January Transfer Thread: Speculation, Lies, Absolute Cr*p and Bosman Rumours

[paul_e]

Ah,  TSM's legacy a 36year old goalkeeper who's looking his age and has 3 1/2years on 55k a week left.

With his transfer being about 3.5m and him probably wanting a signing fee I reckon we're looking at spending the best part of £20m on him, to have been first choice for 1 year and with no possibility of getting anything back on him.

Hard to not see Lerners point about wages when you look at it like that.

[VillaAlways]

Ah,  TSM's legacy a 36year old goalkeeper who's looking his age and has 3 1/2years on 55k a week left.

With his transfer being about 3.5m and him probably wanting a signing fee I reckon we're looking at spending the best part of £20m on him, to have been first choice for 1 year and with no possibility of getting anything back on him.

Hard to not see Lerners point about wages when you look at it like that.

He sanctioned it,like many other deals.Not our fault he didn't employ anybody with a football brain to advise him.Hardly the right time to put on the brakes when we're at huge risk of relegation and set to lose millions.Still,we the fans will suffer for his utter incompetance

[eastie]

Given was a class keeper when we got him - the fee and wage were the going rate , a 5 yr deal however was a strange one.

[dicedlam]

Given was a class keeper when we got him - the fee and wage were the going rate , a 5 yr deal however was a strange one.

Randy probably thought his age was not an issue having just let go a forty year old to Tottenham? He probably thought Given was a youngster in comparision and looked a decent deal.

[eastie]

Given was a class keeper when we got him - the fee and wage were the going rate , a 5 yr deal however was a strange one.

Randy probably thought his age was not an issue having just let go a forty year old to Tottenham? He probably thought Given was a youngster in comparision and looked a decent deal.

Yes i would think he was signed on the expectation that he would probably be our 1st choice for a lot longer than one season - a 3 year deal would have been more sensible .

[dicedlam]

I think if it wasn't for his injury issue's he would still of been number one.

[eastie]

I think if it wasn't for his injury issue's he would still of been number one.

I have every faith in him should guzan be injured, we have 2 decent keepers.

[VillaAlways]

I think if it wasn't for his injury issue's he would still of been number one.

Many on here were concerned about his injury record so why weren't the management/board?Everything about Villa seems to be about taking huge gambles,which is what is happening with our Premier League status now

[Phil from the upper holte]

I think he signed a 5 year deal (Given) because we wouldn't match Man City's wages so he signed a longer deal to make up the difference

[paul_e]

To clarify, the given deal, on paper before he signed, looked ok other than the slightly elongated terms (as mentioned 3 years would've been the right deal) but in hindsight it was  shocking signing.  Much like Nzogbia, Ireland, Dunne, Warnock, Collins, Cuellar, etc.

We've had a shit time of it in the transfer market in the last few years but most of the signings (exclude Heskey and Hutton) have looked fine before the event and generally have been happy with them.  I genuinely can't think of another club who have ever had so many big signings fail to meet expectations.

[eastie]

I think he signed a 5 year deal (Given) because we wouldn't match Man City's wages so he signed a longer deal to make up the difference

Pity there are not more contracts weighted in favour of apperances rather than a huge basic wage whether they play or not , it would give players more incentive to perform and keep their place.

[eastie]

Big sam on tv saying warnock chose leeds because they offered him a longer deal whereas sam only offered till the end of season deal with a view to an extension.

[Malandro]

Its not Shay's injuries that concerns me, he appears to have lost his doughnut

[LeeS]

I think he signed a 5 year deal (Given) because we wouldn't match Man City's wages so he signed a longer deal to make up the difference

Pity there are not more contracts weighted in favour of apperances rather than a huge basic wage whether they play or not , it would give players more incentive to perform and keep their place.

It would also make them extremely disgruntled if they lost their place. We've all heard about players falling out with the manager and sometimes it must be the manager's fault. That player is then hung out to dry with no salary. It is easy to say it but harder to implement.

[eastie]

I think he signed a 5 year deal (Given) because we wouldn't match Man City's wages so he signed a longer deal to make up the difference

Pity there are not more contracts weighted in favour of apperances rather than a huge basic wage whether they play or not , it would give players more incentive to perform and keep their place.

It would also make them extremely disgruntled if they lost their place. We've all heard about players falling out with the manager and sometimes it must be the manager's fault. That player is then hung out to dry with no salary. It is easy to say it but harder to implement.

I wouldnt say no salary but a basic salary  , with a large incentive based on appearances - it would help stop players sitting on crazy wages in the reserves with no interest in leaving.

I agree there will always be exceptions where players get frozen out but it would also make it more viable for them to move on - many players sit on big wages in the reserves because other clubs cany match their wages.