Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine

Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: martin on June 18, 2011, 03:01:02 PM

Title: Cahill - revisited
Post by: martin on June 18, 2011, 03:01:02 PM
Excuse the precision, or lack of it, in the chronology, but generally speaking there was  an ex-Villa manager who woke up one morning and thought to himself, "You know, that Gary Cahill, he ain't up to much. What I'll do is I'll stick him in the stiffs, hope that some Championship club will come in and take him off our hands on loan, and spend  10 million pounds on West Brom's central defender to replace him.

At that time - and at any number of times subsequent to this mistake - there were  significant numbers of H&V contributors who thought that this was a sound piece of business and that Cahill was overrated. I wasn't among them; most sane people weren't.

If you were among the insane, here is your chance to repent...


Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: spangley1812 on June 18, 2011, 03:14:18 PM
You forgot to add the bit where Cahill went to MON and said I want a transfer......I dont want to wait for my chance to play for Aston Villa anymore
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: olofmilosevic on June 18, 2011, 03:17:27 PM
NOT  TRUE! Cahill wanted to stay at villa!!!!!!!
Title: Fuck off not another bloody Cahill thread
Post by: cdbearsfan on June 18, 2011, 03:18:40 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh!
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: spangley1812 on June 18, 2011, 03:19:35 PM
NOT  TRUE! Cahill wanted to stay at villa!!!!!!!
why did he sign for Bolton then.............
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: martin on June 18, 2011, 03:22:45 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

Sorry cdvillain, I really should stay in more. Humour me...
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: KRS on June 18, 2011, 03:28:00 PM
I'd take Cahill over Dann/Johnson any day of the week.
Coyle has pretty much said he's up for sale at the right price.
Dont suppose we managed to put in a first refusal clause in his sell on contract did we?
May attract interest from Spurs, Liverpool or Arsenal.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: Chris Smith on June 18, 2011, 03:40:07 PM
Because he was off the pitch receiving treatment.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: David_Nab on June 18, 2011, 03:43:02 PM
Thats the past what I think is more important now is did we insert a sell on fee clause !! A slice of a £15mil plus transfer fee would come in handy.

Looking back frankly it seems like short term thinking his sale and in hindsight he turned out to be a  better  player than Davies ,Collins and maybe even Dunn.But at the time £5mil didn't seem to bad a price ...
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: eamonn on June 18, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
Well this rears its' head in most other topics so why not let it have its' own thread?
Not that it's got 'owt to do with the price of fish these days.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: K3Villa on June 18, 2011, 03:43:27 PM
Because he was off the pitch receiving treatment.

Very good.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: hilts_coolerking on June 18, 2011, 03:50:29 PM
This is one of those subjects you're not supposed to bring up because it doesn't reflect well on O'Neill, cf. Moscow / Heskey / Harewood etc.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: TimTheVillain on June 18, 2011, 03:53:02 PM
He'll be at the Arse....
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: ozzjim on June 18, 2011, 04:08:38 PM
Was one of the most inept bits of business we have done.

McLeish was desperate to get him to the sty too.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: villa1 on June 18, 2011, 04:14:54 PM
NOT  TRUE! Cahill wanted to stay at villa!!!!!!!

How do you know? I was always under the impression that he wasn't willing to wait for his chance and wanted to go.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: Steve R on June 18, 2011, 04:15:33 PM
I thought  at the time that selling Cahill was a big mistake, but the rights and wrongs of it are very much in the past.

In truth Liam Ridgewell has turned out to be a more effective defender than some of the planks we lashed money out on.

Where we are now, i.e. looking for defensive upgrades in just about every position, I don't think Cahill's price represents value for money. For  the 15-20 mill Bolton want, I'd expect the next Vidic. As good as he is, Cahill is not that level.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: ozzjim on June 18, 2011, 04:20:26 PM
I think our defence needs a new right back and a keeper. Cuellar, Collins, Dunne and Clark have all shown themselves very capable at times, and we could save a fortune by working with them to get them into a unit. I like Luke Young at left back too, plus Warnock being coaxed back into being a footballer would be interesting.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: KRS on June 18, 2011, 04:32:32 PM
For  the 15-20 mill Bolton want, I'd expect the next Vidic. As good as he is, Cahill is not that level.
Liverpool paying over the odds for young English talent doesnt help things.
If Henderson is worth £16m then Cahill is at least equal to that.
I'm sure part of AMs task will be to get players like Warnock and Ireland back on board.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: olaftab on June 18, 2011, 04:40:56 PM
He is not that good and that is why he plays for Bolton and despite his agent trying to talk him up in the press over the last two seasons he still plays for Bolton.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: Steve R on June 18, 2011, 04:44:28 PM
For  the 15-20 mill Bolton want, I'd expect the next Vidic. As good as he is, Cahill is not that level.
Liverpool paying over the odds for young English talent doesnt help things.
If Henderson is worth £16m then Cahill is at least equal to that.
I'm sure part of AMs task will be to get players like Warnock and Ireland back on board.

I can see Bolton's logic for setting the price, and I'd hope that we do the same for wantaway English players. I just think that from our point of view there must be a better deal elsewhere.

With the players we already have, we don't need to worry about making up our complement of Association/Club reared players in the same way that others have to.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: Guy M on June 18, 2011, 05:46:29 PM
O'Neill not to blame - Cahill (http://www.clubcall.com/aston-villa/oneill-not-to-blame---cahill-957972.html)

Quote
Bolton's Gary Cahill has refused to blame Martin O'Neill for his decision to leave Villa but conceded the boss might have got it wrong.

Cahill is back in the England squad after Man City's Joleon Lescott pulled out but he needed to quit Villa Park for the Trotters in order to kick-start his career.
And while Cahill and Villa have both prospered since his departure in the summer of 2008, the 23-year-old has revealed he was not forced out the door either.
On O'Neill's failure to persuade him to stay, Cahill told the Birmingham Mail: "He is a great manager and you would maybe have to ask him that question. But everybody makes mistakes sometimes."
The defender added: "There are no hard feelings between me and him. Maybe if I had bided my time there a bit longer it might have been different.
"He never for one minute pushed me out of the door. It was just a decision I made to go because he couldn't guarantee me playing week in, week out which is what I needed to do."

Never let the truth get in the way of a good bash of an ex-manager you don't like.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: barrysleftfoot on June 18, 2011, 05:50:50 PM


   If i remember correctly he wanted a 1st team place, and at the time a certain Mr Laursen was in his way.

   Now in my eyes, however good Cahill gets, and for me hes not as good as a lot of people on here seem to think, he will never be as good as Martin Laursen was.

  If i was Bolton and someone offered me £15m then i would snatch their hands off.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: PaulTheVillan on June 18, 2011, 05:51:37 PM
Theres talk of a £15m (?) buy out clause in Cahills contract.

Surely if he was that good he'd also be at a bigger club. Arsenal & Spurs both were desperate for a centre half last season & yet he's still at Bolton.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: Steve67 on June 18, 2011, 05:53:11 PM
Do we have a sell on clause for Cahill, does anyone know?
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: PaulTheVillan on June 18, 2011, 05:53:44 PM
Knowing MON, we're probably still paying his wages.
Title: Re: Cahill - revisited
Post by: eamonn on June 18, 2011, 07:24:24 PM
O'Neill not to blame - Cahill (http://www.clubcall.com/aston-villa/oneill-not-to-blame---cahill-957972.html)

Quote
Bolton's Gary Cahill has refused to blame Martin O'Neill for his decision to leave Villa but conceded the boss might have got it wrong.

Cahill is back in the England squad after Man City's Joleon Lescott pulled out but he needed to quit Villa Park for the Trotters in order to kick-start his career.
And while Cahill and Villa have both prospered since his departure in the summer of 2008, the 23-year-old has revealed he was not forced out the door either.
On O'Neill's failure to persuade him to stay, Cahill told the Birmingham Mail: "He is a great manager and you would maybe have to ask him that question. But everybody makes mistakes sometimes."
The defender added: "There are no hard feelings between me and him. Maybe if I had bided my time there a bit longer it might have been different.
"He never for one minute pushed me out of the door. It was just a decision I made to go because he couldn't guarantee me playing week in, week out which is what I needed to do."

Never let the truth get in the way of a good bash of an ex-manager you don't like.

In fairness it was MON's complete passive attitude to fringe members of the squad - not playing them, not likely to play them, but happy enough for them to be around in training, that must have been pretty frustrating for the likes of Cahill, Sidwell, Harewood, Shorey, Gardner etc.
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal