Darren Bent

[ozzjim]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2239734/Darren-Bent-Paul-Lambert-row--Aston-Villa-misfit-playing.html

He is a stubborn son of a gun for sure.

[Chico Hamilton III]

It's total nonsense that a signing that cost £18m would have a trigger payment of £4-6m payable once the first 50 games had happened. Which is what the daft rumour was

With the total lack of transparency shown by the club relating to the transfer from Sunderland, is it any wonder that daft rumours circulate?

Do Villa have to account for this potential additional £6m outlay in their annual report?

It stinks a bit

[LeeB]

The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.


I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.

The credit must go to glasses for that.

I know, allowed me to read your post?

No my four-eyed friend, mr glasses joined the dots, I was merely agreeing with his thoughts

[Phil from the upper holte]

It's on Twitter now

http://bbcsporf.lockerdome.com/articles/102831086

[LeeB]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2239734/Darren-Bent-Paul-Lambert-row--Aston-Villa-misfit-playing.html

He is a stubborn son of a gun for sure.

He's not a man to be fucked with, which given time will mean we're not a club to be fucked with.

[PeterWithesShin]

Bent also stormed away from Villa Park last night according to some sources. Which as we know turned out to be complete horlicks.

[LeeB]

It's on Twitter now

http://bbcsporf.lockerdome.com/articles/102831086

I give up with the modern world.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Villa could knock these rumours on the head instantly if they really wanted to, instead of merely saying they're not true.

[Mister E]

Villa could knock these rumours on the head instantly if they really wanted to, instead of merely saying they're not true.

They could, unless Lambert has decided that Bent's going in January. Which I think he must have, since why would you bring all this pressure on yourself by not at least putting the man on the bench?

[Brend'Watkins]

If he's not on the bench this coming Saturday and we lose there will be more but deeper probing.

[LeeB]

If he's not on the bench this coming Saturday and we lose there will be more but deeper probing.

Ffnar ffnar.

[Risso]

It's total nonsense that a signing that cost £18m would have a trigger payment of £4-6m payable once the first 50 games had happened. Which is what the daft rumour was

With the total lack of transparency shown by the club relating to the transfer from Sunderland, is it any wonder that daft rumours circulate?

Do Villa have to account for this potential additional £6m outlay in their annual report?

It stinks a bit

They don't account for it as such, it's in the form of a note as a contingent liability.   So rather than having the £6m actually in the accounts, they just mention that it will be payable if some unspecified event occurs in the future.  Bent signed in Jan 2011 and the accounts to 31 May 2011 say that the contingent liabilities as a whole were £4.6m.  This is a total guess, but looking at that figure I would suggest that £2m of the £6m may be that we avoided relegation.  It does prove beyond doubt that the £6m figure being bandied about is wrong, as there wasn't that much outstanding in contigent liabilities in the year he signed.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Cheers, Risso. Won't pretent to understand that explanation but does it mean that we've paid almost £20m now for Bent?

And he dosent even make the bench

 

[Toronto Villa]

Cheers, Risso. Won't pretent to understand that explanation but does it mean that we've paid almost £20m now for Bent?

And he dosent even make the bench

 

though we have probably made that back and more just by staying up and on the verge of the new Sky deal. What is far more concerning is why the manager isn't playing him irrespective of what we've shelled out. Spurs seemed to have the same issue towards the end and despite what he has the potential to do they were happy to ship him out as were Sunderland.

[glasses]

The daft rumour now being peddled by Matt Holland on Talk Sport. Seriously, 4-6 million on 50 appearances? 500k maybe, but not that sort of money.


I think LeeB is right the more I think about it. Lambert wants this group to get and bond and create a very together attitude. As such, if he is off in January and has already requested a transfer some weeks back which is rumoured, then I can see the logic in pushing on without him.

The credit must go to glasses for that.

I know, allowed me to read your post?

No my four-eyed friend, mr glasses joined the dots, I was merely agreeing with his thoughts

'You address me by my proper title, you little bollocks' ;-)