Breaking News: Bent Signs

[midnite]

No but if true, it's a viscious cycle, Ash will want at least the same if he signs, any potential targets will want more if people know Bent is on 70k.

I just hope this isn't Randy panicking.

wasn't it quoted some where that ash would be on more than that anyway with the new contract that was offered to him?

[PeterWithe]

No but if true, it's a viscious cycle, Ash will want at least the same if he signs, any potential targets will want more if people know Bent is on 70k.

I just hope this isn't Randy panicking.

I doubt its too far above what we are paying, Ireland, Carew, Young & Heskey. Its the market for proven PL striker. Sad but true.

[damon loves JT]

As soon as he bangs in a couple of goals, the whole price tag thing goes away. I liked JPA very much, but he never quite put his transfer fee out of mind.

[Chris Smith]

Have we really become so insular that we cannot accept any other point of view? I don't agree with it but it's just a few paragraphs prompted by McCarthy's comments, and you can see why it might look that way to an outsider.

[philsheard]

From the Telegraph

Lerner had intimated that Villa would be operating a policy of one in, one out, after spending more than £140 million on transfers since buying the Midlands club in 2006. However he has agreed to shatter the club’s transfer record by making a straight-cash offer for the 26 year-old in a clear commitment of support for his under-fire manager Gérard Houllier.
What former manager Martin O’Neill makes of Lerner’s decision to allow Houllier to move for Bent is an intriguing question, and one raised by Wolverhampton Wanderers manager Mick McCarthy yesterday.
O’Neill, a long-time admirer of Bent’s, resigned from Villa five days before the start of the season after learning that the £18 million earned from James Milner’s sale to Manchester City would not be made available to him.
“I wonder what Martin’s thinking,” McCarthy said. “He said to me that they were selling players.”

Errrr - one in one out and sell to buy - that will be the Milner money then you idiot. How many fans does MON have?

And we were selling players - all the crap ones MON paid over the odds for and then didn't play or fell out with. Why don't they get it? Oh yeh because they are all stupid journos...

[Clark W Griswold]

That Telegraph article is utter bollocks. Spurs paid £16m for Bent when they already had Keane, Berbatov and Defoe and a shit defence but nothing was said to mock them as they are such a fashionable media darling club. Now we have the barefaced cheek to spend £18-£19m which could rise to £24m on an even more proven Bent when we have needed a goalscorer for 3 years and need a shot in the arm to climb the table, it's seen as a panic. I think these people should mind their own business, or at least be a bit better informed before spouting this shit. Utter bastard.

[dave.woodhall]

From the Telegraph

Lerner had intimated that Villa would be operating a policy of one in, one out, after spending more than £140 million on transfers since buying the Midlands club in 2006. However he has agreed to shatter the club’s transfer record by making a straight-cash offer for the 26 year-old in a clear commitment of support for his under-fire manager Gérard Houllier.
What former manager Martin O’Neill makes of Lerner’s decision to allow Houllier to move for Bent is an intriguing question, and one raised by Wolverhampton Wanderers manager Mick McCarthy yesterday.
O’Neill, a long-time admirer of Bent s, resigned from Villa five days before the start of the season after learning that the £18 million earned from James Milner’s sale to Manchester City would not be made available to him.
“I wonder what Martin’s thinking,” McCarthy said. “He said to me that they were selling players.

Which is why he bought Marlon Harewood.

[Shrek]

You know thinking about it, I'm going to just trust Randy, he knows what he is doing, he has had his fingers burnt by Martin, hopefully he is now leading us on a route to success.

[Dave]

O’Neill, a long-time admirer of Bent’s...

Maybe he should have bought him when he had the chance then?

[pauliewalnuts]

"O'Neill, a long time admirer of Bent"

Yes, such a massive admirer he wouldn't pay over 8m for him, by all accounts, but would pay 4.5m for the Harewood?

What a load of utter, utter nonsense.

[Chris Smith]

As soon as he bangs in a couple of goals, the whole price tag thing goes away. I liked JPA very much, but he never quite put his transfer fee out of mind.

I keep having the thought that the Villa way is for him to either go 3 months without a goal or to do a Luc Nilis. I'm just being silly though, aren't I? That can't happen.

[PeterWithe]

I'd imagine its a much easier decision to find the £18m when you are facing a very real relegation battle and all it entails.

Still, another time, lets be glad about the most amazing signing I can remember. Unless it all goes tits up.

[curiousorange]

People seem to forget that Tottenham have spent a fuck of a lot of money to get where they've got today. It does annoy me that for every 'bargain' they get (Van Der Vaart is one, it pains me to say) they also spend insane amounts of untested and/or unused players that nobody seems to notice. I've no doubt that had Everton had the constant bankrolling of a Tottenham Hotspur when they finished fourth they'd still be up there.

[Dave]

As soon as he bangs in a couple of goals, the whole price tag thing goes away. I liked JPA very much, but he never quite put his transfer fee out of mind.

I keep having the thought that the Villa way is for him to either go 3 months without a goal or to do a Luc Nilis. I'm just being silly though, aren't I? That can't happen.

One goal in his last eight games.

He's already had his dry spell for the season.

[magic monks]

It's better to not get too hot about anything printed in that rag.

They should worry less about how much we're paying, and more about how much tax their owners aren't. Off-shore tax-dodge Barclay twats.