Darren Bent

[pestria]

The way we're playing and what Lambert is asking of his strikers does not suit Bent, so he's out for footballing reasons.  The problem is we simply can't afford an asset of his value not to be playing, so for financial reasons we need to shift him in January and invest in other areas of the team. 

I'd agree with this.

We don't have good enough wide players to support Bent, the central midfield also appeared too weak to cope with 4-4-2.

The ideal scenario given Lambert's commitment to 4-2-3-1 would be to offload Bent and Ireland and replace with a high quality 'hole' player.  I can see us selling Bent but the a solution to the Ireland problem (like a solution to the Irish problem) will be a tad harder to sort.

[sirlordbaltimore]

One of the clauses might be 50 games, but if it is, it will only be one of several. There hasn't been any problem with the others.

Maybe that's the case. I guess the other clauses may have been goals scored (lets say 50), and finishing in Europe. Which were never going to be met following the sale of the supply line and the subsequent running of the clubs ambition into the ground with the shop local style financial squeeze.

So to sum up, it seems plausible that the board have managed to swerve all possible 'add on' payments by the way they've been running the club since we signed Bent.

[QBVILLA]

I haven't but there again how many big money signings are being bombed out in a relatively short time. How are most transfers paid? I know i've read Liverpool still owe us a lot on Downing, how true it is I don't know. Who does?

Andy Carroll, Bosko Balaban for starters. It's not uncommon to spread a transfer fee over a period of time though.

I didn't write that too well. What I meant was how do we, the fans, know how a transfer fee is set up and paid?

[JJ-AV]

The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player

You might be right, I have no idea, but Curtis Davies cost us £8m (or £11m if you check him on Wiki) and, according to his agent, he had a clause in his contract which would force Villa to re-negotiate his wages once he'd reached 60 games.

Yeah, it was rumoured for ages and I think the General and MON both denied it.

Turned out to be true (well, according to Davies and his agent, anyway).

[eastie]

I haven't but there again how many big money signings are being bombed out in a relatively short time. How are most transfers paid? I know i've read Liverpool still owe us a lot on Downing, how true it is I don't know. Who does?

Andy Carroll, Bosko Balaban for starters. It's not uncommon to spread a transfer fee over a period of time though.

I didn't write that too well. What I meant was how do we, the fans, know how a transfer fee is set up and paid?

Most are paid in instalments with an upfront payment , few big transfers are done 100% cash up front.

[Clampy]

Pat murphy had a long interview with lambert on 5 live last night and repeatedly pressed lambert on bent, he said bent and benteke can play together as they did at st Mary's, he said bent is fit and available and there has been no bust up between them and that to get picked bent needs to train well and play well.

Pat Murphy "On the face of it they look like they could play together "
Lambert "They did at Southampton........"

Eastie pal, Lambert was pointing out that when he played them together it was probably our worst showing this season.

Do bent score that day ? Yes!
Was bent responsible for our shit second half defending ? No

Bent scored and benteke missed a couple of great chances, the reason we lost was crap defending !

Aye, he gets his tap in and does fuck all else.

If Bent were more flexible as a player he'd be playing, but he's not, and unfortunately we've got a better player in his position.

I'd rather that than a player who covers 7 miles a game and doesn't produce. Centre forwards should score goals and that's what Bent does.

Our centre forward is producing, he won the game for us last night.

Yes he did and he's done well so far but he'll have a dip in form somewhere along the line and at his age we should'nt be relying on him too much.

[pauliewalnuts]

Out of interest, say we were to sell Bent in January, who would want him?

QPR are the club lots of people mentioned, but there are two issues there. One is that Redknapp and Bent have a bit of previous (negative) history. The other is that we'd have to be wary of selling a proven goalscorer to a club we could very well spend the rest of the season struggling with.

I can't see Liverpool wanting him. Would he fit in with the way Rodgers likes to play - a goalscorer who only scores goals and offers nothing else?

So then, who would possibly come in for him?

Do Fulham need him? What about a European club? I am sure I read on that Sunderland forum (when the Bent to us story broke) that he'd been close to handing a transfer request in to force through a move to a Turkish team before we came in for him.

[glasses]

One of the clauses might be 50 games, but if it is, it will only be one of several. There hasn't been any problem with the others.

Maybe that's the case. I guess the other clauses may have been goals scored (lets say 50), and finishing in Europe. Which were never going to be met following the sale of the supply line and the subsequent running of the clubs ambition into the ground with the shop local style financial squeeze.

So to sum up, it seems plausible that the board have managed to swerve all possible 'add on' payments by the way they've been running the club since we signed Bent.

That's the funniest thing I have read on this website for a long time. You are saying that it's plausible, that to avoid paying out add on fees to Sunderland, Randy has deliberately avoided European football?

[sirlordbaltimore]

The way we're playing and what Lambert is asking of his strikers does not suit Bent, so he's out for footballing reasons.  The problem is we simply can't afford an asset of his value not to be playing, so for financial reasons we need to shift him in January and invest in other areas of the team. 

I'd agree with this.

We don't have good enough wide players to support Bent, the central midfield also appeared too weak to cope with 4-4-2.

The ideal scenario given Lambert's commitment to 4-2-3-1 would be to offload Bent and Ireland and replace with a high quality 'hole' player.  I can see us selling Bent but the a solution to the Ireland problem (like a solution to the Irish problem) will be a tad harder to sort.

Surely the ideal scenario (when you have a proven goalscorer like Bent on your books) is to keep him and buy wingers to replace the ones sold ?

Must be more logical than selling the first likely 20 goal a season striker we've had since god knows when, and spending the money on more lower league squad fodder ?. I could understand the logic if the system Lambert wants to play was working or looked good. But it's not doing either is it ?.

Maybe Lambert needs to stop being stubborn and put the team first, and play a way that suits what he has at his disposal. For all the graft / running the likes of Gabby and Weimann do out wide, neither are capable of whipping a cross in, or are even very good at finishing. I'd also put forward the suggestion that one of Benteke's main attributes is his work outside the box. His hold up play, and his ability to link up play. That to me seems the ideal foil for a proper penalty box striker like Bent.

But what do I know. I'm just the mug paying to watch the shit currently being served up.

[pestria]

I'd be fascinated to hear the reasons of the 22 people (at the time of posting) who wouldn't even want him on the bench.

I can understand the logic of those who wouldn't want him starting (although I disagree with them), but I genuinely can't imagine there was anyone in the stadium on 78 minutes tonight who was glad that he wasn't an option to bring on.

I'm one of the 20 odd.  If he's not going to be a more or less automatic choice then I'd get rid of him in January - IF we can replace him with someone who would add much needed quality to the squad.  In the meantime, I agree with you, I can't see any reason not to have him on the bench.

Suspect there's something going/gone on behind the scnes on this one.

[QBVILLA]

Out of interest, say we were to sell Bent in January, who would want him?

QPR are the club lots of people mentioned, but there are two issues there. One is that Redknapp and Bent have a bit of previous (negative) history. The other is that we'd have to be wary of selling a proven goalscorer to a club we could very well spend the rest of the season struggling with.

I can't see Liverpool wanting him. Would he fit in with the way Rodgers likes to play - a goalscorer who only scores goals and offers nothing else?

So then, who would possibly come in for him?

Do Fulham need him? What about a European club? I am sure I read on that Sunderland forum (when the Bent to us story broke) that he'd been close to handing a transfer request in to force through a move to a Turkish team before we came in for him.

I've got a sneaky feel that Arsenal will come in for him.

[glasses]

Out of interest, say we were to sell Bent in January, who would want him?

QPR are the club lots of people mentioned, but there are two issues there. One is that Redknapp and Bent have a bit of previous (negative) history. The other is that we'd have to be wary of selling a proven goalscorer to a club we could very well spend the rest of the season struggling with.

I can't see Liverpool wanting him. Would he fit in with the way Rodgers likes to play - a goalscorer who only scores goals and offers nothing else?

So then, who would possibly come in for him?

Do Fulham need him? What about a European club? I am sure I read on that Sunderland forum (when the Bent to us story broke) that he'd been close to handing a transfer request in to force through a move to a Turkish team before we came in for him.

It's vomit inducing to say it, but with Lukaku likely to be recalled in January to Chelsea, and if Albion are still siting where they are in the table, that could be an option for him. More than likely loan at first

[sirlordbaltimore]

That's the funniest thing I have read on this website for a long time. You are saying that it's plausible, that to avoid paying out add on fees to Sunderland, Randy has deliberately avoided European football?

In a round about way yes. If you mean do I think Randy told Houllier and McLeish to avoid European qualification, then of course not.

If you mean do I think by selling off the family jewels and replacing them with average fodder, and appointing managers incapable of reaching European qualification, then yes, Very much so.

[PeterWithesShin]

Considering Albion have never paid £7million for a player I can't see them stumping up a Bent sized fee. Someone like Stoke if they are too close for comfort to the drop zone come January may help bump the price up.

[pauliewalnuts]

Out of interest, say we were to sell Bent in January, who would want him?

QPR are the club lots of people mentioned, but there are two issues there. One is that Redknapp and Bent have a bit of previous (negative) history. The other is that we'd have to be wary of selling a proven goalscorer to a club we could very well spend the rest of the season struggling with.

I can't see Liverpool wanting him. Would he fit in with the way Rodgers likes to play - a goalscorer who only scores goals and offers nothing else?

So then, who would possibly come in for him?

Do Fulham need him? What about a European club? I am sure I read on that Sunderland forum (when the Bent to us story broke) that he'd been close to handing a transfer request in to force through a move to a Turkish team before we came in for him.

It's vomit inducing to say it, but with Lukaku likely to be recalled in January to Chelsea, and if Albion are still siting where they are in the table, that could be an option for him. More than likely loan at first

I just sicked up a lung at the very thought.