The Milner Novela... Final episode page 296

[Mazrim]

If we play with two wingers or if we're planning to play with two wingers most of the time, we need four.

I agree that McGeady probably shouldn't be one of them.

Having said that, Young can play as a second striker, Downing and Albrighton probably cant. Downing can supposedly play in midfield, Albrighton and Young probably cant...etc. They're not exactly the same but I'd rather prioritise a striker, right back and playmaker first.

[VillaAlways]

im sure if milner is available in a year at £12m and in the last year of his contract , there would be more than just man city after him.

We've named our price this year and it's around 30 million.We can't back down now!If they want him they can afford it and we don't need or want to sell

[Mazrim]

I dont really want to get bogged down in massive point by point quotathons and semantics, so I'll just ask (anybody) again and try and keep it to one simple point. Where is the evidence that we need to sell Milner or, if you like, that the club was/is encouraging it?

Somebody saying "it's a fact" is just a stronger way of saying "in my opinion" isn't it?  Of course it isn't a fact really.  There's no way of proving whether we need the money more than they need Milner or not.

My feeling is that we do though.

Well, no. Its a way of claiming there is no doubt about it. End of discussion. It has been proven beyond doubt etc.
If somebody if saying "I have a feeling we need to sell Milner" I'll say fair enough although I have no idea the basis for it.

[pauliewalnuts]

You chimed in claiming it was ironic that I was asking for any credible evidence that we need to sell Milner because there isnt any as I see it, whereas I've provided plenty of reasoning and evidence to the contrary. How is that ironic? It isnt really is it.

Because you didn't, that's why.

I chimed in because on this thread, you've been most forthright in your belief that your opinions are correct (which is your right, as I said, if you feel that way), but when someone else does the same thing, your reply is "Says who?"

Where are the "facts" below, for example?

Randy said every club has to sell to buy to a certain extent and was as unclear as you'd expect (and probably want) him to be, and the General was non commital.

Did I say everyone else's opinion was bollocks then did I Pete? I think you'll find I said two points in particular were bollocks. If you disagree, explain why.

What my knowledge of Villa's finances are. Well, its true I know a few people who know a few people etc. But there's no need to go there as there is plenty of evidence for everybody to see.

- Randy has said there is money to spend, that we dont have to sell players to raise transfer fees (which Pelty has backed up and the General to a degree), that its all about getting the players on big money who dont play off the large wage bill before new players arrive. Which is common sense.

- The latest developments with Milner clearly show we are not actively trying to sell Milner to raise funds to buy players as I (amongst others) have said all along.

There you go. The two points I took issue with and my reasoning for doing so.

As i said, you know what we all know, stuff in the paper, stuff you've read on here, and in the last point, something which comes down to your own interpretation.

I'm not even disagreeing with you, incidentally, I'm just saying that the whole "says who" thing could be levelled at a lot of things you've posted on here, too, but it doesn't stop you from being every bit as forthright as Hawkeye was.

As Risso pointed out, they're opinions - all the arguments and counter arguments.

[Risso]

Swapping sides during a game is a tactical thing.  Having two players for each position is an issue of squad depth.

As for having 4 over £10m, I think that's misleading as Milner should be discounted due to either a) he'll be playing central if he stays or b) he's going to go.  Let's not forget he tried for Zaki and RSC upfront, who would both be £10m+ strikers, so maybe it's not by choice we haven't spent heavily up top?  And if we had a winger comparable to Gabby's ability and age emerging through the squad we would have bought 1 less £10m winger, IMO!

Wow, Zaki and RSC.  As ever, if you're going to limit yourself to buying from other british clubs, it's always going to be hard.

[Risso]

If we play with two wingers or if we're planning to play with two wingers most of the time, we need four.

I agree that McGeady probably shouldn't be one of them.

Having said that, Young can play as a second striker, Downing and Albrighton probably cant. Downing can supposedly play in midfield, Albrighton and Young probably cant...etc. They're not exactly the same but I'd rather prioritise a striker, right back and playmaker first.

Downing's having a hard enough time playing on the wing at the moment.  I'd say he has to get back to his best before being thinking about being shunted elsewhere.  Young can play as a second striker, but hasn't for over two years now.  We need a proper, honest to goodness striker, who's better than Harewood or Heskey.  How hard can that be?

[Concrete John]

Swapping sides during a game is a tactical thing.  Having two players for each position is an issue of squad depth.

As for having 4 over £10m, I think that's misleading as Milner should be discounted due to either a) he'll be playing central if he stays or b) he's going to go.  Let's not forget he tried for Zaki and RSC upfront, who would both be £10m+ strikers, so maybe it's not by choice we haven't spent heavily up top?  And if we had a winger comparable to Gabby's ability and age emerging through the squad we would have bought 1 less £10m winger, IMO!

Wow, Zaki and RSC.  As ever, if you're going to limit yourself to buying from other british clubs, it's always going to be hard.

I wouldn't have wanted either player either, but if the argument is that we're spending on wingers to the detriment of the strikers, that view does need to be balanced with the fact that we have tried for strikers and had no joy, so it's not necessarily purely by choice we have that imbalance.

[pauliewalnuts]

Swapping sides during a game is a tactical thing.  Having two players for each position is an issue of squad depth.

As for having 4 over £10m, I think that's misleading as Milner should be discounted due to either a) he'll be playing central if he stays or b) he's going to go.  Let's not forget he tried for Zaki and RSC upfront, who would both be £10m+ strikers, so maybe it's not by choice we haven't spent heavily up top?  And if we had a winger comparable to Gabby's ability and age emerging through the squad we would have bought 1 less £10m winger, IMO!

Wow, Zaki and RSC.  As ever, if you're going to limit yourself to buying from other british clubs, it's always going to be hard.

I wouldn't have wanted either player either, but if the argument is that we're spending on wingers to the detriment of the strikers, that view does need to be balanced with the fact that we have tried for strikers and had no joy, so it's not necessarily purely by choice we have that imbalance.

He's been trying for four years now, though, so surely that argument must be wearing a bit thin?

[Risso]

He's been trying for four years now, though, so surely that argument must be wearing a bit thin?

Thin?  As threadbare as a pair of Dave Woodhall's trousers.

[Concrete John]

He's been trying for four years now, though, so surely that argument must be wearing a bit thin?

Has he?  

Joins summer 2006 and no time  - only a midfielder he already knew brought in.

Jan 2007 sings a good'un in the shape of Carew.

Summer 2007, we don't need an expensive first choice as Carew's looking good and Gabby is developing well, so bought a reserve.  Let's skip past that one!

Summer 2008 - from here I'd agree we should/could have been after one.

I'd say it's two years where he's struggled to get us a striker to kick us on a level!

[pauliewalnuts]

He's been trying for four years now, though, so surely that argument must be wearing a bit thin?

Has he?  

Joins summer 2006 and no time  - only a midfielder he already knew brought in.

Jan 2007 sings a good'un in the shape of Carew.

Summer 2007, we don't need an expensive first choice as Carew's looking good and Gabby is developing well, so bought a reserve.  Let's skip past that one!

Summer 2008 - from here I'd agree we should/could have been after one.

I'd say it's two years where he's struggled to get us a striker to kick us on a level!

But surely now you're arguing the opposite - ie that for half of that time, we were't even trying to sign a striker, and for the other half, we tried but failed? *wink*

[Concrete John]

Just trying to offer a balanced few of things, Paulie.  Ever notice that just about everything we argue about on here comes down to strikers?

1.  Two most controversial signings are both strikers.
2.  Style of play is disliked, but arguably suits our strikers who rely on pace and power.
3.  Striker is one of the two postiions we've bought from overseas for.

[Mazrim]

Actually Paulie, I believe I did. But here you go, in more detail. My "evidence" vs as yet to be seen credible (even remotely) evidence to the contrary. I'm not claiming anything as a fact or definitive proof but its a one sided debate thus far as I see it. I look forward to the counter argument if it comes. It is after all what Ive been asking for.

My "says who"...

I gave Martin the assurance that I also wanted to take the team forward. A £30 million striker would be out of our budget but there is money there to be spent on the team

I don’t worry about him [Milner] leaving because he is wanted at this club. We will do everything in our power to keep him

And before I hear "Well he would say that". We've made no secret that other players (who are not wanted) are available.

I think, on the other hand if opportunities arise in which the net number of sell-to-buy doesn’t equal what’s required to take advantage of an opportunity then you may spend the money and I wouldn’t exclude us from that group that may do that

In Randy speak, we dont have to raise the money through sales to buy players. Yes or no?

we are not in some sort of mode in which we are shutting the door on spending on players

If there were a sell-to-buy policy (which there is not),

Right now, we need to look at the current wages paid and make sure that we are paying them to the right folks

My argument has always been: the 'sell to buy' issue refers to wages only, not transfer fees. And its perfectly reasonable too. In fact I would understand if we had to sell to raise transfer fees, but I see no evidence for it.

One of the issues we face, and we have talked about it before and so has MON and others is the issue of the on-going wage bill. This issue needs to be kept in perspective and needs to be understood. It is not just the cost of the transfer...it is the on-going wages. If you don't get that right, you cannot adequately pay your good players much less go onto the market and get new ones. What we see right now is the Club getting a handle on the wage side of the house. This is no different than what we have done once before. This means we have to sell some players...no different than most Premiership Clubs...you see them doing it all the time. Randy has NOT lost his passion for the Club or has he lost his vision of the goal he has always set for the Villa. He has spent more time in the UK in the last 2 months than he has ever done before...he has been focused on the Club and has been working closely with MON. As always, I am NOT going to get into a discussion of transfers BUT I will say that everyone needs to cool down a bit and see what happens.

So then, where is the evidence that
a) We ever planned to sell Milner to raise money for transfers and
b) We in fact need to sell anybody to raise money for transfers.

In my opinion, with plenty of evidence and reasoning to back that up, its all about the wage bill, baby.

[Mazrim]

If we play with two wingers or if we're planning to play with two wingers most of the time, we need four.

I agree that McGeady probably shouldn't be one of them.

Having said that, Young can play as a second striker, Downing and Albrighton probably cant. Downing can supposedly play in midfield, Albrighton and Young probably cant...etc. They're not exactly the same but I'd rather prioritise a striker, right back and playmaker first.

Downing's having a hard enough time playing on the wing at the moment.  I'd say he has to get back to his best before being thinking about being shunted elsewhere.  Young can play as a second striker, but hasn't for over two years now.  We need a proper, honest to goodness striker, who's better than Harewood or Heskey.  How hard can that be?

I agree. We should bought Darren Bent last summer. No doubt about it.

[Risso]

Just trying to offer a balanced few of things, Paulie.  Ever notice that just about everything we argue about on here comes down to strikers?

1.  Two most controversial signings are both strikers.
2.  Style of play is disliked, but arguably suits our strikers who rely on pace and power.
3.  Striker is one of the two postiions we've bought from overseas for.

1) When you say controversial, that's just a posh way of saying "shit" isn't it?
2) Does it?  The numner of chances we created was poor last year, as was our goal tally.
3) It is, let's try it some more.