Summer 2010 Transfer Thread: B*llsh*t, Rumours & Wishes

[Merv]

Harewood's better showings came when he was actually playing reasonably regularly, albeit from the bench. Then he was totally frozen out. Limited ability, yes, but I still maintain he made a decent impact for us when called upon.

[Concrete John]

The difference is, McGeady is far more likely to happen than the other two you mention.

"Links" are "links". If the McGeady link turns to be nothing, then I'll be happy. If the Huntelaar one did, I'd be considerably less happy.

Which would you put your money on coming off? Huntelaar or McGeady?

That's only relevant if you are believing the story, which if you believe one you should believe all.  I just don't think it's right to judge our transfer stratergy based on paper rumours, before we've even bought or sold a single player, and selectively choose the ones that fit your argument.

And to answer the question straight, I'd say McGeady is more likely in terms of who we may be able to attract, but Huntelaar is more likely in terms of him being more in line with what we need - a top striker over another winger.

[LeeB]

I haven't seen much of McGeady. But I was told A.Young was overpriced, Collins was rubbish and Dunne slow. So I'll wait to pass judgement if he signs.

Well said.  Whether we are happy with a signing or not, we should all give the player a chance and judge them on what they do in a Villa shirt.  Collins and Dunne are the rpime examples.

And yes, I know everyone said Harewood would be shit and he was, but does anyone else think he's better showings for us came after that goal at Anfield, after which the fans were well on his side?

I disagree. Collins, Dunne and Harewood were all Premier League players when they signed for us and as McGeady is coming from a league several rungs down the ladder, I don't believe it is a like-for-like comparison.
If McGeady is a target, it makes me worry for our future.

Quick, someone point him in the right direction.

[Greg N'Ash]

I haven't seen much of McGeady. But I was told A.Young was overpriced, Collins was rubbish and Dunne slow. So I'll wait to pass judgement if he signs.

Well said.  Whether we are happy with a signing or not, we should all give the player a chance and judge them on what they do in a Villa shirt.  Collins and Dunne are the rpime examples.

And yes, I know everyone said Harewood would be shit and he was, but does anyone else think he's better showings for us came after that goal at Anfield, after which the fans were well on his side?

I disagree. Collins, Dunne and Harewood were all Premier League players when they signed for us and as McGeady is coming from a league several rungs down the ladder, I don't believe it is a like-for-like comparison.
If McGeady is a target, it makes me worry for our future.

Agreed. its like entering Formula One and then buying a Kia as your race car.

[pauliewalnuts]

The difference is, McGeady is far more likely to happen than the other two you mention.

"Links" are "links". If the McGeady link turns to be nothing, then I'll be happy. If the Huntelaar one did, I'd be considerably less happy.

Which would you put your money on coming off? Huntelaar or McGeady?

That's only relevant if you are believing the story, which if you believe one you should believe all.  I just don't think it's right to judge our transfer stratergy based on paper rumours, before we've even bought or sold a single player, and selectively choose the ones that fit your argument.

And to answer the question straight, I'd say McGeady is more likely in terms of who we may be able to attract, but Huntelaar is more likely in terms of him being more in line with what we need - a top striker over another winger.

We're commenting on the links, that's all.

Some of them we're happy about, some of them we're not.

I'm also not judging our transfer strategy on paper links - I'm judging it on the evidence of the past four seasons, which points strongly towards a signing like McGeady and strongly against one like Huntelaar.

[Concrete John]

The difference is, McGeady is far more likely to happen than the other two you mention.

"Links" are "links". If the McGeady link turns to be nothing, then I'll be happy. If the Huntelaar one did, I'd be considerably less happy.

Which would you put your money on coming off? Huntelaar or McGeady?

That's only relevant if you are believing the story, which if you believe one you should believe all.  I just don't think it's right to judge our transfer stratergy based on paper rumours, before we've even bought or sold a single player, and selectively choose the ones that fit your argument.

And to answer the question straight, I'd say McGeady is more likely in terms of who we may be able to attract, but Huntelaar is more likely in terms of him being more in line with what we need - a top striker over another winger.

We're commenting on the links, that's all.

Some of them we're happy about, some of them we're not.

I'm also not judging our transfer strategy on paper links - I'm judging it on the evidence of the past four seasons, which points strongly towards a signing like McGeady and strongly against one like Huntelaar.

True thought that may be, our 4 year transfer history also points to year on year improvement and some signings been greeted less than favourably, but turning out a lot better than expected.

[Concrete John]

trouble is the players that we thought were bad and turned out good, are in the minority compared to the ones we thought would be good/bad and weren't/were

Nope.  Other way around, IMO.

However, I think where we will differ is the 'OK' signings.  The ones that didn't pull up any trees, but did what could reasonably be expected of them, and were what we needed/could get at the time we signed them.  For instance, I'd put Zat Knight in that category, but I'm sure you wouldn't.

[Greg N'Ash]

trouble is the players that we thought were bad and turned out good, are in the minority compared to the ones we thought would be good/bad and weren't/were

Nope.  Other way around, IMO.

However, I think where we will differ is the 'OK' signings.  The ones that didn't pull up any trees, but did what could reasonably be expected of them, and were what we needed/could get at the time we signed them.  For instance, I'd put Zat Knight in that category, but I'm sure you wouldn't.

Actually i thought knight was rotten but changed my opinion after his 2nd season. I'd say he was a success/ok though tinged by the fact that we didn't actually need him with Cahill here. compared to Davies he was Bobby Moore.

[pauliewalnuts]

True thought that may be, our 4 year transfer history also points to year on year improvement and some signings been greeted less than favourably, but turning out a lot better than expected.

6th 6th 6th

Ultimately, that's what people will be looking at.

Improvement it may be in terms of the squad being better, two extra points per year, and a better cup performance last season, but it isn't improvement in the league.

[Dave Cooper please]

I haven't seen much of McGeady. But I was told A.Young was overpriced, Collins was rubbish and Dunne slow. So I'll wait to pass judgement if he signs.

Well said.  Whether we are happy with a signing or not, we should all give the player a chance and judge them on what they do in a Villa shirt.  Collins and Dunne are the rpime examples.

I can never understand this argument, surely the whole point of this thread is for us to debate the relative merits of players we are being linked with? Yes sometimes we get it badly wrong, I remember posting something along the lines of Dunne having the turning circle of an oil tanker, but I'm happy to hold my hands up when pleasantly surprised by a signing I thought was going to be poor.

I suppose if you never voice an opinion then you can never be wrong, perhaps that's the thinking of the "fence-sitters"?

[Greg N'Ash]

if you ever want to see people getting their opinions wrong on a player, search for the thread title 'Ivanhoe'. Sure there was some sort of mon inspired  mass hypnosis going on there. Utterly mental some of the predictions.

[Concrete John]

I haven't seen much of McGeady. But I was told A.Young was overpriced, Collins was rubbish and Dunne slow. So I'll wait to pass judgement if he signs.

Well said.  Whether we are happy with a signing or not, we should all give the player a chance and judge them on what they do in a Villa shirt.  Collins and Dunne are the rpime examples.

I can never understand this argument, surely the whole point of this thread is for us to debate the relative merits of players we are being linked with? Yes sometimes we get it badly wrong, I remember posting something along the lines of Dunne having the turning circle of an oil tanker, but I'm happy to hold my hands up when pleasantly surprised by a signing I thought was going to be poor.

I suppose if you never voice an opinion then you can never be wrong, perhaps that's the thinking of the "fence-sitters"?

I'm not a fence-sitter - I've already stated a few times on this thread that I don't rate McGeady and think he'd be a bad signing.  However, I just think some of the OTT reactions do need to be challenged, these are the people who aren't aren't sitting on the fence, but who are taking it apart in order to build a gallows to lynch the manager over who we've been linked with.

For instance, when I stated that I don't rate McGeady but I'd give him  a chance to prove me wrong if he does sign, I was told that it showed I didn't care enough.

[Concrete John]

if you ever want to see people getting their opinions wrong on a player, search for the thread title 'Ivanhoe'. Sure there was some sort of mon inspired  mass hypnosis going on there. Utterly mental some of the predictions.

Or you could equally look up the Dunne threads from last summer.

[Greg N'Ash]

if you ever want to see people getting their opinions wrong on a player, search for the thread title 'Ivanhoe'. Sure there was some sort of mon inspired  mass hypnosis going on there. Utterly mental some of the predictions.

Or you could equally look up the Dunne threads from last summer.

Hardly the same. Some people didn't rate Dunne and got it wrong. There were people on the Ivanhoe thread predicting 6 or more goals from him in half a season, or more than he's managed now. and it wasn't the minority either :o}

[Concrete John]

if you ever want to see people getting their opinions wrong on a player, search for the thread title 'Ivanhoe'. Sure there was some sort of mon inspired  mass hypnosis going on there. Utterly mental some of the predictions.

Or you could equally look up the Dunne threads from last summer.

Hardly the same. Some people didn't rate Dunne and got it wrong. There were people on the Ivanhoe thread predicting 6 or more goals from him in half a season, or more than he's managed now. and it wasn't the minority either :o}

No, it was exactly the same.  The majority didn't want Dunne and the majority didn;t want Heskey either, as I recall.