Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: pauliewalnuts on September 18, 2010, 11:35:44 PM
-
Watching MOTD just now, in the aftermath of the highlights of our match, Lawrenson said (and I paraphrase) "it's going to be interesting to see how the chairman acts, because Villa seem to have become a selling club, they sold Barry last year and Milner this year, it looks like the chairman has considered the investment needed, and the wage bill, and decided enough is enough".
Now, even taking into account the fact that Lawro is a gigantic friend of Martin, so to speak, I thought this was the best example yet of the way the media have so eagerly bought into this notion of us as a selling club.
Interesting that he cited the two top level players we've sold, and we sold them both to Manchester City, having had the predictable financial pressure they have at their disposal placed on us. Pressure which pretty much no club, or player, could withstand.
I wonder, why Internazionale aren't being labelled a selling club for selling Balotelli to them? Or Arsenal for selling them both Adebayour and Toure? Or Everton for selling them Lescott?
Are we going to shake off this label, or is it going to become a self fulfilling prophecy? Manager leaves, assumptions are made that it is about star player being sold, season goes to shit, remaining star players get unsettled, want to leave, circle repeats.
I'm strongly of the opinion that the chairman has invested very well in us, and will continue to do so, but this strikes me as an absolutely crucial period for him, his stewardship of the club is going to need to be absolutely spot on, because this could very, very easily go the wrong way, if events start to spiral - the die is cast, the media have made their mind up.
Clubs sell players, it happens - as well as the examples listed above, I don't remember Spurs being labelled as a selling club for selling Carrick and Berbatov to Man United - but it seems to me that they really, really do have it in for us at the moment.
Or am I being overly paranoid?
-
They've got four years of not being able to say anything bad about us because their mate was our manager to make up for.
-
It's not paranoia. They really are out to get us.
-
They've got four years of not being able to say anything bad about us because their mate was our manager to make up for.
That is one way of looking at it.
In relation to the question raised by the topic, another view would be that the last manager made a serious attempt at stopping our best players being taken off our hands in the last 3 close seasons, but now all bets are off in that respect.
-
They've got four years of not being able to say anything bad about us because their mate was our manager to make up for.
That is one way of looking at it.
In relation to the question raised by the topic, another view would be that the last manager made a serious attempt at stopping our best players being taken off our hands in the last 3 close seasons, but now all bets are off in that respect.
Why, though?
He's gone. The new man will do his thing, but it seems a little extreme to assume he's going to be told to sell, sell, sell.
Did anyone think Milner was going to stay this summer as soon as Man City came knocking?
-
Lawrenson makes a good point in my opinion.
-
Its a blatant piece of the Mon pr we will have to accept as with his comment we'll be lucky to finish 8th.
But while our PR is so muted what can we expect.
Out of interest talking of pr is there a deliberate attempt going on to curtail the Generals thread on this site.
-
Yep we've sold our best player and now our much weaker as a result you can't really argue with that :(
-
Yep we've sold our best player and now our much weaker as a result you can't really argue with that :(
That's not the point at discussion, though.
Any team is going to be weaker if they sell their best player. The issue is us being called a "selling club", which has an entirely different connotation - think Wigan.
-
EVERY club is a selling club when it comes to Man City. Even Barcelona sold them a 1st team regular. We haven't sold anyone to another club so I think Lawrenson is wrong.
-
Yep we've sold our best player and now our much weaker as a result you can't really argue with that :(
That's not the point at discussion, though.
Any team is going to be weaker if they sell their best player. The issue is us being called a "selling club", which has an entirely different connotation - think Wigan.
I am starting to wonder how desperately we tried to keep Milner though unfortunately I don't think we will ever know the answer
-
So we sell our best players... But were not a selling club?
-
So we sell our best players... But were not a selling club?
A selling club goes out of its way to sell players on, actively seeks to make the profit.
Other clubs sell players, sometimes their best players. Tottenham have done it more than us of late. Are they a selling club?
-
I don't believe we are selling club at all, the fact that Man City made a ridiculous offer doesn't change that. Selling at a hugely over inflated price does not make a club a 'selling' club.
-
I don't believe we are selling club at all, the fact that Man City made a ridiculous offer doesn't change that. Selling at a hugely over inflated price does not make a club a 'selling' club.
That's my take on it.
My worry is the ease with which the perception has set in, jumped upon by the media, and that - unless we are very, very cleverly managed over the coming season - it might become a self fulfilling prophecy.
-
The notion that we could be a selling club is inherently flawed, in my opinion.
-
We've got a quality manager at the helm now and I don't think there would be anyway he would join a so called "selling club" if we'd employed Curbs I would be worried.I feel actually happy tonight with the coaching staff employed I am absolutely sick of this negative press Everton are at the foot of the taable and you don't hear a whisper
-
I don't give a shit about what the fucking media think by the way.
If any of you do, don't worry. Houllier will sort it out.
-
We've got a quality manager at the helm now and I don't think there would be anyway he would join a so called "selling club" if we'd employed Curbs I would be worried.I feel actually happy tonight with the coaching staff employed I am absolutely sick of this negative press Everton are at the foot of the taable and you don't hear a whisper
Good point.
And Everton extracted far more money than he is worth from City for Lescott, but I don't remember people pointing and screaming "selling club!" at them.
-
To an extent aren't all clubs selling clubs? Even Man U had to concede and sell Ronaldo. Mascerano to Barca is another example. The spurs players noted above.
I don't have a huge problem with us selling Barry/Milner for top dollar as long as the club re-invest the money. If the personnel are correct - step forward Mr H - every-time we sell one of our top players we should be able to invest in two or three potential stars.
Basically I see it as the only way we can make the Club sustainable (whilst growing) without magic-ing thousands of new fans.
I do agree with the comments that the Club needs to improve its PR and stop looking "small-time". A statement of intent in the January transfer window would do the trick.
-
Lawro doesn't know (or really care) what goes on at VP.
I don't think he's given it much thought outside of his mate pissing off this summer and Milner joining Citeh. Put the two together and that equals selling club or 'something not quite right' to Lawro and a fair few other fuckwits.
We'll see in Jan/ next summer I guess. I'm inclined to believe the board who have made it clear that money is available for Houllier (as it was for MON) until such times as they give me adequate reason not to believe them.
As Señor Walnuts says, we're about as much of a selling club as Arsenal are.
-
Given MONs silence and all this negative media, is it inconceivable to think that MON may be releasing his side of the story via his media buddies? Obviously we are not a "selling club" but if MON was told to get rid of x-amount of players and reduce the wage bill by x-amount, then its not exactly hard for him to suggest this to certain ppl who then release this information without the full facts. Just an observation.
-
Perhaps with the fresh start of the appointment of Houllier, we can also start to develop better relations with the media which might mean less of these types of stories.
-
We're not a 'selling club'. If someone comes in and offers a stupid amount for a player anyone would sell. Plus, Milner and Barry both wanted to go, so why keep them? If that does make as a selling club then you've got to level the same accusation at Spurs, Everton, etc.
We have money to spend but Learner wanted the high wage earners, that were never utilised, off the books first. Understandable.
Lawrenson's comments just highlight his ignorance of any club but Liverpool in my opinion.
-
It is stupid. Everybody is for sale and every club is for sale. I mean if AC Milan come up with 120 millions for Messi for example Barcelona will sell.
We can't rely on producing a team of home grown players.
-
He said "to all intents and purposes a selling club".
We didn't have to sell Milner. I doubt he'd have kicked up a fuss if we'd said no. The argument was made that we couldn't sign players without a manager in place then why wasn't the same true when it came to selling them? Pelty hinted the other day that it came as a surprise to everyone when MON said that Milner wanted to leave yet the club went ahead and sold him anyway, well after MON had left. It's too simplistic to say that 'we area selling club' but we do seem to have given up on fighting to hold onto players in the way we did with Barry and Liverpool.
-
This is why I don't watch Match Of The Day, much prefer Goals On Sunday on Sky.
Even when their pal MON was in charge, Lineker in particular barely had a good word to say about us. I can't stand all the matey banter betweeen Lawro, Lineker and Captain Scarlet either. The three of them get right on my tits.
-
This is why I don't watch Match Of The Day, much prefer Goals On Sunday on Sky.
Even when their pal MON was in charge, Lineker in particular barely had a good word to say about us. I can't stand all the matey banter betweeen Lawro, Lineker and Captain Scarlet either. The three of them get right on my tits.
I have been fortunate enough to be living in Oz for the last three years, so have not watched MOTD since Sept 2007. I remember thinking of all the MOTD presenters as a complete bunch of cvnts. Lineker and his barely disguised hatred of Villa, lame gags and, as you say, shit banter with the other twats they have on there, take your pick from Shearer, Hansen, Lawrenson. Add to that us always being shown right at the end for about 2 mins, even if we'd won 4-0 and they'd still sooner show a 0-0 between Arsenal and Liverpool for an hour.
We have Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the Fox sports programmes here. Both of them can be dicks at times, but much prefer both of them to the MOTD presenters. Both call it as they see it and you can't detect any real bias against any of the clubs. Although you'd expect some bitterness towards Chelsea from Bozzie, doesn't seem to be any.
The thing that most winds me up about Lineker is that he used to be quite good as a pundit, before someone told him he was funny and he started trying to crack gags all of the time.
-
I saw this too. Lawrenson really is a poor excuse for a pundit, so no you're not paranoid.
-
Whatever we think of Lawro and the media the plain fact is that we ARE a selling club. Whenever someone has come calling for our best players and players have indicated they would be interested we have taken the money.
Never heard words " He is not available at any price" or a player being told "You are staying put"
-
Lawrenson's only interested in one club and then there are 19 others he's asked to have an opinion on so it's not surprising when he repeats the usual tripe from other sections of the media. While I appreciate it's not ideal for us to be perceived in such a manner a throwaway comment by a celebrity Liverpool fan masquerading as a pundit is nothing to get concerned about.
-
The facts show that the club did sell James Milner, we will never know if they offered him a new contract or the captaincy in order to try and keep him like they should have. Even so if you were Milner who would u like to line up with Petrov or Yaya
Toure ??.....The only asset we have left that is worth a substantial amount in the market is Ashley
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
Those are the facts Chris and no-one can argue with those
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
What happens when a player is insistent that he wants to leave?
Was that not the case when we sold Barry last year, under your definition?
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
Those are the facts Chris and no-one can argue with those
It isn't a fact to say we 'we would be mad not to accept', it's an opinion.
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
What happens when a player is insistent that he wants to leave?
You make sure you can replace him adequately or you tell him he has to wait which is what we did with Barry.
-
Sorry but "silly money" comfort argument that we make to justify we are not a selling club is bunk. Sometimes just sometimes you have to make a stand and I thought that was the "bright future" . A future that states that we will keep our best and add to them. All we have done in the last two years is to sell the best and buy average at best.
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
What happens when a player is insistent that he wants to leave?
You make sure you can replace him adequately or you tell him he has to wait which is what we did with Barry.
A fair enough point.
I still think it is too simple to say a selling club is one which turns down silly money for players. There's more to it than that.
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
In that case, Man United are a selling Club.
-
Sorry but "silly money" comfort argument that we make to justify we are not a selling club is bunk. Sometimes just sometimes you have to make a stand and I thought that was the "bright future" . A future that states that we will keep our best and add to them. All we have done in the last two years is to sell the best and buy average at best.
Regardless of the situation re selling Milner, I don't think you can blame the buy average bit on the board. They weren't the ones choosing the players.
-
Its hard to describe a club that has spent more on players than bought in over the past 4 years as a selling club. However, i reckon the new board have spent in the region of £70m over that period, broken down thats £17.5m per season. Thats not going to turn relegation fodder into champions league contenders, and thats why we are not going to be this season. I, for one, was hoping for much more when they arrived, so am disappointed. I do appreciate that if they have not got the money then fair enough, but i'm sorry to say they while i appreciate that they certainly are not bad for the club, i can't help but wish for an Arab to come here, as bad as it is for football in general. As an aside, the next 12-18 months will tell us whether actually they do have the money but run out of patience with Martin, and Houllier gets a shit load to spend and all is good, or whether we will sink back into mid table mediocrity and have actually not come any further than the Doug years (on the pitch).
-
99% of teams in the world are selling clubs. Man Utd sold Ronaldo for £80m, AC Milan sold Kaka to Real (nearly to Man City).
I accept that we sell players for good money as we are not Real Madrid or Man City. The key is that we reinvest that money into the team when these players get sold. We shall see if that happens in January as we need fresh blood. I think that will be a good indication of where Lerner sees us. From his past record, I am sure we will spend.
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
What happens when a player is insistent that he wants to leave?
You make sure you can replace him adequately or you tell him he has to wait which is what we did with Barry.
A fair enough point.
I still think it is too simple to say a selling club is one which turns down silly money for players. There's more to it than that.
I agree, as I said above it's too simplistic to say that we are a selling club. However, this summer they had the perfect excuse to say to Milner that with no manager we can't make decisions on players leaving and he'd have to wait. Why didn't they?
-
Sorry but "silly money" comfort argument that we make to justify we are not a selling club is bunk. Sometimes just sometimes you have to make a stand and I thought that was the "bright future" . A future that states that we will keep our best and add to them. All we have done in the last two years is to sell the best and buy average at best.
Regardless of the situation re selling Milner, I don't think you can blame the buy average bit on the board. They weren't the ones choosing the players.
Fair enough however you could say that the Board are influencing the type of player by implementing low spend limits.
-
I agree, as I said above it's too simplistic to say that we are a selling club. However, this summer they had the perfect excuse to say to Milner that with no manager we can't make decisions on players leaving and he'd have to wait. Why didn't they?
Maybe the negotiations had gone so far down the line, and Milner was so keen to go, it was futile to put the blocks on it?
I don't know, we're guessing really. I admit that there's not enough evidence to say they did their best to keep him, but by the same chalk I don't think there's enough evidence to the contrary to give them a hard time over it.
The only way we're really going to get an idea what the situation is re player investment is in the transfer window. Unfortunately, it is probably going to be harder to do business this January than it is most Januaries, so we get into this damaging "selling club" loop where we can't do anything to disprove it.
That's what annoyed me so much about Lawrenson last night.
-
Sorry but "silly money" comfort argument that we make to justify we are not a selling club is bunk. Sometimes just sometimes you have to make a stand and I thought that was the "bright future" . A future that states that we will keep our best and add to them. All we have done in the last two years is to sell the best and buy average at best.
Regardless of the situation re selling Milner, I don't think you can blame the buy average bit on the board. They weren't the ones choosing the players.
Fair enough however you could say that the Board are influencing the type of player by implementing low spend limits.
But you're talking about the players we've bought over the last few years - why wasn't anyone mentioning spending limits until the manager left? Where were the spending limits that stopped him spending nigh on 30 million pounds on four centre halves?
Until he left we all thought he was backed brilliantly. Seems a bit unfair to now say, actually, the reason the players aren't that good is because we wouldn't let him spend more.
What's more, if he was operating under restrictive spending limits, why was he only shopping in the overpriced UK market?
-
It's not just Lawrenson though, Paulie, that is how we are nor perceived by most people not just a few journalists and pundits. All the stories coming out of VP over the summer have been about selling rather than buying and the wage bill needing to be trimmed. The club have done little to counter that so the accepted view is that we're now reigning in our ambitions.
As I said on another thread that might not be fair but until we do something to show otherwise that is how we will be seen.
It will be hard in January, I agree, but if we're serious about staying competitive then we just have to overcome the difficulties and make sure we get what we need.
-
I am equally not impressed with MON's overall transfer record so as I don't know if he had a single player limit I will leave it at your summing up PW.
-
It's not just Lawrenson though, Paulie, that is how we are nor perceived by most people not just a few journalists and pundits. All the stories coming out of VP over the summer have been about selling rather than buying and the wage bill needing to be trimmed. The club have done little to counter that so the accepted view is that we're now reigning in our ambitions.
As I said on another thread that might not be fair but until we do something to show otherwise that is how we will be seen.
It will be hard in January, I agree, but if we're serious about staying competitive then we just have to overcome the difficulties and make sure we get what we need.
Agreed
Although I do think there was not a great deal they could do over the summer re the timing of things. I'd also say that they can't really be blamed for the sell to buy stories taking hold - it seems that that was what was pounced on as the reason for MON's departure, and fair enough, it is one slant that could be put on his going.
You're right, it is far from just Lawrenson, there are plenty parroting the same story. It seems like it is one of those things which got raised and has been repeated and repeated until eventually everyone accepts it is true, without any real evidence.
What annoys me is how seemingly totally it has been grasped by the media, with something approaching blood lust, with relish, they're loving it.
-
It could be turned round to 'Man Citeh are a buying club'.
We can't say 'no' to very large bids, and I guess, if that makes us a 'selling club' - we are a 'selling club'.
The football argument is always, 'if he wants to go, we can't stop him - we don't want players who aren't committed'.
The truth is that we aren't necessarily a 'selling club' but we can't turn large bids down.
Because Citeh are considerably richer than us, Barry thinks he can win medals there, and he does stand a better chance than at AVFC.
Lawrenson is being very simplistic by saying we're a 'selling club' - instead he should be intelectually analysing the 'Citeh effect' - but he isn't that bright.
-
You echoed my thoughts exactly Paulie. Spurs and Arsenal sell two of their best players to United and Citeh respectively for silly money and there is no hint of them being called selling clubs. We do similar and suddenly we are a selling club. Just like the "fickle" nonsense, these media idiots (and Lawrenson and his MOTD cronies are prize specimens) seem only too keen to buy into any perceived negatives attached to our club and propagate them. Asking MON to sell players he wasnt using is a different matter - it simply doesnt make sense to hold on to assets that are of no or limited use to you, that applies at any club. Isnt this why Spurs were trying to offload Keane and Jenas, why Chelsea sold the likes of Parker and Sidwell?
That lot on MOTD, Lineker, Shearer, Hansen and Lawrenson, they just come across as bland, lacking in any insight whatsoever, and all too willing to trot out cliches and throwaway comments rather than actually do some thinking and come up with an original opinion or insight. Lee Dixon is a bit different and actually seems to give some thought to what he says. I'm not sure why they see us as fair game in al of this though.
-
You echoed my thoughts exactly Paulie. Spurs and Arsenal sell two of their best players to United and Citeh respectively for silly money and there is no hint of them being called selling clubs. We do similar and suddenly we are a selling club. Just like the "fickle" nonsense, these media idiots (and Lawrenson and his MOTD cronies are prize specimens) seem only too keen to buy into any perceived negatives attached to our club and propagate them. Asking MON to sell players he wasnt using is a different matter - it simply doesnt make sense to hold on to assets that are of no or limited use to you, that applies at any club. Isnt this why Spurs were trying to offload Keane and Jenas, why Chelsea sold the likes of Parker and Sidwell?
That lot on MOTD, Lineker, Shearer, Hansen and Lawrenson, they just come across as bland, lacking in any insight whatsoever, and all too willing to trot out cliches and throwaway comments rather than actually do some thinking and come up with an original opinion or insight. Lee Dixon is a bit different and actually seems to give some thought to what he says. I'm not sure why they see us as fair game in al of this though.
Spurs have sold some of their best players over recent years, but the difference between them and us is that they actually go out and sign replacements that get their fans excited. We don't.
-
Well isn't that at least partly down to O'Neill ? He seemed to see Downing as Barry's replacement and his idea of replacing Milner was, apparently, McGeady.
-
I don't think we are more of a selling club than we have been for the last 20 yrs.Yorkie went when we feel we got a good price, as did Barry and Milner.
Much as i like Milner, i still think we got the better end of the deal, and if someone offers in excess of £25m, then i think Ashley will go as well.I have'nt got a problem with that as long as we buy a good replacement.
Where i reluctantly agree with MOTD though is where we will finish.
-
It's not just Lawrenson though, Paulie, that is how we are nor perceived by most people not just a few journalists and pundits. All the stories coming out of VP over the summer have been about selling rather than buying and the wage bill needing to be trimmed. The club have done little to counter that so the accepted view is that we're now reigning in our ambitions.
As I said on another thread that might not be fair but until we do something to show otherwise that is how we will be seen.
It will be hard in January, I agree, but if we're serious about staying competitive then we just have to overcome the difficulties and make sure we get what we need.
Agree with this - our efforts during the summer were geared towards reducing the wage bill and not strengethening the squad, we sold Milner, which got the most press as he was the most high profile, but we sold others and gave others away - I'm quite sure that if we could have got anything for Heskey,Sidwell,Davies Beye etc they would have gone also - does this make us a selling club - no it does show we are re-evaluating and re-alighning our resources to fit a revised budget - i guess.
It's easy for the media to throw Barry into the mix and brand us - though they choose to forget that we fought of the FSW to keep him for an extra season - even though he was a dead man walking a la Fabrigas this season - but not the actions of an out and out selling club.
All clubs sell - my take though is that we don't have too many out and out top quality players so when they leave it gets highlighted more - see Ash if we have a crap year and he sods off in the summer it will come around again.
For me the issue is not with being a selling club - it's about the ambition and desire of the board going forward - we are a weaker club than we were last year from the squad perspective - and EVERY other club has improved - so we cannot in my opinion expect a 6th place - so Lawrenson (twat that he is) is probably right - 9th is about as good as it will be
(not being doom monger here - just looking at what we've got out of a relatively easy early part of the season - i would have expected 11 point from the first 5 games against who we have played - and as we know we are well short of that so not expecting us to pull up trees when we play the tougher teams)
You can't blame RL as MoN spunked alot of his cash on dross - but the reality is that we looked in evy at the bench that Stoke had on Monday compared to our own - never thought i'd say that.
RL needs to make a statement in Jan - else we will be lucky to be top half of the table come May - I worry for us if thats the case
-
Barry wanted to go and we got good money considering he could have gone for nothing this summer, Milner wanted to go and we got good money and a good player in return. Last year Ronaldo wanted to go and United got good money for him. Does that make them a selling club? To me, a selling club is one that sells most of it's best players regularly and replaces them with cheaper players, not a club that lets the odd top player go if A.-they aren't happy and B.-they drive a hard bargain for that player.
-
In The Observer today, James Milner says:
Villa came very close to winning a trophy, they had a lot of good players but were just that tiny bit short of getting to the next level," said Milner, whose new side take on Wigan today. "They needed to bring players in but it became clear from Randy Lerner that Villa might have to sell to buy. It made me think City had a better chance of progressing and challenging for trophies. I had a great time at Villa and improved as a player but City is a club going places very quickly."
-
Interesting although you wonder whether the players are actually any better informed than we are on the financial side of things.
-
The worrying thing is if Stevie Ireland doesn't find his previous form under GH we have practically given Jimmy away.It was only a good deal if Stephen was the player he was in 2008/9.We've taken a gamble
-
Interesting although you wonder whether the players are actually any better informed than we are on the financial side of things.
There was that much publicised meeting between Milner, MON, Randy and Faulkner. I'm assuming that this would be the type of thing they'd be discussing.
-
Interesting although you wonder whether the players are actually any better informed than we are on the financial side of things.
There was that much publicised meeting between Milner, MON, Randy and Faulkner. I'm assuming that this would be the type of thing they'd be discussing.
I don't think it tells us anything new though, does it? We know that the wages issue needs to be addressed, and doing so means shifting a few players. If we manage to somehow offload Heskey and his apparent wages, and sign a better player on less wages, then job done. We sold, we bought.
-
Interesting although you wonder whether the players are actually any better informed than we are on the financial side of things.
There was that much publicised meeting between Milner, MON, Randy and Faulkner. I'm assuming that this would be the type of thing they'd be discussing.
I don't think it tells us anything new though, does it? We know that the wages issue needs to be addressed, and doing so means shifting a few players. If we manage to somehow offload Heskey and his apparent wages, and sign a better player on less wages, then job done. We sold, we bought.
It wasn't enough to convince Milner to stay and so might not be enough to persuade better players to join.
-
Interesting although you wonder whether the players are actually any better informed than we are on the financial side of things.
There was that much publicised meeting between Milner, MON, Randy and Faulkner. I'm assuming that this would be the type of thing they'd be discussing.
I don't think it tells us anything new though, does it? We know that the wages issue needs to be addressed, and doing so means shifting a few players. If we manage to somehow offload Heskey and his apparent wages, and sign a better player on less wages, then job done. We sold, we bought.Interesting although you wonder whether the players are actually any better informed than we are on the financial side of things.
There was that much publicised meeting between Milner, MON, Randy and Faulkner. I'm assuming that this would be the type of thing they'd be discussing.
I don't think it tells us anything new though, does it? We know that the wages issue needs to be addressed, and doing so means shifting a few players. If we manage to somehow offload Heskey and his apparent wages, and sign a better player on less wages, then job done. We sold, we bought.
Can we sell Heskey and replace him with a Raleigh Grifter - both inanimate objects, the Grifter will only need a drop of oil instead of wages and will be just as potent up front - i'd love to see that!
-
Interesting although you wonder whether the players are actually any better informed than we are on the financial side of things.
There was that much publicised meeting between Milner, MON, Randy and Faulkner. I'm assuming that this would be the type of thing they'd be discussing.
I don't think it tells us anything new though, does it? We know that the wages issue needs to be addressed, and doing so means shifting a few players. If we manage to somehow offload Heskey and his apparent wages, and sign a better player on less wages, then job done. We sold, we bought.
It wasn't enough to convince Milner to stay and so might not be enough to persuade better players to join.
Perhaps you're right, but then we've never shopped in the 'high end' of the market, really (although the wages and fees MON has splashed put over the last few years mean we perhaps could have been, but that's an argument for another thread!). As to persuading Milner to stay, I doubt there was much we could have done, sadly, once Man City came calling. In that respect, we're no different to Arsenal, Everton, Barcelona, really.
We'll just have to hope Houllier and McAllister between them can sign up some new gems for us over the next year or so.
And then we can sell them for a huge profit....
-
If selling some of the dross that MON signed on high wages is classed as "sell to buy" or makes us a "selling club" then so be it. Its completely logical to sell these players so the resources can be reinvested. If the resources are not used to make improvements in the squad then we should be rightly concerned, but until then we should give Randy the benefit of the doubt.
-
The worrying thing is if Stevie Ireland doesn't find his previous form under GH we have practically given Jimmy away.It was only a good deal if Stephen was the player he was in 2008/9.We've taken a gamble
What about the £16m+ that Citeh gave us as well?
-
If selling some of the dross that MON signed on high wages is classed as "sell to buy" or makes us a "selling club" then so be it. Its completely logical to sell these players so the resources can be reinvested. If the resources are not used to make improvements in the squad then we should be rightly concerned, but until then we should give Randy the benefit of the doubt.
The player we sold was our best player though, not the ones you dismiss as dross. As you say we need to see what happens in January and whether Houllier is allowed to spend or will he still have to sell first.
-
The worrying thing is if Stevie Ireland doesn't find his previous form under GH we have practically given Jimmy away.It was only a good deal if Stephen was the player he was in 2008/9.We've taken a gamble
What about the £16m+ that Citeh gave us as well?
Which will seem cheap if Ireland doesn't step up to the plate is what I'm saying.I'm just praying GH will know how to get the best out of him.I don't think I've ever wwanted a player to succeed this much if only to justify the selling of Milner
-
Whatever our list of targets were, they were never going to be as impressive as City's. I've every respect for Jimmy Milner but I doubt that our financial policy was at the forefront of his mind when deciding where to play this year.
-
As has been said many times already in this thread, lots of other EPL clubs have sold some of their best players given the right offer so we're no different. The quote from Milner suggests the sell to buy policy is getting rid of the dross and thats fair enough, however Milner (as our best player) wasnt prepared to patient enough to sit around whilst the squad is rebuilt.
The way I understand it, MON was under instruction to get rid of some of the dross first and foremost...he failed to do this, and we then have the subsequent disagreement over the Milner funds. I dont blame Randy for not wanting to give the Milner cash for MON to piss up the wall again having failed to meet his first objective. I expect GH will be under the same instructions however as the new manager he may (or should) be given some funds to play with in January with players being removed in summer.
-
Taken objectively we have definitely been a selling club this year. We have let more players go then we have brought in and we have not spent money on any players. Unlike most of the other clubs mentioned, we have not adequately spent the windfall on replacements for the player who has left. We have also had comments like today from Milner and other from KMac about us having a sell to buy policy. Plus the comments from the General several weeks ago. I don't blame them having that stance as we cannot afford the wage levels we have compared to turnover, especially as it is on Players like Heskey and Beye, but from an outsiders view that seems to suggest a selling club.
Although Pelty seems to suggest MON forced the Milner move, isn't there also rumours that MON walked because he didn't want Ireland and wanted the deal as cash only. Now I wouldn't have wanted McGeady but Keane could have been a good purchase. When MON walked we could have stopped the Milner sale (it took 10 days between the two events) but we continued even though we did not know what the new manager would want. I agreed at the time we still had the better deal but until we get a system that brings the best out of Ireland or spend the rest of the money to strengthen the team then it is a bad deal.
-
Whatever the new manager wanted, he wasn't going to change Milner's mind at that late point.
I thought the person who sounded most like he wanted the Milner sale in the early part of the summer was MON. Something which the generals recent comments back up.
-
Can we sell Heskey and replace him with a Raleigh Grifter - both inanimate objects, the Grifter will only need a drop of oil instead of wages and will be just as potent up front - i'd love to see that!
You don't win anything with kids' bikes
-
As has been said many times already in this thread, lots of other EPL clubs have sold some of their best players given the right offer so we're no different. The quote from Milner suggests the sell to buy policy is getting rid of the dross and thats fair enough, however Milner (as our best player) wasnt prepared to patient enough to sit around whilst the squad is rebuilt.
The way I understand it, MON was under instruction to get rid of some of the dross first and foremost...he failed to do this, and we then have the subsequent disagreement over the Milner funds. I dont blame Randy for not wanting to give the Milner cash for MON to piss up the wall again having failed to meet his first objective. I expect GH will be under the same instructions however as the new manager he may (or should) be given some funds to play with in January with players being removed in summer.
A manager can't sell players if other clubs don't bid for them. Do you expect him to go hawking them round door to door? The CLUB couldn't sell them due to a combination of a sluggish market, Young deciding against Liverpool and Hodgson leaving Fulham ending Sidwell's chances. What worries me is that if that really is policy we're going to be in the same position in January.
-
Whatever the new manager wanted, he wasn't going to change Milner's mind at that late point.
I thought the person who sounded most like he wanted the Milner sale in the early part of the summer was MON. Something which the generals recent comments back up.
Well from ITK's he was another player fucked of with MON and maybe he realised he was going and wanted to cash in to enable him to get players as he needed to sell to buy. From Milners comments in today's papers he wasn't exactly convinced he should stay. When Barrys head was turned two seasons ago we managed to price him out of a move and probably lost £10 mil on his sale the following season. The club could probably have halted the transfer after MON left but carried it on as we would not have got the same type of money next season. As I have said at time we had the better of the deal but that ensures the money is used to strengthen the side and Ireland plays to his potential. At the moment neither of these has happened. Although I expect GH to not be anywhere as naive as KMac has been, and play players in their strongest positions.
-
We are not a selling club but if someone want's to throw silly money at us for one of our players then we would be mad not to accept.
That's the very definition of a selling club, where the money is more important than the player. We're worse of as a football team for selling Milner although I accept that the accounts will look better.
Those are the facts Chris and no-one can argue with those
I can. In a marginally normal pre-season, Milner would have been sold as happened but we'd have a manager in place who would have been able to re-invest the cash and sign Toulalan for £18m (insert you own players here).
If that was the case then, yes we'd have lost Milner, but we'd have gained Ireland and Toulalan. In my opinion, we'd have been in a stronger position.
I suppose, you are correct "the facts" are as you stated but the circumstances to arrive at those facts were certainly unique and very unlikely to be repeated, and therefore are not a fact that you'd be able to derive a pattern/rules from.
-
It would be interesting to know wether Randy is willing to hand over the whole of the tranfer profits to Houllier ( i.e. £21 million / Gardner and Milner) or not.
If he is, we're a club who sells to buy - if he isn't - we have to concede that we're now a selling club in the strictest sense of the phrase.
-
Ironically, I think the easiest way for us to show ambition would just be release X and W players. Writing off that money would free up spaces in the squad and allow Houllier to sign the players that he wants.
In my mind the club is still correct to want to get rid of high earning, non-playing players before we commit to signing new ones. I don't think that makes us a selling club, just one that is well run.
-
Lawrence implication is that we’ve given up and that Lerner in particular has too. He was talking nonsense.
-
Pelty the other day said "GH will be given every opportunity to suceed". I guess we'll see how true that is in January and next summer.
-
A manager can't sell players if other clubs don't bid for them. Do you expect him to go hawking them round door to door? The CLUB couldn't sell them due to a combination of a sluggish market, Young deciding against Liverpool and Hodgson leaving Fulham ending Sidwell's chances. What worries me is that if that really is policy we're going to be in the same position in January.
A manager will find it hard to sell players who he put on ridiculously high wages and who are not in the first team regularly, because he refuses to pick them.
He will find it easy to sell players who have improved and are wanted property.
The General said Mon showed a reluctance to shift the high earners, he also said if the money is required RL will fund but if you look at the balance sheet ( I hope VD, doesn't read this) our wage bill is too high.
Now not being one of Randy's vipers, I believe him to any pro Mon conspiracy whether it be from a twat like Lawrenson who see's us as a selling club, but ignores the likes of Everton, Man Utd and most other clubs, but then they weren't managed by his mate, were they.
Wrap it up anyway you want, Mon had plenty of time to bring in more than Ireland before he ran off 5 days before kick off, he didn't. Did he know what he planned to do, could be.
-
A selling club traditionally used to be seen as a B-lose or a Norwich or even Crewe, a club that had to sell it's best players at regular intervals to merely survive.
In recent times you could probably say of all the top flight clubs Wigan come closest to that category, though with DW's backing they're unlikely to go under. It's just a case of balancing the books.
If we suddenly belong in that esteemed company because two of our better players became Billy Big Bollocks and agitated for a move, then so are Man U, Arsenal and any other club that faced similar in recent seasons.
I find it hard to justify such claims, particularly with the amounts we spent on transfer fees three summers in a row 2007,2008,2009. Amounts that exceeded many of the clubs who finished above us.
More was available again this summer, on the condition that some of the players not featuring were shipped out. MON wasn't willing/able to do this, so the shitstorm in August kicked off.
-
A manager can't sell players if other clubs don't bid for them. Do you expect him to go hawking them round door to door? The CLUB couldn't sell them due to a combination of a sluggish market, Young deciding against Liverpool and Hodgson leaving Fulham ending Sidwell's chances. What worries me is that if that really is policy we're going to be in the same position in January.
A manager will find it hard to sell players who he put on ridiculously high wages and who are not in the first team regularly, because he refuses to pick them.
He will find it easy to sell players who have improved and are wanted property.
The General said Mon showed a reluctance to shift the high earners, he also said if the money is required RL will fund but if you look at the balance sheet ( I hope VD, doesn't read this) our wage bill is too high.
Now not being one of Randy's vipers, I believe him to any pro Mon conspiracy whether it be from a twat like Lawrenson who see's us as a selling club, but ignores the likes of Everton, Man Utd and most other clubs, but then they weren't managed by his mate, were they.
Wrap it up anyway you want, Mon had plenty of time to bring in more than Ireland before he ran off 5 days before kick off, he didn't. Did he know what he planned to do, could be.
MON didnt bring in Ireland the board did that deal wasnt done until about 10 days after he left, MON didnt want Ireland
-
A manager can't sell players if other clubs don't bid for them. Do you expect him to go hawking them round door to door? The CLUB couldn't sell them due to a combination of a sluggish market, Young deciding against Liverpool and Hodgson leaving Fulham ending Sidwell's chances. What worries me is that if that really is policy we're going to be in the same position in January.
A manager will find it hard to sell players who he put on ridiculously high wages and who are not in the first team regularly, because he refuses to pick them.
He will find it easy to sell players who have improved and are wanted property.
The General said Mon showed a reluctance to shift the high earners, he also said if the money is required RL will fund but if you look at the balance sheet ( I hope VD, doesn't read this) our wage bill is too high.
Now not being one of Randy's vipers, I believe him to any pro Mon conspiracy whether it be from a twat like Lawrenson who see's us as a selling club, but ignores the likes of Everton, Man Utd and most other clubs, but then they weren't managed by his mate, were they.
Wrap it up anyway you want, Mon had plenty of time to bring in more than Ireland before he ran off 5 days before kick off, he didn't. Did he know what he planned to do, could be.
The need for us to reduce the wage bill BEFORE signing players was reconfirmed by Pelty the other day. In that case how was MON supposed to buy players before he left? You really should try thinking things through before going of an another of your rambling, pointless interventions.
-
A manager will find it hard to sell players who he put on ridiculously high wages and who are not in the first team regularly, because he refuses to pick them.
He will find it easy to sell players who have improved and are wanted property.
The General said Mon showed a reluctance to shift the high earners, he also said if the money is required RL will fund but if you look at the balance sheet ( I hope VD, doesn't read this) our wage bill is too high.
Now not being one of Randy's vipers, I believe him to any pro Mon conspiracy whether it be from a twat like Lawrenson who see's us as a selling club, but ignores the likes of Everton, Man Utd and most other clubs, but then they weren't managed by his mate, were they.
Wrap it up anyway you want, Mon had plenty of time to bring in more than Ireland before he ran off 5 days before kick off, he didn't. Did he know what he planned to do, could be.
He couldn't bring anyone in if his brief was to get rid of players or only buy when Milner is sold which is what you allude to yourself above.
Do you believe a Milner or a Kmac who indicated similar constraints in Newspaper articles? Personally I think Milner is doing his reasons for leaving speech (similar to Barry) but obviously not mentioning the doubling of wages option (similar to Barry). But Kmac had no obvious affiliation with MON as he was left high and dry by him and had been at the club under other managers.
-
A selling club traditionally used to be seen as a B-lose or a Norwich or even Crewe, a club that had to sell it's best players at regular intervals to merely survive.
In recent times you could probably say of all the top flight clubs Wigan come closest to that category, though with DW's backing they're unlikely to go under. It's just a case of balancing the books.
If we suddenly belong in that esteemed company because two of our better players became Billy Big Bollocks and agitated for a move, then so are Man U, Arsenal and any other club that faced similar in recent seasons.
I find it hard to justify such claims, particularly with the amounts we spent on transfer fees three summers in a row 2007,2008,2009. Amounts that exceeded many of the clubs who finished above us.
More was available again this summer, on the condition that some of the players not featuring were shipped out. MON wasn't willing/able to do this, so the shitstorm in August kicked off.
There is no evidence to suggest that he was unwilling to sell them, even Pelty says that he'd agreed to it at the start of the summer and if we were unable I'm not sure what he could have done to make it happen? It seems to me that when he then wanted to push on with signings, as the season was about to start, and was told not until we sell he decided to jack it in.
-
The need for us to reduce the wage bill BEFORE signing players was reconfirmed by Pelty the other day. In that case how was MON supposed to buy players before he left? You really should try thinking things through before going of an another of your rambling, pointless interventions.
I've no idea, I just mentioned that the General had suggested had the need arisen money would have been there.
Perhaps his son knows more than he does I've no idea.
I'm sorry my rambling pointless intervention has rattled your Mon adorned cage dear, life's a bitch at times especially for lovers of the bloke who quit 5 days before the season started. Don't you find ?
I think its time you called General K to task Chris, having intimated several times Mon was reluctant to sell players he needs sorting, especially if Pelty says differently. Be interested to see you do it.
-
A selling club traditionally used to be seen as a B-lose or a Norwich or even Crewe, a club that had to sell it's best players at regular intervals to merely survive.
In recent times you could probably say of all the top flight clubs Wigan come closest to that category, though with DW's backing they're unlikely to go under. It's just a case of balancing the books.
If we suddenly belong in that esteemed company because two of our better players became Billy Big Bollocks and agitated for a move, then so are Man U, Arsenal and any other club that faced similar in recent seasons.
I find it hard to justify such claims, particularly with the amounts we spent on transfer fees three summers in a row 2007,2008,2009. Amounts that exceeded many of the clubs who finished above us.
More was available again this summer, on the condition that some of the players not featuring were shipped out. MON wasn't willing/able to do this, so the shitstorm in August kicked off.
There is no evidence to suggest that he was unwilling to sell them, even Pelty says that he'd agreed to it at the start of the summer and if we were unable I'm not sure what he could have done to make it happen? It seems to me that when he then wanted to push on with signings, as the season was about to start, and was told not until we sell he decided to jack it in.
I do wonder how different things had turned out had Luke Young and NRC accepted the moves on the table.
That would have been Shorey, NRC, and L.Young from the list of six and would have probably given him more scope. We wouldn't have received huge money for any of them, but they'd have been off the books which by consensus was the most important aspect of it all.
But perhaps realizing how difficult they could make things for MON, they decided to stay.
Can't blame them really.
-
The need for us to reduce the wage bill BEFORE signing players was reconfirmed by Pelty the other day. In that case how was MON supposed to buy players before he left? You really should try thinking things through before going of an another of your rambling, pointless interventions.
I've no idea, I just mentioned that the General had suggested had the need arisen money would have been there.
Perhaps his son knows more than he does I've no idea.
I'm sorry my rambling pointless intervention has rattled your Mon adorned cage dear, life's a bitch at times especially for lovers of the bloke who quit 5 days before the season started. Don't you find ?
I think its time you called General K to task Chris, having intimated several times Mon was reluctant to sell players he needs sorting, especially if Pelty says differently. Be interested to see you do it.
The General hasn't intimated that he was reluctant to sell players, that was you. They have said that he'd agreed to the policy but then suggested that he somehow changed his mind. The obvious conclusion to draw from that is that when the players hadn't been sold he wanted to spend anyway and was told no that he had to stick to the plan so he flounced off.
-
That would have been Shorey, NRC, and L.Young from the list of six and would have probably given him more scope. We wouldn't have received huge money for any of them, but they'd have been off the books which by consensus was the most important aspect of it all.
But perhaps realizing how difficult they could make things for MON, they decided to stay.
Can't blame them really.
That's the double edged sword of giving big contracts out.
As an example, Habib Beye is, what, 32 or 33 and on 40k a week. He's never going to get anything like that anywhere else, not a prayer, so he'll sit it out and see out the last two years on his contract, for which he'll be paid 4 million pounds, as is his perfect right.
It's going to be nigh on impossible to shift someone in those circumstances. Same with Heskey and his rumoured 60k a week up until he hits 34.
I believe even the Celtic fans acknowledged that MON left them with exactly the same problem.
I do think that a lot of these issues with unshiftable players come down to MON's, well, laziness in the transfer market. Couldn't be arsed to look around for value, made the "easier" to spot signings from the home market, with a bit of a scattergun approach at times, the end result being what we have now, lots of players on good money that we'll struggle to shift.
If we'd signed McGeady this summer, for example, does anyone think that would have been because MON thought he was the best midfielder we could get?
I don't. I think it'd have been the most obvious player from the limited sample he was prepared to shop from.
-
I've no idea,
-
When Man City come calling, virtually EVERYBODY is a selling club.
He's an excellent player, but £26m?
Spurs are no different to us, they would have sold him too.
-
We sell, we buy - as in the good old days every club did. The difference is that in the last decade first Chelsea, now Citeh have distorted the market so much that every other club looks small time, selling clubs in comparison.
-
I do think that a lot of these issues with unshiftable players come down to MON's, well, laziness in the transfer market. Couldn't be arsed to look around for value, made the "easier" to spot signings from the home market, with a bit of a scattergun approach at times, the end result being what we have now, lots of players on good money that we'll struggle to shift.
That and his penchant for leaving it as late as possible in the window to agree a fee with clubs, in the mistaken belief he was some ice cold master negotiator.
The knock on effect being that when we'd finally been given the green light to proceed it would be at the back end of August and we'd pretty much have to give the players the wage they or their agents were demanding to get them on board- or go into September down on numbers. So whatever partial saving we made on transfer fees we probably lost a few times over with the financial commitments and contracts for players who -as it turns out- weren't up to standard in many cases anyway.
To continue that theme, I'm not at all convinced that spending the bulk of the Milner money on McGeady and Keane would have been of huge benefit to us. We're well stocked as far as wingers are concerned and Keane looks visibly older and off the pace with every passing game. He had a horror show yesterday, Tottenham only got back into the game when he went off.
-
When Man City come calling, virtually EVERYBODY is a selling club.
He's an excellent player, but £26m?
Spurs are no different to us, they would have sold him too.
Which is the point. We’re not operating in a vacuum, there is market going on out there and its worth noting that Van Der Vaart went for a third of Milner’s value. Lerner has not jacked it in, despite allegations of this kind that have surrounded us for a few seasons now. Let the cynical make hay now, history will prove them wrong.
-
Good point about Van Der Vaart, a quality player at a reasonable price, but one that Doh'Neill would never have signed in a million years.
He would have preferred Jenas at £10m +
-
When Man City come calling, virtually EVERYBODY is a selling club.
He's an excellent player, but £26m?
Spurs are no different to us, they would have sold him too.
of course they would.
Fuckwits like Lawrenson wouldn't be calling them a selling club though.
That is what is so annoying.
-
When Man City come calling, virtually EVERYBODY is a selling club.
He's an excellent player, but £26m?
Spurs are no different to us, they would have sold him too.
of course they would.
Fuckwits like Lawrenson wouldn't be calling them a selling club though.
That is what is so annoying.
Its all about perceptions though.
We were lucky to have O’Neill and Spurs play it the right way.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what he says because its only his opinion and as irritating as it is that he's able to dispense his poorly founded opinion to the nation, it doesn’t alter the reality of the situation.
-
Spurs are more of a selling club than we are...they've just signed equally as good replacements to vober that.
-
When Man City come calling, virtually EVERYBODY is a selling club.
He's an excellent player, but £26m?
Spurs are no different to us, they would have sold him too.
of course they would.
Fuckwits like Lawrenson wouldn't be calling them a selling club though.
That is what is so annoying.
Just more thoughtless nonsense from the camp one, he has, at best, a sketchy knowledge of the inner workings of Premier clubs and he get's most of that through thumbing the daily nationals.
He should stick to his painfully unfunny puns when co-commentating
-
True, Carrick was replaced by Modric and Berbatov by Defoe (who he'd initially repalced?!)
What happens when Modric goes to Man United next summer mind, I don’t know.
-
Spurs are more of a selling club than we are...they've just signed equally as good replacements to vober that.
There in lies the difference, 'Arry wouldn't piss £9m up the wall on McGready, or £9.5m on Curtis Davies.
Doh'Neill's bilnkered transfer policy was always a handicap for us and it may have more far reaching consequences than we imagined.
-
True, Carrick was replaced by Modric and Berbatov by Defoe (who he'd initially repalced?!)
What happens when Modric goes to Man United next summer mind, I don’t know.
Berbatov's initial replacement was Pavylechenko. He actually played with Defoe for 18 months before the dodgy loan / signing to Portsmouth in January
-
Spurs are more of a selling club than we are...they've just signed equally as good replacements to vober that.
There in lies the difference, 'Arry wouldn't piss £9m up the wall on McGready, or £9.5m on Curtis Davies.
Doh'Neill's bilnkered transfer policy was always a handicap for us and it may have more far reaching consequences than we imagined.
Although it was too much money, was many moaning about the signing back in 2008? In fact wasn't his Arsenal injury what most pointed to in the downturn in results at that point in the season when he was still on loan, (obviously before a pattern of last third season collapses was established)
-
When Man City come calling, virtually EVERYBODY is a selling club.
He's an excellent player, but £26m?
Spurs are no different to us, they would have sold him too.
I'm not so sure they would have given that they'd qualified for the Champions League.
-
Sell him for £26 million and replace him for £8 million?
-
He hasn't been replaced at the moment. Certainly not by Ireland if that is who you are indicating for £8mil. But I reckon Joe is pointing out that CL football would not have been an excuse for Milner to leave if he was at Spurs.
-
He hasn't been replaced at the moment. Certainly not by Ireland if that is who you are indicating for £8mil. But I reckon Joe is pointing out that CL football would not have been an excuse for Milner to leave if he was at Spurs.
He said Spurs wouldn't have done the deal. I'm saying they would have, because the money was obscene, particularly when there is a market for Dutch internationals for £8 million.
-
The reasoning s for the sale would have been different though. Would Milner want to go when he had CL football anyway and would Spurs need the money for a key player when they were into the League stage of the CL. Also if they had done the same deal they wouldn't have been in the market for VDV if they had just got a similar player in Ireland several days before.
-
True, Carrick was replaced by Modric and Berbatov by Defoe (who he'd initially repalced?!)
What happens when Modric goes to Man United next summer mind, I don’t know.
I always think back to the start and summer of 2008 when they sold Berbatov, Keane and Defoe all within 6 months which resulted in the infamous 2 points from 8 games. Oh how things have changed so quickly.#
Guess it just shows what can happen if you strike gold with a managerial appointment (plus buy back some of the players you've sold!)
-
Arsenal were in the CL when they received offers for Toure and Adebayor they deemed too good to turn down, ditto Barca with the other Toure.
Tottenham sold Carrick to Man U just after they missed out on CL in 2006.
So whether you're in the CL or no, sometimes you receive offers that make you part with players you weren't particularly looking to offload.
That doesn't automatically put you on a par with B-lose, Crewe, Wigan or any other low ranking club that need to sell to exist.
-
True, Carrick was replaced by Modric and Berbatov by Defoe (who he'd initially repalced?!)
What happens when Modric goes to Man United next summer mind, I don’t know.
I always think back to the start and summer of 2008 when they sold Berbatov, Keane and Defoe all within 6 months which resulted in the infamous 2 points from 8 games. Oh how things have changed so quickly.#
Guess it just shows what can happen if you strike gold with a managerial appointment (plus buy back some of the players you've sold!)
They did have Bent still and Arry has had luck . Massive paper talk about him selling Pav last jan, who gets injured so can't be sold as he lets Keane go instead. Then Pav steps up and gets them Key goals in the race to 4th.
-
Arsenal were in the CL when they received offers for Toure and Adebayor they deemed too good to turn down, ditto Barca with the other Toure.
Tottenham sold Carrick to Man U just after they missed out on CL in 2006.
So whether you're in the CL or no, sometimes you receive offers that make you part with players you weren't particularly looking to offload.
That doesn't automatically put you on a par with B-lose, Crewe, Wigan or any other low ranking club that need to sell to exist.
You do have some points. I would argue that apart from Berbatov, the players you have mentioned were becoming surplus to requirements or were better off away as they were trouble makers so get as much dosh as possible.
-
A selling club traditionally used to be seen as a B-lose or a Norwich or even Crewe, a club that had to sell it's best players at regular intervals to merely survive.
In recent times you could probably say of all the top flight clubs Wigan come closest to that category, though with DW's backing they're unlikely to go under. It's just a case of balancing the books.
If we suddenly belong in that esteemed company because two of our better players became Billy Big Bollocks and agitated for a move, then so are Man U, Arsenal and any other club that faced similar in recent seasons.
I find it hard to justify such claims, particularly with the amounts we spent on transfer fees three summers in a row 2007,2008,2009. Amounts that exceeded many of the clubs who finished above us.
More was available again this summer, on the condition that some of the players not featuring were shipped out. MON wasn't willing/able to do this, so the shitstorm in August kicked off.
There is no evidence to suggest that he was unwilling to sell them, even Pelty says that he'd agreed to it at the start of the summer and if we were unable I'm not sure what he could have done to make it happen? It seems to me that when he then wanted to push on with signings, as the season was about to start, and was told not until we sell he decided to jack it in.
Chris its pretty obvious now how the summer went, they had the meeting with Milner in May and he and the club agreed that they would sit down after the world cup, then before Jm returned MON made a statement that Milner had indicated at he wanted to leave at the May meeting, this was news to everyone else at the meeting. So either MON was trying to push the Milner sale in the belief that he would get some money to spend or to just be vindictive. It appears that he had agreed to reduce the wage bill and either he couldnt or didnt try.
-
Chris its pretty obvious now how the summer went, they had the meeting with Milner in May and he and the club agreed that they would sit down after the world cup, then before Jm returned MON made a statement that Milner had indicated at he wanted to leave at the May meeting, this was news to everyone else at the meeting. So either MON was trying to push the Milner sale in the belief that he would get some money to spend or to just be vindictive. It appears that he had agreed to reduce the wage bill and either he couldnt or didnt try.
And yet before that meeting, someone ITK here mentioned he had heard Milner wanted away asap as he had fallen out with MON over playing him when injured. And deals had been made for Young and Sidwell which fell though for various reasons so I wouldn't say he didn't try, more that he couldn't because of the amount the players were on anyway.
The main issue we will have from now on is the wages will be high whoever comes in to keep parity with current staff (how much is Ireland on as MON had nothing to do with those negotiations.)
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
I'd have preferred to have held on to Nicky Shorey. Especially seeing Warnock's recent form.
*deadly serious face*
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
IMHO
Manu= One but the money for that player was only slightly beaten as the stupidest deal ever by the Ibrahimovic deal.
Spurs = I would argue one with Berba as they had Keane back within 6 months.
Arsenal = Several but then Wenger is quite crafty and normally lets people go when he knows he can replace them. They are also the only club in the prem who seem to be in profit on their dealings.
Liverpool would be another main one that could be pointed at as well as they did not want to get rid of Alonso last year or Maschereno this.
The difference is though that the Money from most of the sales mentioned above has been used to improve the squad and bring in cheaper but as adequate replacements. Through circumstances beyond our control we couldn't and taken on top of the wage reduction and sell to buy comments from Club insiders and others, it becomes the natural reaction from outsiders whatever the allegiance of the press.
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
I'd have preferred to have held on to Nicky Shorey. Especially seeing Warnock's recent form.
*deadly serious face*
Is Warnock playing in trainers these days? He seems to end up horizontal a disturbing amount of time.
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
I'd have preferred to have held on to Nicky Shorey. Especially seeing Warnock's recent form.
*deadly serious face*
Is Warnock playing in trainers these days? He seems to end up horizontal a disturbing amount of time.
If we had someone who could play LB I would move warnock into Midfield. He could well be the DM we so sorely lack. (assuming he doesn't just get run past easily and doesn't give away silly FK's..............ah.)
-
There was talk in the summer that he was unsettled and that his reluctance to move closer to Brum was causing problems.
Dunno how true, but he's been very iffy this season, as he was at the backend of last year.
Completely different player to the one who started so brightly with us.
-
I hope we are a selling club. We need to sell a number of the players that are just coasting right now. Then we can be a buying club again and bring in players who actually want to fight for their places. Seriously though, we're no more a selling club than any other club anywhere. No club turns down stupid money for their players, and no sane club chairman ever will.
-
I hope we are a selling club. We need to sell a number of the players that are just coasting right now. Then we can be a buying club again and bring in players who actually want to fight for their places. Seriously though, we're no more a selling club than any other club anywhere. No club turns down stupid money for their players, and no sane club chairman ever will.
Well said.
-
There was talk in the summer that he was unsettled and that his reluctance to move closer to Brum was causing problems.
Dunno how true, but he's been very iffy this season, as he was at the backend of last year.
Completely different player to the one who started so brightly with us.
I heard this as well - lives nr Southport / Formby apparently. Presume he stays in one of those Aparthotels in Holloway Head Tower during the week to train as quite a distance to commute every day?
-
Patrick Barclay in The Times is at it now, he says now that MON has left, 'Villa are on a slippery slope.'
-
Patrick Barclay in The Times is at it now, he says now that MON has left, 'Villa are on a slippery slope.'
It's unbelievable, really.
What do they think is going to happen when a manager and entire coaching staff leave en masse days before the season starts?
That'd destabilise anybody.
-
I think what we've seen this summer, multiple players leaving and only one coming in with a transfer profit made, can be put down to circumstance of the timing of Martin's departure. It's what happens from now on that will either prove or rubbish claims we are a 'selling club'.
Maybe not Jan as it's hard, but come 01/09/11 we'll know the answer.
-
I think what we've seen this summer, multiple players leaving and only one coming in with a transfer profit made, can be put down to circumstance of the timing of Martin's departure. It's what happens from now on that will either prove or rubbish claims we are a 'selling club'.
Multiple players leaving?
Shorey and Milner?
-
I think what we've seen this summer, multiple players leaving and only one coming in with a transfer profit made, can be put down to circumstance of the timing of Martin's departure. It's what happens from now on that will either prove or rubbish claims we are a 'selling club'.
Multiple players leaving?
Shorey and Milner?
Bouma and Harewood also. Plus the intent was obviosuly there to shift the likes of Sidwell and Davies aswell - would they have been replaced??
-
I think what we've seen this summer, multiple players leaving and only one coming in with a transfer profit made, can be put down to circumstance of the timing of Martin's departure. It's what happens from now on that will either prove or rubbish claims we are a 'selling club'.
Multiple players leaving?
Shorey and Milner?
Bouma and Harewood also. Plus the intent was obviosuly there to shift the likes of Sidwell and Davies aswell - would they have been replaced??
Bouma was hardly a surprise, though, I don't think anyone was counting on him returning. Same with Harewood.
For Sidwell and Davies, even in these days of scepticism towards the board, it seems a bit harsh to criticise the non-replacement of two players we didn't actually sell.
-
I wouldn't worry too much what the likes of Lawrenson says on MOTD. Those guys are pretty ill-informed - I watched it on Sat night and when those comments were made, I just rolled my eyes. Just a pretty lazy opinion. We've sold two players who, in an ideal world, we would have liked to retain - and got very very good money for both. There are others who we need to move on because they've proven to be not good enough. That doesn't make us a selling club. We've also invested millions in new players, which is now conveniently overlooked.
Another lazy opinion, trotted out Lawrenson, was that Kevin M has done a good job. He's done okay, nothing more. To say 'Villa have won two games' and believe that's a good start - when you've played West Ham, Newcastle, Everton, Stoke and Bolton - is pretty ignorant. And been knocked out of Europe. The two teams we have beaten have made dreadful starts.
As others have said, the media have got an agenda now, and they'll run with it until convinced otherwise. May as well put up with it.
-
Bouma was hardly a surprise, though, I don't think anyone was counting on him returning. Same with Harewood.
For Sidwell and Davies, even in these days of scepticism towards the board, it seems a bit harsh to criticise the non-replacement of two players we didn't actually sell.
I'm not actually being critical of them, although we all know Sidwell would have gone to Fulham had Hodgson not left.
I think we've had a mini 'clearing of the decks' this summer, which was needed and a few others should also be moved on. As i said before, the timing of Martin's departure, plus their slowness in appointing a replacement, meant that that could not be coupled with recruitment. Fine - I accept that. My only proviso is that we start seeing some player purchasing again now those reasons have been removed and continue to improve the side/club.
-
Bouma was hardly a surprise, though, I don't think anyone was counting on him returning. Same with Harewood.
For Sidwell and Davies, even in these days of scepticism towards the board, it seems a bit harsh to criticise the non-replacement of two players we didn't actually sell.
I'm not actually being critical of them, although we all know Sidwell would have gone to Fulham had Hodgson not left.
I think we've had a mini 'clearing of the decks' this summer, which was needed and a few others should also be moved on. As i said before, the timing of Martin's departure, plus their slowness in appointing a replacement, meant that that could not be coupled with recruitment. Fine - I accept that. My only proviso is that we start seeing some player purchasing again now those reasons have been removed and continue to improve the side/club.
So why assume Sidwell wouldn't have been replaced?
I agree with you, we need to see investment at the soonest opportunity, but I do think it is too easy to jump to negative conclusions about hypothetical situations (wouldn't have replaced Sidwell or Davies).
I also don't think we had anything approaching a clear out this summer, to be honest. The contract expiry and Bouma, plus Shorey - that's nothing like the kind of clear out most of us were expecting.
-
Bouma was hardly a surprise, though, I don't think anyone was counting on him returning. Same with Harewood.
For Sidwell and Davies, even in these days of scepticism towards the board, it seems a bit harsh to criticise the non-replacement of two players we didn't actually sell.
I'm not actually being critical of them, although we all know Sidwell would have gone to Fulham had Hodgson not left.
I think we've had a mini 'clearing of the decks' this summer, which was needed and a few others should also be moved on. As i said before, the timing of Martin's departure, plus their slowness in appointing a replacement, meant that that could not be coupled with recruitment. Fine - I accept that. My only proviso is that we start seeing some player purchasing again now those reasons have been removed and continue to improve the side/club.
So why assume Sidwell wouldn't have been replaced?
I agree with you, we need to see investment at the soonest opportunity, but I do think it is too easy to jump to negative conclusions about hypothetical situations (wouldn't have replaced Sidwell or Davies).
I also don't think we had anything approaching a clear out this summer, to be honest. The contract expiry and Bouma, plus Shorey - that's nothing like the kind of clear out most of us were expecting.
Well, if the reason we've not spent the Milner money or bought anyone else in is the timing of Martin's departure, I think it's reasonable to assume that this would also have prevented anything being done if Sidwell had gone?
I think the intention was there to clear a few out, but a rather stagnated transfer market and their high wages prevented this. But in terms of this wages/turnover ratio that the club is concerned about, we've taken good strides towards rectifying this by the combined salary of Shorey, Bouma and Harewood now being removed. I'd guess an average of £30,000 a week for them, so that's circa £4.5m a year saved, which is good considering their combined contribution over the last 2 years was pretty non-existant. A total clear out? No, not even close. A step in the right direction to help future recruitment? Yes, I'd say so.
So I'm saying I accept this needed to be done, but I now want to see this further recruitment.
-
Well, if the reason we've not spent the Milner money or bought anyone else in is the timing of Martin's departure, I think it's reasonable to assume that this would also have prevented anything being done if Sidwell had gone?
Sidwell didn't go, though, so what's the relevance of it?
Also worth noting that he was being linked with Fulham from June onwards. It's not as if it was going to be a last minute fire sale from which we were going to keep the money.
-
Well, if the reason we've not spent the Milner money or bought anyone else in is the timing of Martin's departure, I think it's reasonable to assume that this would also have prevented anything being done if Sidwell had gone?
Sidwell didn't go, though, so what's the relevance of it?
Also worth noting that he was being linked with Fulham from June onwards. It's not as if it was going to be a last minute fire sale from which we were going to keep the money.
Well, Milner was also linked with Man City from the earliest part of the window, yet we did not spend that money. I don't want to get too hung up on the Sidwell thing, but I just fail to see what circumstance would suggest his sale/proceeds would have been dealt with in any way different to Milner and Shorey's?
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
That's pushing it. I'd have kept Milner.
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
That's pushing it. I'd have kept Milner.
Maybe we could have if we were not shelling out £100,000 per week to just Heskey and Beye alone.
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
That's pushing it. I'd have kept Milner.
Two definately, Milner and Cahill, two probably, Barry and Knight.
-
How many players have we sold in the last four years who we'd like to have kept? Two?
How many have Arsenal sold? Or Spurs? Or even Manchester United?
That's pushing it. I'd have kept Milner.
Two definately, Milner and Cahill, two probably, Barry and Knight.
I would guess he was talking about players we sold that we didn't want to but an offer was made and the player wanted to leave. Not players that the manager sold as they were surplus to requirements or wanted first team action and couldn't get it here.
-
Can some one tell me why in their opinion Mon would not have bought players as he usually did in the last few days of the window.
Its hardly the Boards fault Mon quit when he did leaving no options let along no viable coaching or managerial staff
Or is it ?
-
Can some one tell me why in their opinion Mon would not have bought players as he usually did in the last few days of the window.
Its hardly the Boards fault Mon quit when he did leaving no options let along no viable coaching or managerial staff
Or is it ?
because it is a myth that he predominantly bought players in the last few days of the transfer window. Yes there were some but the vast majority of players were bought before the final week of the January transfer window and the final 3 weeks of the Summer transfer window.
-
We are a selling club - just like that no ambition lot from London - err whats their name?...........
Chelsea
Ballack
Carvalliho
Deco
oh and they gave Joe Cole away for free
Any of those players would walk in to most prem sides
The day i actually give a toss what the like of the 5th Bee gee has to say is the day i give up football.
I do however agree that the club should fight back before this myth gets perpetuated even more
-
The best way for the club to fight back is to improve on the pitch as Houllier gets settled in and then invest in January. Houllier wouldn't have joined if he was told we're skint. There's some house cleaning to be done also to help raise funds, but there's some surgery required and I have no doubt Randy will support him in that effort.
-
because it is a myth that he predominantly bought players in the last few days of the transfer window. Yes there were some but the vast majority of players were bought before the final week of the January transfer window and the final 3 weeks of the Summer transfer window.
I can think of 8 signings that were within the 3 weeks of the end of the summer window. There's probably more that i'm forgetting.
Edit: There is, forgot about Zat Knight and Scott Carson
-
Patrick Barclay in The Times is at it now, he says now that MON has left, 'Villa are on a slippery slope.'
He's the biggest O'Neill fan of the lot.
-
Did we have in choice about whether to sell Milner? Of course we did.
Did we do it anyway knowing that we wouldn't be able to spend the money this summer? Of course we did.
Does that make us, in the short term, 'to all intents and purposes a selling club'? Yes, we've taken the money rather than keep the player.
Is that necesssarily a bad thing? No, as long as we do spend the money.
We are all expecting to bring players in during January, until we do we're in net profit this year so are a selling club.
-
Can some one tell me why in their opinion Mon would not have bought players as he usually did in the last few days of the window.
Its hardly the Boards fault Mon quit when he did leaving no options let along no viable coaching or managerial staff
Or is it ?
because it is a myth that he predominantly bought players in the last few days of the transfer window. Yes there were some but the vast majority of players were bought before the final week of the January transfer window and the final 3 weeks of the Summer transfer window.
So ignoring the facts again, he did buy plenty of players late on, as he did at every club he managed, why would he have not repeated that this summer, please tell.
As well tell me why Milner is a special case. The policy Mon and the club had was never to keep players who wanted to move. It was a convenient excuse for some with the likes of Cahill, Davies, Ridgewell, Gardner, and others in his early clear outs, so what makes Milner a special case, other than a convenient means to knock the Board.
I thought I heard Houllier in his press conference suggest that buying players in January was not that advisable anyway, so I wouldn't build up too many hopes. That by the way was also Mon's stated policy too.
-
Martin may have bought some players late in the window, but he also had a couple in earlier. So whay was that not the case this year is the better question.
-
Martin may have bought some players late in the window, but he also had a couple in earlier. So whay was that not the case this year is the better question.
Why do people ignore the fact we bought Ireland ?
-
Patrick Barclay in The Times is at it now, he says now that MON has left, 'Villa are on a slippery slope.'
He's the biggest O'Neill fan of the lot.
Yet another ill informed journo more than happy to suck his cock.
-
Martin may have bought some players late in the window, but he also had a couple in earlier. So whay was that not the case this year is the better question.
Why do people ignore the fact we bought Ireland ?
Because he wasn't bought. He was a make weight in a deal. We didn't specifically go to Man City and say here is £8mil for Ireland. They came to us and said we will offer 18mil plus Ireland for Milner.
-
Martin may have bought some players late in the window, but he also had a couple in earlier. So whay was that not the case this year is the better question.
Why do people ignore the fact we bought Ireland ?
No, but some do seem to forget the (relatively) early deals for the likes of Downing, NRC, etc. when postulating that Martin ONLY bought at the end of the window.
-
Patrick Barclay in The Times is at it now, he says now that MON has left, 'Villa are on a slippery slope.'
He's the biggest O'Neill fan of the lot.
Yet another ill informed journo more than happy to suck his cock.
Is this the same Barclay that most fans praised (whether a MON Hater or Lover) as one of the best sports writers when he wrote good stuff last season?
-
No, but some do seem to forget the (relatively) early deals for the likes of Downing, NRC, etc. when postulating that Martin ONLY bought at the end of the window.
Not sure who says he only bought at the end of the window, but VD highlighted that the "vast majority" of deals were before the last 3 weeks of summer window, which is simply not the case. Yes, there were early deals, but there were just as many late deals (10 that I can think of right now that happened within 3 weeks of the end of the season).
-
I'm not going to dig up the facts and figures to show when players were bought and what percentage was/wasn't within a certain time frame from the end of the window. The original point was (I think) that by leaving MON stopped us doing transfer deals. However, if it was just his departure why the change from our normal pattern of at least having one or two in by the time he resigned?
-
Patrick Barclay in The Times is at it now, he says now that MON has left, 'Villa are on a slippery slope.'
He's the biggest O'Neill fan of the lot.
Yet another ill informed journo more than happy to suck his cock.
Is this the same Barclay that most fans praised (whether a MON Hater or Lover) as one of the best sports writers when he wrote good stuff last season?
People like being flattered. Barclay’s apparent write up was obviously due to O’Neill, who he adores like a love struck teen.
-
Patrick Barclay in The Times is at it now, he says now that MON has left, 'Villa are on a slippery slope.'
He's the biggest O'Neill fan of the lot.
Yet another ill informed journo more than happy to suck his cock.
Is this the same Barclay that most fans praised (whether a MON Hater or Lover) as one of the best sports writers when he wrote good stuff last season?
People like being flattered. Barclay’s apparent write up was obviously due to O’Neill, who he adores like a love struck teen.
So we can now confidently say all the press hate us or ignore us and we don't care (apart from when they don't hate us or we do care)
-
What we can comfortably say is that great swathes of the press are unable to given any accurate analysis, given how little detail they are aware of about Aston Villa.
-
Can some one tell me why in their opinion Mon would not have bought players as he usually did in the last few days of the window.
Its hardly the Boards fault Mon quit when he did leaving no options let along no viable coaching or managerial staff
Or is it ?
because it is a myth that he predominantly bought players in the last few days of the transfer window. Yes there were some but the vast majority of players were bought before the final week of the January transfer window and the final 3 weeks of the Summer transfer window.
So ignoring the facts again, he did buy plenty of players late on, as he did at every club he managed, why would he have not repeated that this summer, please tell.
As well tell me why Milner is a special case. The policy Mon and the club had was never to keep players who wanted to move. It was a convenient excuse for some with the likes of Cahill, Davies, Ridgewell, Gardner, and others in his early clear outs, so what makes Milner a special case, other than a convenient means to knock the Board.
I thought I heard Houllier in his press conference suggest that buying players in January was not that advisable anyway, so I wouldn't build up too many hopes. That by the way was also Mon's stated policy too.
What facts am I ignoring? I simply pointed out in response to your question, that under Martin O'Neill we have bought most of our players prior to the last 3 weeks of the window.
-
What facts am I ignoring? I simply pointed out in response to your question, that under Martin O'Neill we have bought most of our players prior to the last 3 weeks of the window.
Define most.
-
Patrick Barclay in The Times is at it now, he says now that MON has left, 'Villa are on a slippery slope.'
He's the biggest O'Neill fan of the lot.
Yet another ill informed journo more than happy to suck his cock.
Is this the same Barclay that most fans praised (whether a MON Hater or Lover) as one of the best sports writers when he wrote good stuff last season?
People like being flattered. Barclay’s apparent write up was obviously due to O’Neill, who he adores like a love struck teen.
Yes, he appears to like and rate O'Neill - is that not allowed now or is there an H & V Fatwa out on him? It seems were getting back into the territory of trying to dismiss the opinions of anyone who doesn't adhere 100% to the party line as worthless.
-
He can like him as much as he wants, but you have to question the judgement of somebody so in love with another. He may well know a bit about Aston Villa. But if he’s anything like Custis, Holt et al, then I’d suggest he does not.
-
It may not be a bad thing that we're perceived by the media as a selling club (media, not players), as otherwise I'd imagine a lot/most clubs would be using Milner's fee as the benchmark for us making signings.
Proof, if ever it was needed that the media are actually in cahoots, driven by an overwhelming desire to turn Villa into the next barca.
-
Martin may have bought some players late in the window, but he also had a couple in earlier. So whay was that not the case this year is the better question.
Why do people ignore the fact we bought Ireland ?
No, but some do seem to forget the (relatively) early deals for the likes of Downing, NRC, etc. when postulating that Martin ONLY bought at the end of the window.
No to what exactly ? Did we buy Ireland before he ran off? You said reading above why didn't he buy early this season is the better question, but he DID, didn't he?
Who is suggesting he ONLY bought late on, anyway? I'm not, but I am suggesting he bought late on more than not and I'd have expected him to do again this summer had he stayed and faced the music.
-
Yes, he appears to like and rate O'Neill - is that not allowed now or is there an H & V Fatwa out on him? It seems were getting back into the territory of trying to dismiss the opinions of anyone who doesn't adhere 100% to the party line as worthless.
Oh come on Chris, that's exactly the tactic you reguarly used if somebody was even slightly in disagreement to whatever the club did, now you've done a vicars collar u turn which coincides with the exact point that MON left.
-
No, but some do seem to forget the (relatively) early deals for the likes of Downing, NRC, etc. when postulating that Martin ONLY bought at the end of the window.
Not sure who says he only bought at the end of the window, but VD highlighted that the "vast majority" of deals were before the last 3 weeks of summer window, which is simply not the case. Yes, there were early deals, but there were just as many late deals (10 that I can think of right now that happened within 3 weeks of the end of the season).
I was specifically referring to players we bought and we've bought 7 players in the last 3 weeks of the summer transfer window according to Soccerbase.com. I'm guessing you're including loan deals and free agents, which I would imagine usually occur at the end of or after transfer windows for most deals. I suppose if I'd been including all deals I'd have just said majority of players rather vast majority. Are you happy enough with that?
-
Martin may have bought some players late in the window, but he also had a couple in earlier. So whay was that not the case this year is the better question.
Why do people ignore the fact we bought Ireland ?
No, but some do seem to forget the (relatively) early deals for the likes of Downing, NRC, etc. when postulating that Martin ONLY bought at the end of the window.
No to what exactly ? Did we buy Ireland before he ran off? You said reading above why didn't he buy early this season is the better question, but he DID, didn't he?
Who is suggesting he ONLY bought late on, anyway? I'm not, but I am suggesting he bought late on more than not and I'd have expected him to do again this summer had he stayed and faced the music.
He didn't buy late on more than not. He also didn't buy Ireland.
-
I have to agree with what Chris is saying which kind of scares me.
The Board pissing vinegar and blaming the timing of the departure is a predictable response. But, did they not have a notice clause in his contract that they should/could have enforced to make him work notice whilst a replacement was found? If they didn't they should have done.
And, we are a selling club at the moment. Quite simply we employed a sell to buy policy in the summer. I asked at the time, but can anyone recall a club in the modern transfer era going through a main window without buying a single player (excluding a makeweight).
-
What we can comfortably say is that great swathes of the press are unable to given any accurate analysis, given how little detail they are aware of about Aston Villa.
Yep. I really rate Patrick Barclay as a journalist, he's one of the few I take notice of (Winter and Samuel too, and Jonathan Northcroft is pretty good too). Haven't yet read his latest piece. But it's getting on for six weeks since O'Neill quit, and we haven't, as yet, heard a definitive reason why he did go. None of the journalists have managed to categorically nail it down.
-
I was specifically referring to players we bought and we've bought 7 players in the last 3 weeks of the summer transfer window according to Soccerbase.com. I'm guessing you're including loan deals and free agents, which I would imagine usually occur at the end of or after transfer windows for most deals. I suppose if I'd been including all deals I'd have just said majority of players rather vast majority. Are you happy enough with that?
Davies (while a loan signing to begin with that was just for tax reasons, wasn't it?)
Milner
Warnock
Dunne
Collins
Cuellar
Knight
Carson
Petrov (granted, the first season shouldn't really count)
Shorey
Salifou
There's also quite a number of players just outside the 3 weeks as well. All in all I believe that his reputation for late dealings is reasonably accurate, as while the transfer deadline is the end of august / early september, the season starts well before that. I think most people would agree that it is pretty important for new signings to have had some pre-season to get familiar with a new club, and in a lot of cases, O'Neill's tardiness did not allow that. In fact, even when things were all rosy, this was a constant source of frustration.
-
What we can comfortably say is that great swathes of the press are unable to given any accurate analysis, given how little detail they are aware of about Aston Villa.
Yep. I really rate Patrick Barclay as a journalist, he's one of the few I take notice of (Winter and Samuel too, and Jonathan Northcroft is pretty good too). Haven't yet read his latest piece. But it's getting on for six weeks since O'Neill quit, and we haven't, as yet, heard a definitive reason why he did go. None of the journalists have managed to categorically nail it down.
It could be worse, we could have regular arse licking O'Leary pieces from Oliver Holt.
-
And, we are a selling club at the moment. Quite simply we employed a sell to buy policy in the summer. I asked at the time, but can anyone recall a club in the modern transfer era going through a main window without buying a single player (excluding a makeweight).
Everton signed Beckford on a free this summer, that's all. Didn't buy anyone.
If we were genuinely a selling club now, I think we'd have been raided over the summer and Ashley Young, Gabby, and one or two others would be long gone. Selling out of favour players and James Milner for a hugely extortionate fee (and getting a very good player in return) does not make us a 'selling club'. It's another over-used term in football, much like 'great player'.
-
You can't seriously be suggesting we weren't employing a sell to buy policy in the summer? By definition that makes us a selling club at the moment. I stress at the moment. Why else did MO'N leave? He didn't grasp the need to reduce the wage bill - in any language that makes us a selling club. Obviously if they had sold all the crown jewels at once, there would have been a backlash that they would not have been able to sustain.
-
We are all expecting to bring players in during January, until we do we're in net profit this year so are a selling club.
That (rather feeble) definition of "selling club" would mean that Arsenal have been a selling club for a fair chunk of Wenger's reign. It also probably still includes Man Yoo since the sale of the ladyboy. Not bad company I'd say.
-
I was specifically referring to players we bought and we've bought 7 players in the last 3 weeks of the summer transfer window according to Soccerbase.com. I'm guessing you're including loan deals and free agents, which I would imagine usually occur at the end of or after transfer windows for most deals. I suppose if I'd been including all deals I'd have just said majority of players rather vast majority. Are you happy enough with that?
Davies (while a loan signing to begin with that was just for tax reasons, wasn't it?)
Milner
Warnock
Dunne
Collins
Cuellar
Knight
Carson
Petrov (granted, the first season shouldn't really count)
Shorey
Salifou
There's also quite a number of players just outside the 3 weeks as well. All in all I believe that his reputation for late dealings is reasonably accurate, as while the transfer deadline is the end of august / early september, the season starts well before that. I think most people would agree that it is pretty important for new signings to have had some pre-season to get familiar with a new club, and in a lot of cases, O'Neill's tardiness did not allow that. In fact, even when things were all rosy, this was a constant source of frustration.
I didn't include Davies, Shorey and L Young as they are listed as having been purchased more than 3 weeks before the transfer deadline, I missed Cuellar.
All clubs buy players in the final weeks of the transfer window, we naturally notice it more with Villa but I don't think we are much different to other similar clubs. A quick glance at Liverpool, Spurs and Man City transfer shows similar numbers of late transfers.
-
I didn't include Davies, Shorey and L Young as they are listed as having been purchased more than 3 weeks before the transfer deadline, I missed Cuellar.
All clubs buy players in the final weeks of the transfer window, we naturally notice it more with Villa but I don't think we are much different to other similar clubs. A quick glance at Liverpool, Spurs and Man City transfer shows similar numbers of late transfers.
Apologies about Shorey, as he was a rushed transfer because of Bouma I instinctively though he was a late signing, but apparently it was 7th August when he signed. I didn't mention Luke though. Davies most certainly was bought at the end of august, it's just that he only officially became a permanent villa player until the next summer.
I know that late transfers are not just a villa phenomena, but I would only suggest that the percentage of signings that happened in, say, August, during O'Neill's tenure would be higher than the league average (and believe me, while I like to skive off work as much as possible I have no intention of trying to work out the different percentages!).
-
You can't seriously be suggesting we weren't employing a sell to buy policy in the summer? By definition that makes us a selling club at the moment. I stress at the moment. Why else did MO'N leave? He didn't grasp the need to reduce the wage bill - in any language that makes us a selling club. Obviously if they had sold all the crown jewels at once, there would have been a backlash that they would not have been able to sustain.
I'm serious. Look at my face. This 'sell to buy' policy... the board had obviously demanded to know why half a first team squad - all of whom other than Wilfred Bouma bought by Martin O'Neill - had been all but ostracized from the picture and were sitting around on £30k plus a week, burning money. I welcomed the approach to sell the players who had been deemed to have no future, and weren't in the starting X1, probably wouldn't have been in the starting X1 ever again under MON. That doesn't make us a selling club, but a sensible club, looking to sell the players we don't want anymore.
We sold one first teamer, and we sold him for a ridiculous price, and to the only club in world football who would offer that kind of money - almost certainly at the only time they would offer that kind of money. That, to my mind, doesn't make us a selling club. We start happily offloading Ashley, Gabby, Albrighton, Downing over the next couple of years as soon as a decent offer comes in then yes, we're a selling club.
West Ham, with their declaration that all their players (other than Parker) were for sale? That's a selling club. Blackburn - they'll always - always - cash in on their players. They're a selling club.
Liverpool sold one of their best players this summer, got a good fee in return. I wouldn't class them as a selling club.
-
I didn't include Davies, Shorey and L Young as they are listed as having been purchased more than 3 weeks before the transfer deadline, I missed Cuellar.
All clubs buy players in the final weeks of the transfer window, we naturally notice it more with Villa but I don't think we are much different to other similar clubs. A quick glance at Liverpool, Spurs and Man City transfer shows similar numbers of late transfers.
Apologies about Shorey, as he was a rushed transfer because of Bouma I instinctively though he was a late signing, but apparently it was 7th August when he signed. I didn't mention Luke though. Davies most certainly was bought at the end of august, it's just that he only officially became a permanent villa player until the next summer.
I know that late transfers are not just a villa phenomena, but I would only suggest that the percentage of signings that happened in, say, August, during O'Neill's tenure would be higher than the league average (and believe me, while I like to skive off work as much as possible I have no intention of trying to work out the different percentages!).
I'm not going to do the percentages either but the number signed in Aug since the 06/07 season (and the first few days of September for some clubs) are Everton 9, Liverpool 11, Man City 15, Tottenham 10.
-
Every club out there is a selling club. And, every player has his price. And when a club comes in with stupid money, you probably have to be stupid to turn it down. If you get a reputation as being a high class team, who sells, I think the price you get for players increases above their market worth, see Spurs, so lets take it as an advantage. No other team would have bought Milner at that price, and the price they probably would have valued him (Chelsea, Manure) would have been closer to our valuation and easier to say no, as we all know he has the potential to keep improving. Liverpool will move faster into a selling club in the near future, Torres, Gerard et all will only take mediocre seasons for so long. They are champions league players, surrounded by average players. Our squad quality is higher, and I think we have players in Agbonlahor, Downing, Ireland, Young, Warnock and Cuellar who are Champions league class. The other guys are close to it. Im not saying we could win it, but im confident that on our pomp we could compete. Just a few players away from it, and a big guy, that can tackle and pass for 90 minutes in midfield would help
-
I was specifically referring to players we bought and we've bought 7 players in the last 3 weeks of the summer transfer window according to Soccerbase.com. I'm guessing you're including loan deals and free agents, which I would imagine usually occur at the end of or after transfer windows for most deals. I suppose if I'd been including all deals I'd have just said majority of players rather vast majority. Are you happy enough with that?
Davies (while a loan signing to begin with that was just for tax reasons, wasn't it?)
Milner
Warnock
Dunne
Collins
Cuellar
Knight
Carson
Petrov (granted, the first season shouldn't really count)
Shorey
Salifou
There's also quite a number of players just outside the 3 weeks as well. All in all I believe that his reputation for late dealings is reasonably accurate, as while the transfer deadline is the end of august / early september, the season starts well before that. I think most people would agree that it is pretty important for new signings to have had some pre-season to get familiar with a new club, and in a lot of cases, O'Neill's tardiness did not allow that. In fact, even when things were all rosy, this was a constant source of frustration.
Carew, Ash and Maloney were signed pretty late in Jan 2007 as well.
I think it can be said with a fair degree of accuracy that MON conducted the majority of his business late in the window. It was a consistent theme during his time here, so one has to assume it was his preferred way of operating. Either because he wanted the initial few weeks of the season to make the final call as to whether what he had on the books was good enough to carry on with, or to drive the price down.
As to why we didn't get the usual one or two players in before the standard end of August rush, the last few summers we have needed a fair few bodies in. This summer it was widely accepted that we needed just two or possibly three players in total (incl Milner's replacement). MON gambled that he'd be able to do this at the tail end of August. As we now know, that didn't happen.
-
Who is suggesting he ONLY bought late on, anyway? I'm not, but I am suggesting he bought late on more than not and I'd have expected him to do again this summer had he stayed and faced the music.
He didn't buy late on more than not. He also didn't buy Ireland.
Interesting you know something no one else does? I doubt it. Regardless, the point was we didn't buy anyone, early on, did you not see that. Fact is we did.
Secondly, the question asked was how do we know Mon would not have bought players late on as he often did. He didn't because he turned coat and went, so we did not get any players other than Ireland.
-
Interesting you know something no one else does? I doubt it. Regardless, the point was we didn't buy anyone, early on, did you not see that. Fact is we did.
Am I the only one that is seriously struggling to understand what the hell he is trying to say here?
-
Personally I don't care what the missing Bee Gee thinks re the status of our club.
It's a shame he has a national platform to vomit out his nonsense, but as he speaks of most clubs outside of his limited knowledge base with similar contempt his credibility is generally worth the square root of phuck all.
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7289/thefifthbeegee.jpg) (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/thefifthbeegee.jpg/)
Still, nice hair.
-
I hate the way Lawro says 'At the Moment'
Comes out as 'at the mowwwwwment'
-
Just look at that face Fletch, that cheeky smile.
What's not to like?
-
Personally I don't care what the missing Bee Gee thinks re the status of our club.
It's a shame he has a national platform to vomit out his nonsense, but as he speaks of most clubs outside of his limited knowledge base with similar contempt his credibility is generally worth the square root of phuck all.
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7289/thefifthbeegee.jpg) (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/thefifthbeegee.jpg/)
Still, nice hair.
Like a camper version of Matthew Kelly....if thats possible.
-
Just look at that face Fletch, that cheeky smile.
What's not to like?
It's a face i'd kick until my foot got cramp.
-
Just look at that face Fletch, that cheeky smile.
What's not to like?
It's a face i'd kick until my foot got cramp.
FOOTCRAMP FOOTCRAMP FOOTCRAMP FOOTFOOTFOOTCRAMP FOOTFOOTFOOTCRAMP
-
To be utterly frank there are people on this forum who's opinions I value more than the likes of Lawro.
The best thing to do here is just to ignore them, get on with our business and indeed prove them wrong. How? By continuing to improve and exceeding expectations as a club. If we win games and sign good players then they end up sounding like clowns.
-
Interesting you know something no one else does? I doubt it. Regardless, the point was we didn't buy anyone, early on, did you not see that. Fact is we did.
Am I the only one that is seriously struggling to understand what the hell he is trying to say here?
You might well be the the only one trying to understand.
-
To be utterly frank there are people on this forum who's opinions I value more than the likes of Lawro.
I value damn near everybody on here's opinions more than Lawro's. Even Malcolm and the Gnasher have made more good points than him in recent times.
-
To be utterly frank there are people on this forum who's opinions I value more than the likes of Lawro.
I value damn near everybody on here's opinions more than Lawro's. Even Malcolm and the Gnasher have made more good points than him in recent times.
Thanks :)
Thing is he's a pundit on a well watched show so his opinion, wrong as it is, is believed.
Sadly.
I wondered on Saturday what would be said by those on the Sky panel, especially considering Thommo's involvement and I must have missed it.
Were they deliberately playing down their comments, perhaps.
-
I hate the way Lawro says 'At the Moment'
Comes out as 'at the mowwwwwment'
I was saying that all day Saturday, think that I've got it off to a tee!
-
Add a few puns Lee and you'll be well away.
Like when he commentated on the Derby County game, Pringle came on for them as a substitute, his reaction was comedy gold.
'I hear he's a crisp passer.'
-
I was furious when I heard this on MOTD. ManUre are not apparently a selling club for letting Tevez go to their rich neighbours, or selling Ronaldo to Real M.
There are sometimes when it makes sense to sell, and I think that both Milner and certainly Barry will prove to be good sells.
May revise my opinion if we sell Young to Spurs though.
-
Add a few puns Lee and you'll be well away.
Like when he commentated on the Derby County game, Pringle came on for them as a substitute, his reaction was comedy gold.
'I hear he's a crisp passer.'
In fairness he hasn't used the Lazarus comeback gag for a while.
So it's probably about due.
What a dullard, the wit and wisdom of a 14 year old.
-
does it matter, Platt, Macinaly,Yorke, Barry, Milner,Gray, Gidman, Gibson, you could go on all day,
we probably are a selling club if the right club comes along with the correct amount of dosh, but thats no different to any other club, everone opperates at there own level
-
I was furious when I heard this on MOTD. ManUre are not apparently a selling club for letting Tevez go to their rich neighbours, or selling Ronaldo to Real M.
They didn't own him, he was only on loan at ManU.
-
Stan Collymore had a real go at MOTD in todays Daily Mail saying that there are an old pals act with stale comments and poor opinions from out of touch ex-players. He probably wants a job, or just decided to knock the oposition.
But i rate Collymore's views. he comes up with some good points from time to time.
Lawrenson hardly had conclusive evidence we are a selling club, with the just the Barry and Milner sales to go by. Hardly the basis for any opinion.
here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1313740/Match-Day-dinosaur-TV-turn-says-Stan-Collymore.html
-
What is Buying and what is selling?
Balancing the books?
Any business that achieves success is a target for takeover and any player with a value must have other teams who want him to maintain that value.
Football clubs sell to balamce the books or they go bankrupt or get a bigger investor.
Randy is not selling Villa but he may well sell players.
32Red is not making money; like all the gambling sites tumover is down.
Ergo Villa must be solvent or even contribute to owning bottom line as an asset.
Man U and L'pool's US owners are in trouble. Is Randy? Probably not as much but unless someone can dempnstrate to the contrary he ain't making as much as formerly.
So where does the money come from if we are to buy?
FranchiseMarketing..If you go to Hong Kong the buses are decorated in Chelsea colours..all over. China mainland Manu are huge. Park gets a game because of the following in Sth Korea. When I was in China Man U sportsbar packed at 2000(12.00 KO) here. Loads of shirts on view. Villa played same day 1600 KO and bar virtually empty at midnight. No shirts and no interest. By 0200 in morning it was goodnight Irene and put on empty streets.
Point being money is coming via TV and marketing to the big boys. Have we any money coming from other territories? I don't think so.
We do not have the assets and there if the Top4 fancy a good player they make the approach and can pay the ackers. The top clubs are not sellers they have the funds to buy when they need to and 'dispose' of' when they need to to balance books a bit.
We do not have the resources of the top 4 ergo we settle, for the time being, for mid-table or better.
The world is a shitty place right now and going to get worse.
Villa will sell if they have to to maintain equilibrium and hopefully they will not buy rubbish to replace.
So not a buying club then on any major scale to challenge the Top 4anyway.
3-4 years of middling ambition until times get better generally then the hope that the Top 4 compromise themselves in some way we may challenge again for winning the league.
BTW The ghost of Joe Mercer must be smiling at the prospect of MoN going to ManC as one contributor suggested..how easily history is forgotten.
Another four years and the argument will still rage.