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.

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

Sorry I truncated your quote.  I think you raise a reasonable point and then Lambert would say that you answer your own question.

Lambert believes the best way to compete in the premier league is to have a forward who can hold the ball up and allow the game to be brought forward into the opposition half.  By way of contrast, MON largely played on the counter attack.  Bent is suited to the latter - as many have said already he's the right player at the wrong time.

For Lamber to be succesful we need goals to come from his 'link' player - I sense his ideal solution would be to trade Bent for get replacement for Ireland. 

[Sleeuwenhoek]

We only have 1 quality player, a proven goalscoring England International, at the club. We are struggling for goals, we are not playing him or even having him as an option off the bench. Don't think any logic can be applied to the current situation!

[PeterWithe]

I cant say that I find it a particularly attractive scenario lending Albion our record signing in order to cement a European place whilst we fight a relegation battle.

[PeterWithesShin]

I reckon there's more chance of me scoring our winner in the FA Cup final than there is of Albion signing Bent from us.

[Risso]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. 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.

I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.

So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.

How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?

That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?

Right, go and have a look at any set of football club accounts that you like.  They all have "contingent liabilities" that are payments due to other clubs based on various factors.  My whole point is that other than club officials and the player NOBODY KNOWS what they consist of!  Games played, goals scored, European qualification, avoiding relegation, international appearances etc will all play a part somewhere, but I've never heard anything concrete about any player's add on clauses.  All I'm disagreeing with is the fact that it's "total nonsense" that there might be a portion payable based on games played.

[glasses]

I cant say that I find it a particularly attractive scenario lending Albion our record signing in order to cement a European place whilst we fight a relegation battle.

I'd rather shit a watermelon, but we as fans don't make the decisions. See McLeish, Alex.

[pauliewalnuts]

I reckon there's more chance of me scoring our winner in the FA Cup final than there is of Albion signing Bent from us.

Although in fairness, you scoring the winner is only slightly higher odds than us actually winning it :-(

[QBVILLA]

I cant say that I find it a particularly attractive scenario lending Albion our record signing in order to cement a European place whilst we fight a relegation battle.

It'd be awfully neighbourly of us though old chap.

[sirlordbaltimore]

It'll be interesting to see how Bent takes to being squeezed out despite saying how happy he is at the club.

For all the club seemingly wanting him off the wage bill and wanting to cash in, he might be perfectly happy thinking, 'fuck them, i'm staying'. And looking at how things are going, with possible relegation maybe Lambert will be off before the end of the season and a replacement that would welcome a striker of Bent's pedigree in the team.

On the wage bill issue, looking at our squad right now, it must be the smallest wage bill possible. The team is full of kids on what must be very low wages.

[UK Redsox]

I reckon there's more chance of me scoring our winner in the FA Cup final than there is of Albion signing Bent from us.

Only to have the goal disallowed by Phil Dowd

[PeterWithesShin]

I reckon there's more chance of me scoring our winner in the FA Cup final than there is of Albion signing Bent from us.

Although in fairness, you scoring the winner is only slightly higher odds than us actually winning it :-(

As I typed it I did think that.

[pauliewalnuts]

Nobody knows what is in Bent's contract, whether it is a 50 game clause or whatever, we don't know either way. Then again, I can't remember a case when the general public ever did know the ins and outs of a player's contract.

What is somewhat depressing is that, regardless of whether this rumour is true or not, it's so easily believable. That probably says a lot about the way the club is being run.

re Bent. it is clearly not just a case of the manager not thinking he deserves a starting place. This is about him not being on the bench, even, and there simply must have been something going on behind the scenes. Whether it be not training well / moaning / whatever, we don't know.

[Risso]

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.

As we don't know what the clauses are, you can't say that.  It might be a perfect storm of add on payments about to kick in, eg 50 appearances, 25 goals scored and an England call up.  If all that meant £6m being paid out, I could well see Lerner having a quiet word with Lambert.  It might sound implausible, but if it's a choice of having that £6m available in January to spend, or having to shell it out for a player he doesn't really fancy anyway, who knows, especially with Benteke doing so well anyway.

[PeterWithesShin]

That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?

Right, go and have a look at any set of football club accounts that you like.  They all have "contingent liabilities" that are payments due to other clubs based on various factors.  My whole point is that other than club officials and the player NOBODY KNOWS what they consist of!  Games played, goals scored, European qualification, avoiding relegation, international appearances etc will all play a part somewhere, but I've never heard anything concrete about any player's add on clauses.  All I'm disagreeing with is the fact that it's "total nonsense" that there might be a portion payable based on games played.
[/quote]

But we've all heard rumours of those other things being a part of add-ons for players. My point is I can't think of any rumour i've ever heard of for a big money player that's included 50 appearances, and neither it seems has anyone else. Which to me puts it in the highly unlikely file.

[PeterWithesShin]

Quote fail * sigh*