Aston Villa manager Paul Lambert denies rift with Darren Bent

[eastie]

The fact is that most of the teams who might sign him won't because he's not good enough. Everton don't need him, his lack of work would ruin their system. Spurs already have Defoe, a technically better and more dynamic version of Bent. As for United, City, Chelsea and Arsenal, they're no more likely to sign him than they are to appoint Mick McCarthy as manager. Only Liverpool might be tempted, and even then I don't think Rodgers would pay the money required on a player he'd probably imagine is not technically up to his style of play, and he can get better value abroad.

As far as I'm concerned, the only options for him would be QPR (definitely dumb enough) or staying put. It still surprises me that some fans want to build the side around a player it's nearly impossible to imagine any of the better sides in the league would sign.

Qpr or Liverpool maybe but I doubt we would get anywhere near what we paid for him- would be surprised if we got much more than £12m.

[Clampy]

I seem to remember last season up until he got himself injured, fans were moaning that Bent was not getting any service under McLeish. The same thing is happening again this season and  all of a sudden it's time to sell him.

[Clampy]

We'd get a lot more than £12m for him.

[Risso]

I seem to remember last season up until he got himself injured, fans were moaning that Bent was not getting any service under McLeish. The same thing is happening again this season and  all of a sudden it's time to sell him.

Indeed Clampy.  The football is supposed to be much better than under McLeish, but let's face it, it hasn't been a huge improvement so far, and he'd arther play a big lump like Benteke than work out how to get the best out of Darren Bent.

[eastie]

I seem to remember last season up until he got himself injured, fans were moaning that Bent was not getting any service under McLeish. The same thing is happening again this season and  all of a sudden it's time to sell him.

To be clear I'd be happy to keep him , he's a goalscorer and we need goals but if lambert is going to play this system then bent doesn't really fit into it - if we keep bent we need to play to his strengths and provide quality service from the flanks.

[eastie]

We'd get a lot more than £12m for him.

The longer he struggles and the less he plays then the more his valuation will drop .
He is no more valuable now than when spurs sold him- we paid big dosh because it was January and we were desperate to get him.

[dave.woodhall]

We'd get a lot more than £12m for him.

The longer he struggles and the less he plays then the more his valuation will drop .
He is no more valuable now than when spurs sold him- we paid big dosh because it was January and we were desperate to get him.

Strange how you now reckon we paid over the odds when at the time we all said what a bargain we'd bought compared to Andy Carroll and Fernando Torres and what double standards the media were using when not criticising the fee paid for those two.

[Clampy]

We'd get a lot more than £12m for him.

The longer he struggles and the less he plays then the more his valuation will drop .

Not to the extent where he'd cost £4m less than Connor Wickham. If we only got £12m for him it would be a waste of time selling him.

[Clampy]

We'd get a lot more than £12m for him.

The longer he struggles and the less he plays then the more his valuation will drop .
He is no more valuable now than when spurs sold him- we paid big dosh because it was January and we were desperate to get him.

We paid big dosh for him because we were buying a 25 goal a season man and Sunderland wanted compensating for him. They've only just got round to replacing him.

[eastie]

We'd get a lot more than £12m for him.

The longer he struggles and the less he plays then the more his valuation will drop .
He is no more valuable now than when spurs sold him- we paid big dosh because it was January and we were desperate to get him.

Strange how you now reckon we paid over the odds when at the time we all said what a bargain we'd bought compared to Andy Carroll and Fernando Torres and what double standards the media were using when not criticising the fee paid for those two.

Bent at the time was banging in the goals on wear side , the longer he is out of our team or not scoring the more his valuation will drop, we needed him and his goals kept us up but we played to his strengths- now we are not and he is struggling for service when he plays.

Make no mistake we have had value for money from bent and far better value than Carroll but if we are not supplying him with chances then he doesn't really fit into our style anymore.

Also he is 2 years further down the line and approaching 30 so not so much mileage left in him for someone paying big money.

[dave.woodhall]

We'd get a lot more than £12m for him.

The longer he struggles and the less he plays then the more his valuation will drop .
He is no more valuable now than when spurs sold him- we paid big dosh because it was January and we were desperate to get him.

Strange how you now reckon we paid over the odds when at the time we all said what a bargain we'd bought compared to Andy Carroll and Fernando Torres and what double standards the media were using when not criticising the fee paid for those two.

Bent at the time was banging in the goals on wear side , the longer he is out of our team or not scoring the more his valuation will drop, we needed him and his goals kept us up but we played to his strengths- now we are not and he is struggling for service when he plays.

Make no mistake we have had value for money from bent and far better value than Carroll but if we are not supplying him with chances then he doesn't really fit into our style anymore.

You're still implying we paid more than he was worth.

[eastie]

We'd get a lot more than £12m for him.

The longer he struggles and the less he plays then the more his valuation will drop .
He is no more valuable now than when spurs sold him- we paid big dosh because it was January and we were desperate to get him.

We paid big dosh for him because we were buying a 25 goal a season man and Sunderland wanted compensating for him. They've only just got round to replacing him.

Yes clampy , we were buying  a 25 goals a season man but he certainly hasn't came close to that here- will struggle to get 10 the way things are looking.

[eastie]

Darren bent was worth the money we paid - without him we would probably have gone down .  We will not get back what we paid for him now though in my opinion.

Bent delivered when we had downing and young, it's not his fault they have left and his supply line has all but gone.

I like Darren bent and would love us to be playing a style where he's getting good balls into the box and banging in the goals, but the manager has his own style of play and we have to allow him to set up the team how he wants to play .

[Percy McCarthy]

To be fair, I thought he was well worth what we paid for him, and he probably would be if we played counter-attacking football.

However, having watched him a lot more, I think that if we want to play a passing game with lots of possession, he's a waste of a shirt.

[Monty]

To be fair, I thought he was well worth what we paid for him, and he probably would be if we played counter-attacking football.

However, having watched him a lot more, I think that if we want to play a passing game with lots of possession, he's a waste of a shirt.

There comes a point where every successful team is playing a possession game. The better you get, the more other teams will sit back against you, the more you'll have to learn to break down massed defences because you just don't get enough opportunities to counter-attack to base your whole game plan around it. If a striker is a waste of a shirt playing in the most basic form of possession game, then he's incapable of being a starter in a top-4 team, and therefore (if you ask me) not worth £18m rising to £24m.