Ashley Young

[Mazrim]

I think all the best wingers should be encouraged to drive infield to suit, otherwise they become predictable. But sorry Tim, either you havent been paying attention or you should have gone to specsavers, because recently Young has played wide.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm not fucking sniping.

Right, so one entire sentence later:

I'm delighted that we chose to spend the money from Milner on Bent.

What's that if it isn't sniping?

It isn't sniping, it is just a bit of much needed context for this sentence...

... Our owner then went out and bought the most expensive player in our history, a proven goalscorer, for 18 million, rising to 24 million pounds...

What is the point of you and toronto blowing Randy's trumpet over signing Bent and then getting het up about my pointing out that the money for that transfer was raised by selling Milner 4 months earlier?

"It's only the Milner money"

It is still money he could very well have stuck in his pocket.

And what if it rises to 24m? And what about Makoun? And what about the fact that we took Stephen Ireland as part of the Milner deal?

Some of us can see Lerner - who is not without his faults, and we've seen some of them this season - has consistently put his hand in his pocket. I seem to recall a lot of people telling us prior to January that the spending had stopped, it was sell to buy, we wouldn't be spending money in January etc etc, then we go out and smash our transfer record, but hey ho, that's still not "enough" for some - it's "only the Milner money".

We're all entitled to our opinions, but honestly, if i were Lerner and had read some of the stuff on here prior to January (and since, in some cases), some of that "Young Doug" nonsense that got posted, I'd have told us all to stick it up our ungrateful arses and walked away from the whole thing.

Thank God he's obviously a more patient man than me.

[Mazrim]

Its true that "the Milner money" could have been absorbed by mounting losses. But it wasnt and I dont think this summer will be any different either.
Randy's Villa spend big money in the summer, when there is a manager to spend it.

[dave.woodhall]

It's worth remembering that at the time Randy forked out the money for Bent, the general media concensus was that we were skint and he was looking to cut back on his investment.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's worth remembering that at the time Randy forked out the money for Bent, the general media concensus was that we were skint and he was looking to cut back on his investment.

Absolutely.

Not only was that their consensus, but they also took every opportunity to remind us of it. When Bent was signed, it threw them somewhat.

[Risso]

It's worth remembering that at the time Randy forked out the money for Bent, the general media concensus was that we were skint and he was looking to cut back on his investment.

Very true.  But there is also a possible counterpoint to that that says that if we went down, the losses and money he'd need to put in would be so much more.  So was the Bent money part of the ongoing long term vision of the club, or was it a result of the position we found ourselves in after Christmas.  I think it's entirely possible that if we hadn't bought Bent, we'd be staring relegation in the face now, such has been his impact.  I'm not for one minute suggesting he was a panic signing, but would we have bought him if we were safely away from the relegation spot in say, 9th place?  I guess it's impossible to answer either way, but I suspect not.

[Simon Ward]

It's worth remembering that at the time Randy forked out the money for Bent, the general media concensus was that we were skint and he was looking to cut back on his investment.

Absolutely.

Not only was that their consensus, but they also took every opportunity to remind us of it.

Gone a bit quiet on that front since!

[Concrete John]

It's worth remembering that at the time Randy forked out the money for Bent, the general media concensus was that we were skint and he was looking to cut back on his investment.

Very true.  But there is also a possible counterpoint to that that says that if we went down, the losses and money he'd need to put in would be so much more.  So was the Bent money part of the ongoing long term vision of the club, or was it a result of the position we found ourselves in after Christmas.  I think it's entirely possible that if we hadn't bought Bent, we'd be staring relegation in the face now, such has been his impact.  I'm not for one minute suggesting he was a panic signing, but would we have bought him if we were safely away from the relegation spot in say, 9th place?  I guess it's impossible to answer either way, but I suspect not.

I can see it two ways:-
1.  Randy is happy to spend and the manager problems were the only reason why we didn't.  So when January came round he had a big wad burning a hole in his pocket and Gezza said a goal scorer was our highest priority
2.  Randy wanted to cut back spending, but the situation we were in forced his hand.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[Mazrim]

We've needed a striker like Bent for years so I would argue that Randy knew that, Houllier definitely knew that and so it was a part of the long and short term strategy. In fact strategy hardly comes into it. Its more raw basic logic.

- Are you a football club?
- Do you want to win football matches?
- Do you want to fork out for a bloke who massively helps in that regard?

I completely reject any notion that Randy would only fork out for a player from a difficult position. Downing, Milner, Young and so on were not bought on this basis and neither was Bent.

[Villa'Zawg]

...
"It's only the Milner money"

It is still money he could very well have stuck in his pocket.

And what if it rises to 24m? And what about Makoun? And what about the fact that we took Stephen Ireland as part of the Milner deal?

Some of us can see Lerner - who is not without his faults, and we've seen some of them this season - has consistently put his hand in his pocket. I seem to recall a lot of people telling us prior to January that the spending had stopped, it was sell to buy, we wouldn't be spending money in January etc etc, then we go out and smash our transfer record, but hey ho, that's still not "enough" for some - it's "only the Milner money".

We're all entitled to our opinions, but honestly, if i were Lerner and had read some of the stuff on here prior to January (and since, in some cases), some of that "Young Doug" nonsense that got posted, I'd have told us all to stick it up our ungrateful arses and walked away from the whole thing.

Thank God he's obviously a more patient man than me.

If there are posters saying "it's only the Milner money" and calling him "young Doug" then maybe it would be fair for you to accuse them of sniping. That isn't me though, I don't refer to him as young Doug and my comment was "I'm delighted that we chose to spend the money from Milner on Bent. "

That's one thing, the question of a sell-to-buy strategy is different. Back in January last year O'Neill was asked about his plans to bring in much needed striker reinforcements and he said, "We are not looking at players at this minute because we have to sell.", "Do I have to sell to buy? We wouldn't be the only club in that position."

Since he said that, we've sold Gardner, Davies, Shorey, Sidwell and Milner and brought in Ireland, Makoun and Bent for roughly the same amount i.e. sell-to-buy.

It could of course be coincidence but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask whether the strategy changed after the summer of 2009 and whether the board intends to continue to invest in the squad over and above what can be raised through player sales.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's worth remembering that at the time Randy forked out the money for Bent, the general media concensus was that we were skint and he was looking to cut back on his investment.

Very true.  But there is also a possible counterpoint to that that says that if we went down, the losses and money he'd need to put in would be so much more.  So was the Bent money part of the ongoing long term vision of the club, or was it a result of the position we found ourselves in after Christmas.  I think it's entirely possible that if we hadn't bought Bent, we'd be staring relegation in the face now, such has been his impact.  I'm not for one minute suggesting he was a panic signing, but would we have bought him if we were safely away from the relegation spot in say, 9th place?  I guess it's impossible to answer either way, but I suspect not.

Does it make any difference, though?

We were in a really bad place for the first time since he bought us, and he did the right thing.

I also agree, without Bent's goals, we'd probably have been relegated.

[Concrete John]

I completely reject any notion that Randy would only fork out for a player from a difficult position. Downing, Milner, Young and so on were not bought on this basis and neither was Bent.

Although I generally agree, since those players were brought in we've had this concern over the wagebill raised, the comments from MON Villadawg mentions above and a whole summer where we did have a manager no players were bought in.

I doubt Randy intended for it to be a permanent departure from our previous spending strategy, more a case of being more prudent until we got a handle on things again, but it does raise the question of whether he went back to his old ways because we got to the position he wanted or because it was necessary.     

[pauliewalnuts]

That's one thing, the question of a sell-to-buy strategy is different. Back in January last year O'Neill was asked about his plans to bring in much needed striker reinforcements and he said, "We are not looking at players at this minute because we have to sell.", "Do I have to sell to buy? We wouldn't be the only club in that position."

Since he said that, we've sold Gardner, Davies, Shorey, Sidwell and Milner and brought in Ireland, Makoun and Bent for roughly the same amount i.e. sell-to-buy

That's where I disagree.

Even if the figures out match the figures in  - and I can't be bothered to check the figures - that is not evidence that there's a sell to buy policy.

It is evidence of someone doing some financial housekeeping, though, which is what all clubs do, and is what all managers have to do at some point.

The disappointing thing is that Martin decided he didn't want to do it.

[Mazrim]

I completely reject any notion that Randy would only fork out for a player from a difficult position. Downing, Milner, Young and so on were not bought on this basis and neither was Bent.

Although I generally agree, since those players were brought in we've had this concern over the wagebill raised, the comments from MON Villadawg mentions above and a whole summer where we did have a manager no players were bought in.

I doubt Randy intended for it to be a permanent departure from our previous spending strategy, more a case of being more prudent until we got a handle on things again, but it does raise the question of whether he went back to his old ways because we got to the position he wanted or because it was necessary.     

I dont think it was a case of suspending and/or returning to ways. More like MON not being arsed to trim the squad of players he wasnt using who took up huge portions of the wage bill before being allowed to continue spending.

Room was made in the wage bill for some new players and so Ireland (unfortunately) and Bent were signed on relatively extravagant contracts. Ireland before the season had even got underway so it could be argued league position was not a factor. Nor was it when we signed Bent either I suspect.
We needed him, whether to stay in the league or challenge for honours, and we got him.

[DeeBoy1]

It's really weird this, I could swear that the title of this thread is a plain and simple 'Ashley Young'...