stevenmcn

Are you saying comparing one seasons spending with four is fair comparison? Are you saying 6th place and European football is comparable with 15th? Are you ignoring the approx £9m difference in finishing position money when making that comparison? Do you know the wage bills of Aston Villa then and now?

 

All you seem intent on doing is saying "MON spent this MON spent this". All I am trying to point out is that Villa achieved more, in terms of where they finished in the league, with continuity in their management set up. Since then they have struggled in both seasons since MON left and been in relegation fights both seasons. As pointed out above, MON did resign from Villa over transfer fund issues. He wanted more money to spend to try and make that leap from continual 6th place finishes to breaking into the top 4. When he didn't get that he felt he had taken them as far as he probably could with the current set up. They have struggled since. I also think Stoke will struggle next season after Pulis left. I also pointed out that Bolton and Charlton also, for one reason or another, thought a change of manager and removing that stability of set up was a good idea and it backfired on them. Everton and Moyes is a good example of stability and what can be achieved if you, and at a higher level obviously Arsenal and Wenger continually gettign them in the CL as well as Ferguson and Man Utd. In summary continuity can be good long term and sometimes the grass isn't greener on the other side.

 

i will now leave you to go back to talking about how much MON spent over 4 seasons and completely missing the actual point. Dod on.....

Of course he "achieved" more, he spent more. And I'll guarentee the wage bill is significantly lower.

I'll gladly dod on. No point arguing with a Celtic fan about the messiah. incidentally whats he doing now

So Villa finished 16th the season before MON arrived. He arrived, spent net £21m a season, and got 3 consecutive 6th placed finishes from 4 seasons. His net spend if you want to include profits on players he "overspent" on was closer £20m over the course of the 4 seasons. The current manager spent £21m net last season and avoided relegation by a couple of bawhairs.

 

I know which achievement I think is better. If you think net £21m a season and 6th place finishes is "not doing much with it" what do you regard Lamberts £21m net spend and 15th place finish as then? Abject failure?

Are you actually saying that O'Neill having £120m to spend and Lambert spending £21m is a fair comparison. Plus we haven't even mentioned the difference in wage bills. And 6th is only an achevement for losers.

And you could also say that a £21m per season spend by the "overspending manager" wasn't that over the top in comparison to some, including the current manager who also spent net £21m this last season. Especially when the club raked back 3/4 of that selling just 3 of the players he "overspent" on.

He spent almost £121m, he sold nearly £40m, never done much with it. I'd say he overspent, irrelevant of how much other managers brought in.

And you could also say that a £21m per season spend by the "overspending manager" wasn't that over the top in comparison to some, including the current manager who also spent net £21m this last season. Especially when the club raked back 3/4 of that selling just 3 of the

If you ignore the last handful of games where they really needed a result I would say they have been poor for majority of the season. They were a stable EPL side, 6th place 3 seasons in a row, about their limit IMO, they binned MON to try and move forward and now they have had 9th, 16th and 15th in the last 3 seasons. Once you get on that slide downwards its hard to get off it IMO. Both Bolton and Charlton tried the same as Villa did, replacing steady managers who were overachieving probably, and paid the penalty. I think Stoke or Villa are next in that category.

Or you could say a young team were starting to gel after a massive cost cutting exercise due to a overspending manager (O'Neill)