The Milner Novela... Final episode page 296

[Villa'Zawg]

Miner is a good player but he's really not worth 35m as some are suggesting.

The post suggesting he's better than Gerrard and Lampard were at his age is ridiculous...

It isn't a ridiculous suggestion at all.

I commented that he was better for his age than either of those two players were and I'll happily stand by that opinion. I pointed out that Gerrard and Lampard were a year or two older than Milner when they had what I regard as their breakthrough seasons.

Milner was 23 years old at the start of this season and scored 12 goals wihilst transitioning from winger to centre midfield.

The examples given for Gerrard and Lampard breakthrough seasons are funnily enough, when they were each a year or two older than Milner.

Nobody has put forward a view that Lampard was as influential for his team at the same or earlier age, which isn't surprising given that he was already 23 by the time he made his debut for Chelsea and he scored only 5 goals in his first 2 seasons there. Gerrard was 24 at the start of season when he scored 13 goals. Prior to that he had only scored 20 times in 170 PL matches and a total of 28 from 240 games in all club competitions.

Milner, one of the youngest players and goalscorers of all-time in the English top division, is at least as good as those two were at his age, in my opinion.

The original point I was making is that if we are to sell him, we should be thinking of a price equivalent or close to what you would value a 5 year younger version of Gerrard or Lampard.

[Ad@m]

We already have the issue that sixth, sixth, sixth is not progress at all for players who want to play in the champions league (and it gets harder to convince players we are a better bet for it than city if we keep selling them their colleagues)  

For that reason I think this decision is about much more than keeping James Miner.

This is going to be slightly off-topic but this sort of bullshit really does wind me up.

Those three sixth position finishes have seen us finish 16 points adrift of 4th place in 2007/08, 10 points adrift in 08/09 and then just six points adrift of 4th in 09/10.  On top of this in 08/09 we were in the top 4 for the majority of the season and had a cracking run in the UEFA til MON chucked it, then this year we've had an excellent cup season (Rapid Vienna and some dodgy refereeing decisions aside).

Progress is clear to see and I don't think the players (despite being footballers) are too stupid to see it.

So back on to topic!  Man City are using standard unsettling tactics by making this offer.  It wouldn't surprise me if we start to see headlines in the press along the lines of "Barry tells Milner to move" etc, etc.  It's just the next step in the big/rich-club-steals-player-process used by Man Utd, Liverpool, Real Madrid, etc over and over again.

Just like we didn't have to sell Barry the year Liverpool came calling we don't have to sell Milner now.  The money isn't needed by the club.  He's also got two years left on his contract so we can keep him for at least another season and still get a transfer fee for him.

I'm really not sure what I want to see happen.  If we can get £30m+ for Milner and use that money to buy a striker and a replacement for Milner (which would most likely have to come from abroad at those prices) then I'd say take it.  I'm just not sure those players are available and I certainly don't know who they are!

[wookster]

Can someone explain why spurs and everton etc have all tied their players to new contracts before the world cup? Whereas we 'are happy' to wait till after the world cup.

Are Randy and Martin thick?

Milner should have been signed up before his hea was turned!

Man City come knocking with their bottomless pit of cash and the fact someone has a 2 or 4 year contract makes sod all difference as to whether a player stays or go.

If they want him they'll end up paying well overthe odds like they did with Lescott, they seem to get their man eventually.  Chequebook talks

[supertom]

If we do indeed sell, we simply have to extort crazy money from City. 35 mill seems right. If Lescott cost upwards of 20 mill, Milner should be at least 35mill.

Much as Milner is our best player and most consistent. If you replace him with 3 good quality 10 mill players, say two midfielders and a decent striker, then the side has been improved.

At a minimum, Milner will require two class players to replace him IMO, because of how much he brings to the side.

[Clampy]

Miner is a good player but he's really not worth 35m as some are suggesting.

I don't think people are saying he's worth £35m, they're maybe suggesting it's what we should try and get for him. Everton did'nt want to lose Lescott, so they put a way over the top price on his head, and Man City stupidly paid it.

If it comes down to it (and i'd rather he signs a new contract, than leave) I've got no objections to them paying us way over the odds for the inconvenience of us losing our best player.

[Dave]

The original point I was making is that if we are to sell him, we should be thinking of a price equivalent or close to what you would value a 5 year younger version of Gerrard or Lampard.

That price would probably be around the £30m that most people seem to say they would be happy with though.

[TimTheVillain]

On a positive slant, what if.

We swap Milner for £10 million PLUS;

Bellamy - £8 mill
Ireland - £7 mill
Sean Wright Philips - £10 mill

Yes, a £35 mill fee in total , but Man Citeh are the wealthist club on the planet as they keep telling us.

Then we could go and get a right back - £7 million would get a great one.

The proceeds frpm the Summer sale will probably add £20 million to the £3.5 we got for Gardner, so without even touching the Sky money, we'd have the ability to build some squad for next season.

Imagine:-

Freidel

New RB
Collins
Dunne
Warnock

SWP
Petrrov
Ireland
Downing / Delph

Gabby / The Fonz
Bellamy / Carew

Plus a few more signings.

[Villa'Zawg]

The original point I was making is that if we are to sell him, we should be thinking of a price equivalent or close to what you would value a 5 year younger version of Gerrard or Lampard.

That price would probably be around the £30m that most people seem to say they would be happy with though.

They were reported to be willing to pay £40m for Terry last summer, at 31 and with no sell on value. They're rumoured to have spent £47m buying Tevez. I think £30m would represent Man City's first bargain in about 3 years.

[PaulTheVillan]

The original point I was making is that if we are to sell him, we should be thinking of a price equivalent or close to what you would value a 5 year younger version of Gerrard or Lampard.

That price would probably be around the £30m that most people seem to say they would be happy with though.

They were reported to be willing to pay £40m for Terry last summer, at 31 and with no sell on value. They're rumoured to have spent £47m buying Tevez. I think £30m would represent Man City's first bargain in about 3 years.

Terry was 28 when they were chasing him last summer.

Why does there have to be a sell on value? If they signed him and his performance took them to the CL or on them a trophy then it's money well spent.

[TimTheVillain]

Simply put, if we do do a deal, let's fleece the bastards.

[Greg N'Ash]

We already have the issue that sixth, sixth, sixth is not progress at all for players who want to play in the champions league (and it gets harder to convince players we are a better bet for it than city if we keep selling them their colleagues)  

For that reason I think this decision is about much more than keeping James Miner.

This is going to be slightly off-topic but this sort of bullshit really does wind me up.

Those three sixth position finishes have seen us finish 16 points adrift of 4th place in 2007/08, 10 points adrift in 08/09 and then just six points adrift of 4th in 09/10. !

so if we were to finish 5th next season but finish 7 points behind 4th, you'd  be claiming we've gone backwards would you?

[Dave]

Imagine:-

Freidel

New RB
Collins
Dunne
Warnock

SWP
Petrrov
Ireland
Downing / Delph

Gabby / The Fonz
Bellamy / Carew

I can only assume we're buying SWP to prevent him from having his one good game per season when he plays us?

Why the theoretical wingers you have are Downing and Wright-Phillips with no Ashley Young I cannot fathom.

[Villa'Zawg]

The original point I was making is that if we are to sell him, we should be thinking of a price equivalent or close to what you would value a 5 year younger version of Gerrard or Lampard.

That price would probably be around the £30m that most people seem to say they would be happy with though.

They were reported to be willing to pay £40m for Terry last summer, at 31 and with no sell on value. They're rumoured to have spent £47m buying Tevez. I think £30m would represent Man City's first bargain in about 3 years.

Terry was 28 when they were chasing him last summer.

Why does there have to be a sell on value? If they signed him and his performance took them to the CL or on them a trophy then it's money well spent.

It must have been a tough old season for him because he's 32 next month.

I'm not going to bother explaining why it is better to have a sell on value.

[Guy M]

Can someone explain why spurs and everton etc have all tied their players to new contracts before the world cup? Whereas we 'are happy' to wait till after the world cup.

Are Randy and Martin thick?

Milner should have been signed up before his hea was turned!

Yes, clearly it's just us that this happens to.

From the Liverpool Echo:

A number of Toffees stars are being linked with moves away from Merseyside, including Rodwell and Mikel Arteta, who is reported to be on the radar of Manchester City and Arsenal.

While Tim Cahill has committed his long-term future to the Blues, Steven Pienaar has postponed making a decision about his new deal until after the World Cup.

How are Carrick and Berbatov getting on at Spurs these days?

I was going to say that Everton *might* have found it easier, seeing as there season was over a good fortnight (if not more) before ours. If the papers had been full of Villa discussing deals while we were still in the run for 4th, people would have been criticising the management for not letting the players concentrate on the football.

And even if Milner et al had signed new contracts a few weeks ago, if Citeh come in with a £30m+ bid and having spent a few weeks having his head turned while away with England, the contract would have been worth as little as his current contract.

[Greg N'Ash]

The original point I was making is that if we are to sell him, we should be thinking of a price equivalent or close to what you would value a 5 year younger version of Gerrard or Lampard.

That price would probably be around the £30m that most people seem to say they would be happy with though.

They were reported to be willing to pay £40m for Terry last summer, at 31 and with no sell on value. They're rumoured to have spent £47m buying Tevez. I think £30m would represent Man City's first bargain in about 3 years.

Terry was 28 when they were chasing him last summer.

Why does there have to be a sell on value? If they signed him and his performance took them to the CL or on them a trophy then it's money well spent.

It must have been a tough old season for him because he's 32 next month.

I'm not going to bother explaining why it is better to have a sell on value.

erm he's  29 according to wiki. born 1980