The Milner Novela... Final episode page 296

[Rip Van We Go Again]

In any other situation, with almost any other manager, i'd say sell and re-invest in other players.

As it's Martin 'UKIP' O'neill, i'd rather we hung onto him.

I appreciate we have a sell to buy policy, but the thought of the dross that could come in disturbs me.

Doesn't the fact that the only reason we'll have the money (if he goes) is because a player MON signed is likely to fetch 2.5 times what we paid for him render that argument ridiculous?

A result with Milner, Chris.
But aren't you forgetting the 'Transfer list six' and the massive amount of money and wages we spent on them?
Will we get 2.5 what we paid for them?
I was also making a point about his reluctance to sign overseas players, which means we could then be shelling out £10m + on the likes of the ghastly Cole, Keane or Doyle.

[Mazrim]

This "sell to buy" thing the gutter press keep harping on about doesn't mean we need the money from sales before we can make any purchases. It just means some players have to go to make way for new ones coming in. That will be the same for almost all clubs as Randy confirmed when he said everybody will have the same policy.

[mshurst]

I agree with Mark Fletcher.

I love Milner and I'd prefer we keep him at Villa Park. However, he's not Villa at heart. At the end of the day if he gets given a bigger pay packet he'll happily leave for Man City. And for £28m I think O'Neill would be silly to keep him, especially as he's only really worth £18m at best (my opinion).

Also, the thing about "UKIP O'Neill" is also a valid point. I love Martin O'Neill, and he's by far the best manager we've had for a while, but surely it's time to look oversea's for new players. We've got enough British players now to still have the highest number, but foreign players tend to have something ... well ... 'classier' about them.

And let's face it, we can get a lot of 'classy' players for £28m + FxPro sponorship money.

[Chris Smith]

In any other situation, with almost any other manager, i'd say sell and re-invest in other players.

As it's Martin 'UKIP' O'neill, i'd rather we hung onto him.

I appreciate we have a sell to buy policy, but the thought of the dross that could come in disturbs me.

Doesn't the fact that the only reason we'll have the money (if he goes) is because a player MON signed is likely to fetch 2.5 times what we paid for him render that argument ridiculous?

A result with Milner, Chris.
But aren't you forgetting the 'Transfer list six' and the massive amount of money and wages we spent on them?
Will we get 2.5 what we paid for them?
I was also making a point about his reluctance to sign overseas players, which means we could then be shelling out £10m + on the likes of the ghastly Cole, Keane or Doyle.

There is always going to be a turnover of players, if we want to sign new players a few others will have to leave it's the same at all clubs and most of those leaving will be because they haven't been able to establish themselves as regulars but all will have been paid high wages while they've been there. It's how football works.

It's an easy game to point at Sidwell and say that's what you get with MON but that ignores Friedel, Dunne, Collins, Cuellar, Warnock, Milner etc. Where a player comes from is irrelevant it's whether they're the right player that matters but on the evidence of the WC so far there aren't an abundance of players in our range who would fit into that category.

[AsTallAsLions]

This "sell to buy" thing the gutter press keep harping on about doesn't mean we need the money from sales before we can make any purchases. It just means some players have to go to make way for new ones coming in. That will be the same for almost all clubs as Randy confirmed when he said everybody will have the same policy.

You just denied sell to buy policy and then gave a textbook definition of it.

When people refer to sell to buy, that's generally exactly what they mean.

[Merv]

I read sell to buy and take it to mean that we (or whichever club being discussed) cannot buy a single player until we sell a player. I don't think that's the case with us - we'll have a transfer budget even if no-one leaves this summer. But we do have a handful of players who clearly don't feature in the manager's plans and if he wants to make several signings, then it's natural some current ones need to be moved on. Which happens at every club, every close season.

[AsTallAsLions]

I read sell to buy and take it to mean that we (or whichever club being discussed) cannot buy a single player until we sell a player. I don't think that's the case with us - we'll have a transfer budget even if no-one leaves this summer. But we do have a handful of players who clearly don't feature in the manager's plans and if he wants to make several signings, then it's natural some current ones need to be moved on. Which happens at every club, every close season.

If we need to sell a player in order to balance out a purchase then it's still sell to buy. It doesn't matter if we sell before we buy or after we buy, that's where the money will be coming from.

In the past, money has come from low-interest loans supplied by Randy Lerner. The implication now is that the money will come from whatever is already in the bank and will be replaced directly by the money raised from sales.

[Mazrim]

This "sell to buy" thing the gutter press keep harping on about doesn't mean we need the money from sales before we can make any purchases. It just means some players have to go to make way for new ones coming in. That will be the same for almost all clubs as Randy confirmed when he said everybody will have the same policy.

You just denied sell to buy policy and then gave a textbook definition of it.

I would consider sell to buy to mean that you need the money from sales to make purchases, so no, I would disagree with you there. Certainly that's the way the press are angling it.

They're saying we need money from sales to buy. I say we do not, but getting rid of players we dont need or who havent performed and who are taking up resources and squad places is good practice. That is also what I believe Randy Lerner was saying.

[JUAN PABLO]

ASTON VILLA will not offer James Milner a new £70,000-a-week contract until after the World Cup.

And that keeps alive Manchester City's hopes of signing the England midfielder this summer.

It was thought that Milner went to South Africa with a deal on the table - and both parties deadlocked over an agreement.

But Milner has still to be formally offered fresh terms.

The £30million-rated player is due for more talks with boss Martin O'Neill and the Villa board when he returns home, with figures yet to be discussed. O'Neill promised Milner a new contract in March even though his current deal has two years to run.

City tried to nab the former Newcastle player with a £20m offer last month.

But that was swiftly rejected by Villa who are bracing themselves for a second approach.

[BannedUserIAT]

Bracing themselves. Anyone else picturing MoN, Randy and the General all sitting around the fax machine, gripping their seats so hard that their fingers bleed?

[mshurst]

...and they all start shaking when they hear the machine start warming up.

Squeeky-bum-time!

[Mazrim]

Man City dont send faxes. Garry "Bell end" Cook appears in a cloud of pure gaseous evil and tries to tempt you.
If you refuse him you will called a bottler.

[Brend'Watkins]

I read sell to buy and take it to mean that we (or whichever club being discussed) cannot buy a single player until we sell a player. I don't think that's the case with us - we'll have a transfer budget even if no-one leaves this summer. But we do have a handful of players who clearly don't feature in the manager's plans and if he wants to make several signings, then it's natural some current ones need to be moved on. Which happens at every club, every close season.

If we need to sell a player in order to balance out a purchase then it's still sell to buy. It doesn't matter if we sell before we buy or after we buy, that's where the money will be coming from.

In the past, money has come from low-interest loans supplied by Randy Lerner. The implication now is that the money will come from whatever is already in the bank and will be replaced directly by the money raised from sales.

Doesn't every club do that?  

If they didn't then they would either be letting player contracts run out (commercial suicide) or would have an enormous squad on their hands with lots of aging players (commercial suicide).  

All squads evolve and it makes sense for any club regardless of how rich they are to move players on and bring in new, hopefully better players.  We have identified existing squad players that are not going to improve us who are no longer in our plans any further so they will make way for better players.  

That is not the same as sell to buy.

[mshurst]

Man City dont send faxes. Garry "Bell end" Cook appears in a cloud of pure gaseous evil and tries to tempt you.
If you refuse him you will called a bottler.

"Come to City else thou shalt pummel yee with pound coins!

[peter w]

Its not that they have a bigger ambition its just that they have the ability to achieve it quicker than us with their money. Man City will either win the title or be very close within the next 3 seasons and the CL before that. Milner by joining them will play his best years at the very top of the game - where will we be at the same time? Still hoping to break into the top 4?

Although the wages are a big incentive to jump ship also, playing at the very top is what drives any player worth their salt. Why shouldn't he go?

Is he guaranteed a game for Man City? They already have shitloads of midfielders, and if it doesn't work out for him he'll quickly be replaced by someone else in the next transfer window. I'm sure he would trouser lots of money in the process, but that's not really the be all and end all if you end up winning nothing. They should have challenged for the title last season, and yet managed to royally bugger up getting into the Champions League which should have been a minimum requirement considering the money that was spent and the players that they had.

He'll be told exactly what the managers plans are for him before he makes up his mind whether to go or not. He's unlikely to be told the shirt is yours come what may, but likely that it will be his, he will have to fight for it to keep it, and then here about the manager's plans for Man City and the future. Its bound to be a lot more exciting than what we will be offering. And, yes, richer.