coaching is actually being done? Very little according to what I see on the pitch.
We are not fitter than anybody else
We are not technically better than anybody else
I fail to see the logic in the 5 year contract plan!!!
Everybody is culpable for the mess we are in.
The fans were asked to support in numbers and stay with them this season and I am afraid once again the club have fell desperately short of their side of the bargain. |  | | |  |
| Lamberts contract on 12:48 - Feb 2 with 3750 views | hype313 |
Lamberts a few nice soundbites but that's all he's got.
Read what Villa, Wolves and Stoke fans think, there is a trend... |  |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 12:49 - Feb 2 with 3745 views | SomethingBlue |
I think the idea is that if we get up we can harness the momentum of that with the stability of the long-term contract. I do get it, even if I have no faith in our leadership to plan properly or get the right people in other areas of the club. If we don't go up this season then Lambert will leave regardless, I am certain. | |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 12:54 - Feb 2 with 3712 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Lamberts contract on 12:48 - Feb 2 by hype313 |
Lamberts a few nice soundbites but that's all he's got.
Read what Villa, Wolves and Stoke fans think, there is a trend... |
He turned round Col U, took a rubbish Norwich team up to premiership in two successive promotions and then got them mid table.
I’d suggest he’s got something. | | | |
| Lamberts contract on 12:56 - Feb 2 with 3697 views | davblue |
| Lamberts contract on 12:54 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
He turned round Col U, took a rubbish Norwich team up to premiership in two successive promotions and then got them mid table.
I’d suggest he’s got something. |
That was 8-10 years ago.
Jewell had something when we appointed him.
‘Had’ is the most important part. |  | | |
| Lamberts contract on 12:57 - Feb 2 with 3692 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Lamberts contract on 12:56 - Feb 2 by davblue |
That was 8-10 years ago.
Jewell had something when we appointed him.
‘Had’ is the most important part. |
If he’s done it once he can do it again. | | | |
| Lamberts contract on 12:58 - Feb 2 with 3679 views | hype313 |
| Lamberts contract on 12:57 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
If he’s done it once he can do it again. |
We said the same about Keane. | |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:00 - Feb 2 with 3658 views | Radlett_blue |
I was equally perplexed at the time. I can only guess that Lambert was agitating for a longer contract & Evans gave it to him, for some unfathomable reason. Looks as odd now as it did at the time. I can only hope there is still a break clause with a manageable pay off, but as Evans negotiated the deal, who knows, given his level of football incompetence. |  |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:02 - Feb 2 with 3646 views | Oxford_Blue |
The logic is as follows:
1. That no one else better will come to manage the club without money available. We have already tried the other route (an younger manager from lower leagues) and that didn’t go so well did it?
2. As there is no money available Evans accepts there is a chance we could be in the league for a few seasons and he wants a manager who can develop young players and bring stability.
3. When the contract was offered (according to Lambert) it was done in October, at which point the club was flying high, fans reunited with it, good support and top of the league. Looks like Lambert put pressure on Evans around Xmas after that odd interview (either for more money, or for a longer extension) and given 1 and 2 above Evans agreed.
4. In any event, I’d be very surprised if the club’s lawyers didn’t negotiate safeguards for Evans so that if Lambert is sacked then, if certain conditions are met, he gets less money or no money. This is typical in all sports contracts and it applied to Hurst. Hurst didn’t get a full pay off of two / three years. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lamberts contract on 13:02 - Feb 2 with 3653 views | Garv |
once again the club have fell desperately short of their side of the bargain.
Sorry but that's nonsense, we're 4th, we're challenging for promotion. You might not like how we've done it, which I completely understand and agree with, but they've not fallen short because its only the 2nd of February and the season finishes in May.
Bigger clubs have finished mid table in this league in their first year. |  |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:02 - Feb 2 with 3639 views | davblue |
| Lamberts contract on 12:57 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
If he’s done it once he can do it again. |
Sorry but what on the pitch over the 15 months have you’ve seen that’s convinced you of that statement?
Really intrigued by the response to this. | | | |
| Lamberts contract on 13:08 - Feb 2 with 3608 views | Guthrum |
| Lamberts contract on 12:54 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
He turned round Col U, took a rubbish Norwich team up to premiership in two successive promotions and then got them mid table.
I’d suggest he’s got something. |
Tho there is the possibility that the thing he had was the partnership with his then assistant, Culverhouse. The combination of the two together being stronger than the sum of the parts.
Lambert may have dealt with the overall running of the team, public relations, etc., while it might have been Culverhouse who organised the tactics. I don't know this for a fact, but it's a reasonable working theory.
That partnership being broken could be a significant factor in Lambert not being able to replicate his successes at ColU and Norwich. |  |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:10 - Feb 2 with 3597 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Lamberts contract on 13:02 - Feb 2 by davblue |
Sorry but what on the pitch over the 15 months have you’ve seen that’s convinced you of that statement?
Really intrigued by the response to this. |
We are 4 points off top, and have been in the top three or four most of the season and were top again only two games ago. We are clearly in the promotion race, and automatic promotion should be our aim. We have some easier games in the last 10 matches.
The time to judge is at the end of the season, not immediately after a very disappointing home defeat. | | | |
| Lamberts contract on 13:10 - Feb 2 with 3595 views | hype313 |
| Lamberts contract on 12:57 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
If he’s done it once he can do it again. |
Just to add, Norwich had a purple patch with Holt and Hoolahan both being the fulcrum of that squad, neither were brought in by Lambert. | |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:13 - Feb 2 with 3580 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Lamberts contract on 13:10 - Feb 2 by hype313 |
Just to add, Norwich had a purple patch with Holt and Hoolahan both being the fulcrum of that squad, neither were brought in by Lambert. |
If you only give managers credit for the performances of the players they personally bought, then that will exclude a large number of title winning managers over the last 50 years. | | | |
| Lamberts contract on 13:16 - Feb 2 with 3571 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Lamberts contract on 13:08 - Feb 2 by Guthrum |
Tho there is the possibility that the thing he had was the partnership with his then assistant, Culverhouse. The combination of the two together being stronger than the sum of the parts.
Lambert may have dealt with the overall running of the team, public relations, etc., while it might have been Culverhouse who organised the tactics. I don't know this for a fact, but it's a reasonable working theory.
That partnership being broken could be a significant factor in Lambert not being able to replicate his successes at ColU and Norwich. |
That sounds like speculation to me.
If Culverhouse had the talent that is claimed, this is not supported by the fact that without Lambert has been offered roles to manage premiership clubs and Culverhouse didn’t work in football for three or four years before getting a role at lowly Kings Lynn. | | | |
| Lamberts contract on 13:18 - Feb 2 with 3559 views | hype313 |
| Lamberts contract on 13:13 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
If you only give managers credit for the performances of the players they personally bought, then that will exclude a large number of title winning managers over the last 50 years. |
No, I'm replying to your comment about if he has done it before he can do it again, we had that with Keane, Jewell and Mick so that throws that argument out the window.
Also his last successful spell was 8-10 years ago, and it's clearly starting to look like he had the right players at the right time, that tragectory hasn't replicated at the 4 other clubs post Norwich, so to me he is a busted flush. | |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:22 - Feb 2 with 3538 views | BlueBadger |
| Lamberts contract on 12:54 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
He turned round Col U, took a rubbish Norwich team up to premiership in two successive promotions and then got them mid table.
I’d suggest he’s got something. |
Trouble is, that was quite a long while ago now. Much like Jewell when he came in. |  |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:22 - Feb 2 with 3539 views | agentp |
| Lamberts contract on 12:54 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
He turned round Col U, took a rubbish Norwich team up to premiership in two successive promotions and then got them mid table.
I’d suggest he’s got something. |
Got or had? | |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:23 - Feb 2 with 3537 views | Guthrum |
| Lamberts contract on 13:16 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
That sounds like speculation to me.
If Culverhouse had the talent that is claimed, this is not supported by the fact that without Lambert has been offered roles to manage premiership clubs and Culverhouse didn’t work in football for three or four years before getting a role at lowly Kings Lynn. |
That's why I didn't suggest that Culverhouse was the real talent and Lambert only the front-man. However, a combination of the two working together, exchanging ideas and bouncing stuff off one another, may have brought out the best in both.
Napoleon was a much less effective general without Berthier by his side - and the latter was a shambles when left in command by himself. | |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:24 - Feb 2 with 3533 views | ColchesterBlue1985 |
| Lamberts contract on 13:02 - Feb 2 by Garv |
once again the club have fell desperately short of their side of the bargain.
Sorry but that's nonsense, we're 4th, we're challenging for promotion. You might not like how we've done it, which I completely understand and agree with, but they've not fallen short because its only the 2nd of February and the season finishes in May.
Bigger clubs have finished mid table in this league in their first year. |
Bigger clubs maybe but not with the level of squad Lambert has had at his disposal. We have fell desperately short against any team with a remote bit of quality, hence our record of being unable to beat anybody in the top 8 or whatever it is.
We have been well beaten on several occasions now that is not what happens to promoted sides.
Our home record is abysmal and something like the 4/5th worse in the division.
On the basis of the above yes the club have fell short. | | | |
| Lamberts contract on 13:26 - Feb 2 with 3530 views | BackToRussia |
| Lamberts contract on 13:16 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
That sounds like speculation to me.
If Culverhouse had the talent that is claimed, this is not supported by the fact that without Lambert has been offered roles to manage premiership clubs and Culverhouse didn’t work in football for three or four years before getting a role at lowly Kings Lynn. |
You're clearly completely unaware of what happened with Culverhouse and why he may now find himself managing Kings Lynn despite good credentials in the game (not to disparage Kings Lynn). |  |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:26 - Feb 2 with 3515 views | BlueBadger |
| Lamberts contract on 12:58 - Feb 2 by hype313 |
We said the same about Keane. |
And Jewell. | |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:33 - Feb 2 with 3477 views | BlueBadger |
| Lamberts contract on 13:10 - Feb 2 by Oxford_Blue |
We are 4 points off top, and have been in the top three or four most of the season and were top again only two games ago. We are clearly in the promotion race, and automatic promotion should be our aim. We have some easier games in the last 10 matches.
The time to judge is at the end of the season, not immediately after a very disappointing home defeat. |
At the moment, we could quite conceivably go up despite him, rather than because of him, mainly due to our quality of players in comparison to 90% of the division. We've acquired most of those points via the medium of being flat-track bullies who fold the instant someone looks to actually give us a game rather than hope for a point. Hell, we saw that with Wimbledon and Acrington, let alone the likes of Posh and Rotherham.
As it stands, even if we were promoted, I don't think we'd do anything other than struggle(and likely be relegated again) under Lambert. [Post edited 2 Feb 2020 13:39]
| |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 13:52 - Feb 2 with 3420 views | Garv |
| Lamberts contract on 13:24 - Feb 2 by ColchesterBlue1985 |
Bigger clubs maybe but not with the level of squad Lambert has had at his disposal. We have fell desperately short against any team with a remote bit of quality, hence our record of being unable to beat anybody in the top 8 or whatever it is.
We have been well beaten on several occasions now that is not what happens to promoted sides.
Our home record is abysmal and something like the 4/5th worse in the division.
On the basis of the above yes the club have fell short. |
How can you say we've 'fell' short when the season is nowhere near ending? | |
| |
| Lamberts contract on 14:03 - Feb 2 with 3383 views | Oxford_Blue |
| Lamberts contract on 13:33 - Feb 2 by BlueBadger |
At the moment, we could quite conceivably go up despite him, rather than because of him, mainly due to our quality of players in comparison to 90% of the division. We've acquired most of those points via the medium of being flat-track bullies who fold the instant someone looks to actually give us a game rather than hope for a point. Hell, we saw that with Wimbledon and Acrington, let alone the likes of Posh and Rotherham.
As it stands, even if we were promoted, I don't think we'd do anything other than struggle(and likely be relegated again) under Lambert. [Post edited 2 Feb 2020 13:39]
|
So if we go up it’s got nothing to do with Lambert but if we don’t go up it’s his fault?
That’s a logical fallacy. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
