Reo-Coker set for talks (Meaning Evil)

[villa1]

The thing is, if you let NRC go on a free, you are going to have to bring in a replacement. That player is going to cost us a fee plus wages , whereas NRC's situation should be just wages.

I'd rather pay a fee in addition to wages if it meant we had an improved player on the pitch.

[pauliewalnuts]

The thing is, if you let NRC go on a free, you are going to have to bring in a replacement. That player is going to cost us a fee plus wages , whereas NRC's situation should be just wages.

The fees for a new player when added into the mix might just not pencil in favourably compared to NRC. However, that is for Faulkner and co to sort out. If it works out to our advantage financially and NRC is satisfied, I'd  re-sign him.

True, but NRC knows this, too, so currently his agent will be looking to get him in at a new club by negotiating a deal where - as there is no transfer fee and therefore more money to be squeezed out - he gets a big signing on fee and a bigger pay packet.

If Villa want to keep him, we're going to be dealing with demands from the player which reflect that, so while there is no transfer fee for us to pay, he'll want money up front and more salary.

Given that, I'd rather we looked around for a more accomplished player.

[Dave]

The thing is, if you let NRC go on a free, you are going to have to bring in a replacement. That player is going to cost us a fee plus wages , whereas NRC's situation should be just wages.

The fees for a new player when added into the mix might just not pencil in favourably compared to NRC. However, that is for Faulkner and co to sort out. If it works out to our advantage financially and NRC is satisfied, I'd  re-sign him.

True, but NRC knows this, too, so currently his agent will be looking to get him in at a new club by negotiating a deal where - as there is no transfer fee and therefore more money to be squeezed out - he gets a big signing on fee and a bigger pay packet.

And one could argue that we already bought his replacement in January.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

From what we've seen of Makoun to date, I certainly don't think he's a natural replacement for NRC. Petrov, yes. NRC gives our midfield a bit of bite and with the exception of the Sunderland game, has been one of our better performers this season. I'd be tempted to keep him unless we have a better replacement lined up in the summer. We could always sell him in 12 months time and actually get a fee rather than give him away now.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Time for Petrov and NRC to go.
Petrov has served us well and Reo Coker has in small doses.

We need better though, especially to help out our porous defence.

[Clampy]

Time for Petrov and NRC to go.
Petrov has served us well and Reo Coker has in small doses.

We need better though, especially to help out our porous defence.

I'd be tempted to keep NRC out of the two but they'd both be good players to have on the bench, although at their stage in their careers, i think they'd want one last move.

[not3bad]

Seems to be a real split of opinion over this.  Time for a poll?

[WALTERS WARRIORS]

Think it is time for Reo Coker to go. We need better, a Tim Cahill type player. Makoun will do his job and more with his passing. Not sure what Bradley will bring yet but he could be quite a catch with his energy and experience, even at 23. Think with a pre season and some games under his belt, that Gary Gardner might just be the player we are searching for along with Delph ..........

[TheSandman]

The thing is, if you let NRC go on a free, you are going to have to bring in a replacement. That player is going to cost us a fee plus wages , whereas NRC's situation should be just wages.

The fees for a new player when added into the mix might just not pencil in favourably compared to NRC. However, that is for Faulkner and co to sort out. If it works out to our advantage financially and NRC is satisfied, I'd  re-sign him.

If the replacement is a better player (which isn't exactly the most implausible thing in the world) his fee will pay itself in moving us up the league. Keeping mediocre, limited players makes for a mediocre and limited team and if you are paying the kind of money we will be in wages you need better.

[sid1964]

If we as a club agree to pay NRC £40k a week for another 3 or 4 years then I would lock up our Manager and Chairman in the insane assylum tomorrow!!

He has been here 4 years, and during that time you can count on one hand the number of times he has played well.

With Platini's plans for financial stability due to come into effect in a couple of years time, we need to get rid of the average players on big wages this summer, and NRC is one of those players.

[Merv]

If we as a club agree to pay NRC £40k a week for another 3 or 4 years

I know it hurts, but the truth - and the trouble - is that £40k a week is probably now the average wage for a PL footballer. Maybe even the lower end of average, certainly for a club our size - an established PL club.

[Concrete John]

He has been here 4 years, and during that time you can count on one hand the number of times he has played well.

Think that's grossly unfair for a player that was a regular in a top 6 side.  His role is one of the less eye-catching ones, so while you won't walk away from the game thinking he had a stormer he'll have done his job well.

[WikiVilla]

He's got a good engine and 3 years more left at the top.
He should be skipper when selected (not Ash)

[garyshawsknee]

I think the first year or so of his Villa career started really. I thought he dipped after M'ON messed him around by playing him at RB. I'd offer him another couple of years,on the same money though.

[Salsa Party Animal]

I think we can get rid of both and buy another midfielder who can do the job better with lower wages and sign Bradley on permanent deal this summer.