Lambert Out?

[dave.woodhall]

And therein lies the rub, as I believe Shakespeare said.

[Clampy]

I don't think we should assume that Bent's time is up. He did'nt freeze him out straight away like he did with other players.

[Rigadon]

Bents injury record is pretty mixed since he's been at villa.  Maybe they're worried a move won't happen as a result of him getting injured again hence him not playing.  Seems pretty clear to me that he is our only saleable asset that would drum up the required funds to add some proven quality to the areas of our game that are most required (midfield in my opinion).  If risking him if they see an injury around the corner meant we risked not being able to rebuild its understandable that he isn't playing.  Bent, 29 soon,  might agree too, we don't know.

[Chico Hamilton III]

He's on 47 games for us at the moment.

Do we have to pay Sunderland if he reaches 50 or something?

Does anybody know what the clause is?

Was it ever made public?

[eastie]

He's on 47 games for us at the moment.

Do we have to pay Sunderland if he reaches 50 or something?

Does anybody know what the clause is?

Was it ever made public?

Kendrick has tweeted that villa have said such claims are total rubbish and no such clause exists.

[Irish villain]

Bent has never seemed part of the furniture at Villa has he?

[Chico Hamilton III]

Kendrick has tweeted that villa have said such claims are total rubbish and no such clause exists.

I know, I've seen the tweet.

So what is the trigger that means Bent's fee goes up from the £18m(?) to the £24m(?) which was reported when we signed him.

[glasses]

FWIW, I think Bent will leave on loan somewhere in January, with an option to buy. I would guess that a deal has been done and he is quite happy to sit and wait until that time. There may be a clause, (there were probably a fair few) which he is close to triggering, nobody knows for certain that there isn't. As was pointed out we were told Davies hadn't got a similar clause, but as Percy says, his agent told the press that there was. In both cases, when you can't think of a reason, or it seems very strange that a fit senior player isn't even on the bench and there are gaping holes in the team, it's natural to wonder what's going on. 

[supertom]

He may have deemed Bent not fit enough on saturday. He's only just back from an injury. That said, Bents demeanour all season hasn't been great and his form has been very poor too so that also may be a reason. Maybe the striker who cost us 500k-1mill has shown more desire in training than our record buy.
But conspiracy theories are ridiculous. Lambert is the boss and will not, thank god, ever play favourites. Too many of our previous managers have, to the detriment of the team often. I would agree though, that Bent needs to be on the bench. He might not like it but his game really suits a super sub role.

[dave.woodhall]

Bent has never seemed part of the furniture at Villa has he?

That's a phrase which sums him up. I've said all along that he's never been the big hero he should have been, for whatever reason. Older readers might recall Tony Hateley was the same.

[joe_c]

Bent has never seemed part of the furniture at Villa has he?

I have to agree. I fully expect him to go in the not too distant future and that I won't be surprised or disappointed at his departure.

[glasses]

Bent has never seemed part of the furniture at Villa has he?

I have to agree. I fully expect him to go in the not too distant future and that I won't be surprised or disappointed at his departure.

That's the key for me. I can't knock what he brings to the team, and he arguably saved us from relegation, but I won't be as gutted when he leaves like I was with Milner, Barry or Young

[ozzjim]

After keeping us up with his goals, you would think he would be though.


Re the fee, I reckon 2m will have been paid the day we were mathematically safe, and then a proportion will have been on European qualification and goals scored I would imagine.

[dave.woodhall]

Kendrick has tweeted that villa have said such claims are total rubbish and no such clause exists.

I know, I've seen the tweet.

So what is the trigger that means Bent's fee goes up from the £18m(?) to the £24m(?) which was reported when we signed him.

There wouldn't be one clause but several, each costing us a bit extra. Staying up that first season would certainly have been one and I would guess  things like caps and a certain number of goals would also be included, plus maybe trophies (!) and playing in international tournaments. Appearances would probably be in there as well, although how many and how much is open to debate.

[myf]

Bent has never seemed part of the furniture at Villa has he?

That's a phrase which sums him up. I've said all along that he's never been the big hero he should have been, for whatever reason. Older readers might recall Tony Hateley was the same.

That really sums up his career, especially at Spurs, Mackems, us and England.  Great scoring record over his whole career but lots of doubters regardless.