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

[Irish villain]

I think the main thing that bugs me about the whole situation (aside from the attempts to justify it ;0 )
is the suspicion that it isn't entirely a football-related decision.

Sorenson was ostracised and not up for selection despite still being on the books when Carson was having a 'mare. Whatever the doubts some might have  had about Tommy, he was far better than Carson.

Ditto NRC. Again, he might have his deficiencies. As often mentioned, he has plenty of heart, commitment and strength, but his passing is suspect. Fair enough. But Sidwell can't pass tackle or shoot and has still seen more game-time in NRC's favoured position.

If Cuellar was preferred purely on the basis that MON believes that picking him increased our chances of success on matchday then I could just about swallow it, as illogical and misguided as it may seem. But as mentioned on the Luke Young thread, the decision probably has more to do with Luke's comments pre Moscow and voicing his concerns about playing out of position for an extended period.

That's not the way pick to a team, omitting players because of grudges and picking inferior players in their place. That can only weaken your chances of success.

Well argued. I have thought this for a while. Sorenson, wasn't so bad, NRC, well, he did end up in a scrap with the boss so his being cold shouldered (without going into how pissed off I was to see MON play him at right back two seasons ago) can be understood but the Luke Young situation is the one decision I will not be able to forgive or understand. He is one of the best right backs in the business, our results with him in the side before Christmas were very impressive and yet he sits out the second half of the season on the bench.

Let's hope Milner, Dunne and Friedal stay on MON's good side before he banishes them to the reserves.

[Shrek]

I bet beckford gets more goals than any Villa player next season, which pisses me off.

Firstly, absolute cobblers.

Secondly, I'll bet you any amount you care to wager.

From what I gather we have too sell before we can buy, so what ever the case a punt on a free striker who would fit straight in, the only case being wether or not he will succeed at this level.

Beckford doesn't seem your dave kitson type of player, he always looks very sharpe and composed, in a rough league, in my opinion I think he will do very well.

[pauliewalnuts]

I bet beckford gets more goals than any Villa player next season, which pisses me off.

Firstly, absolute cobblers.

Secondly, I'll bet you any amount you care to wager.

From what I gather we have too sell before we can buy, so what ever the case a punt on a free striker who would fit straight in, the only case being wether or not he will succeed at this level.

Beckford doesn't seem your dave kitson type of player, he always looks very sharpe and composed, in a rough league, in my opinion I think he will do very well.

Where did you gather that?

[hartman_1982]

I bet beckford gets more goals than any Villa player next season, which pisses me off.

Firstly, absolute cobblers.

Secondly, I'll bet you any amount you care to wager.

From what I gather we have too sell before we can buy, so what ever the case a punt on a free striker who would fit straight in, the only case being wether or not he will succeed at this level.

Beckford doesn't seem your dave kitson type of player, he always looks very sharpe and composed, in a rough league, in my opinion I think he will do very well.

Where did you gather that?

Composed!? This is something that he isn't and why i think he may struggle. In that league, with his physical attributes, he gets a lot of chances but only puts away about 1 in 3. In the Premier League where most players are fast and strong, he will only get one or two chances a game and i don't think he is clinical enough to succeed at the top level.

Worth a punt? Yes.
Score more goals than Gabby? No.
Four year deal? They can have him!

[BannedUserIAT]

I've not seen too much of this Beckford lad. The fact that CI used to wank on about him was enough of an excuse for me not to bother looking. And that arguement that he's on a free therefore a non-gamble just doesn't wash. There's not a lot of point in having a youngster on our books, sucking like mad on the nipple of money yet not getting a whiff of first team football. I suspect we have players who have the same potential, on less money, with a better attitude.

[VillaZogmariner]

I bet beckford gets more goals than any Villa player next season, which pisses me off.

Welcome back Mr Injury.

[Shrek]

My original point was let's hope we don't go and spend 10 million on a player who turns out no better than a FREE Beckford.

Randy has basically said although there maybe funds available, it is unrealistic to keep spending the rate we are unless we sell players first.

We had the chance of Bent last yer and we missed, let's hope we haven't again.

[davevillan]

There is always an element of risk in any transfer, will it it work or wont it?
Of our current strikers who is he better then?
Is he an improvement?
Thats the question that we need to ask.
He is on a 4yr contract, so if he doesnt make it, then we would be stuck with a player on premier league wages for the duration of the contract.
That is also worth thinking about, as we would then be looking to get rid, but would find it hard to sell to to wage demands etc.

[Chris Smith]

I think the main thing that bugs me about the whole situation (aside from the attempts to justify it ;0 )
is the suspicion that it isn't entirely a football-related decision.

Sorenson was ostracised and not up for selection despite still being on the books when Carson was having a 'mare. Whatever the doubts some might have  had about Tommy, he was far better than Carson.

Ditto NRC. Again, he might have his deficiencies. As often mentioned, he has plenty of heart, commitment and strength, but his passing is suspect. Fair enough. But Sidwell can't pass tackle or shoot and has still seen more game-time in NRC's favoured position.

If Cuellar was preferred purely on the basis that MON believes that picking him increased our chances of success on matchday then I could just about swallow it, as illogical and misguided as it may seem. But as mentioned on the Luke Young thread, the decision probably has more to do with Luke's comments pre Moscow and voicing his concerns about playing out of position for an extended period.

That's not the way pick to a team, omitting players because of grudges and picking inferior players in their place. That can only weaken your chances of success.

The Internet loves conspiracy theorists.

[Greg N'Ash]

he's better than Heskey but then who isn't. its all about risks i suppose. Everton's is a  minimal one as even if he's only good enough as back-up he's not cost Harewood style money. i don't really see it as more of a risk than spending 10m plus and 50k a week on a 30 yer old out of sorts Keane thats for sure

[Concrete John]

I think the main thing that bugs me about the whole situation (aside from the attempts to justify it ;0 )
is the suspicion that it isn't entirely a football-related decision.

Sorenson was ostracised and not up for selection despite still being on the books when Carson was having a 'mare. Whatever the doubts some might have  had about Tommy, he was far better than Carson.

Ditto NRC. Again, he might have his deficiencies. As often mentioned, he has plenty of heart, commitment and strength, but his passing is suspect. Fair enough. But Sidwell can't pass tackle or shoot and has still seen more game-time in NRC's favoured position.

If Cuellar was preferred purely on the basis that MON believes that picking him increased our chances of success on matchday then I could just about swallow it, as illogical and misguided as it may seem. But as mentioned on the Luke Young thread, the decision probably has more to do with Luke's comments pre Moscow and voicing his concerns about playing out of position for an extended period.

That's not the way pick to a team, omitting players because of grudges and picking inferior players in their place. That can only weaken your chances of success.

What bugs me is that everytime Martin drops a player it's presumed to be because of a row.  Once again, I would play Young there ahead of him myself, but that does not mean that the manager isn't seeing something we're not.  

Agree with him?  No.  Trust him to be doing what he thinks is right?  Yes.

[Concrete John]

he's better than Heskey but then who isn't. its all about risks i suppose. Everton's is a  minimal one as even if he's only good enough as back-up he's not cost Harewood style money. i don't really see it as more of a risk than spending 10m plus and 50k a week on a 30 yer old out of sorts Keane thats for sure

Fee wise probably not, but I wouldn't be convinced he won't be on something like his £27,500-a-week wages!

[Greg N'Ash]

he's better than Heskey but then who isn't. its all about risks i suppose. Everton's is a  minimal one as even if he's only good enough as back-up he's not cost Harewood style money. i don't really see it as more of a risk than spending 10m plus and 50k a week on a 30 yer old out of sorts Keane thats for sure

Fee wise probably not, but I wouldn't be convinced he won't be on something like his £27,500-a-week wages!

26k reportedly. still works out favourably. if he does half decently they'll get a transfer fee. if not he's cost them nowt in transfer fee's. a decent gamble i'd say given the manager's judgement

[Irish villain]

I think the main thing that bugs me about the whole situation (aside from the attempts to justify it ;0 )
is the suspicion that it isn't entirely a football-related decision.

Sorenson was ostracised and not up for selection despite still being on the books when Carson was having a 'mare. Whatever the doubts some might have  had about Tommy, he was far better than Carson.

Ditto NRC. Again, he might have his deficiencies. As often mentioned, he has plenty of heart, commitment and strength, but his passing is suspect. Fair enough. But Sidwell can't pass tackle or shoot and has still seen more game-time in NRC's favoured position.

If Cuellar was preferred purely on the basis that MON believes that picking him increased our chances of success on matchday then I could just about swallow it, as illogical and misguided as it may seem. But as mentioned on the Luke Young thread, the decision probably has more to do with Luke's comments pre Moscow and voicing his concerns about playing out of position for an extended period.

That's not the way pick to a team, omitting players because of grudges and picking inferior players in their place. That can only weaken your chances of success.

What bugs me is that everytime Martin drops a player it's presumed to be because of a row.  Once again, I would play Young there ahead of him myself, but that does not mean that the manager isn't seeing something we're not.  

Agree with him?  No.  Trust him to be doing what he thinks is right?  Yes.

It's hard to trust him to get things right when the player he puts in at right back is often so unsure of his position and so sloppy with the ball. Cueller is one of the best centre backs in the league, better than James Collins, so why not put him in there and play a proper full back at right back? The same could be said of NRC in 08/09. NRC can be immense for us so often in the middle of the park and then get left out or put in at right back or something. Granted since the bust up I can understand him being left out when he was fit(I know he was injured for a good part of last season before it's pointed out to me). MON does seem to have his favourites, remember in the spring when the side never changed and Petrov and Gabby looked knackered when they could have done with a rest?

[Concrete John]

he's better than Heskey but then who isn't. its all about risks i suppose. Everton's is a  minimal one as even if he's only good enough as back-up he's not cost Harewood style money. i don't really see it as more of a risk than spending 10m plus and 50k a week on a 30 yer old out of sorts Keane thats for sure

Fee wise probably not, but I wouldn't be convinced he won't be on something like his £27,500-a-week wages!

26k reportedly. still works out favourably. if he does half decently they'll get a transfer fee. if not he's cost them nowt in transfer fee's. a decent gamble i'd say given the manager's judgement

I suppose it's a 'wait and see', but I don't think he'll make a huge impact and wouldn't want him here.

Over 4 years it's still £5m.  If he doesn't do well, which I expect to be the case, then they may have trouble shifting him out as we did with Harewood.