Darren Bent

[Risso]

From the Graun comments page:

There are four questions that still need to be asked:

Q: Did Bent shag your missus?

PL: No.

Q: Your daughter?

PL: No.

Q: You while you were sleeping?

PL: No.

Q: Did Bent fall under a bus a few weeks ago, and you are wheeling around a lookalike who can't play football, Fidel Castro style, to avoid a fall in shirt sales?

PL: That's a stupid question.

Q: But you've already denied the only three other explanations that are physically possible in this universe. If he's slouching around in training and not trying in matches, then it's quite right to leave him out of the starting XI. But it is universally recognised that a moody striker with a point to prove is often a very good weapon to have on the bench. When a match needs to be turned around and an unlikely hero is called for, an underperforming diva is more likely to score than a hard-working reserve.

PL: Ok, you got me. His name's Jim and he drives a cab in Telford. Bent's in a fridge in the executive suite. We just couldn't let him go *sob*.

[Mazrim]

Indeed, the surplus to requirements cat is well and truly out of the bag.
We'll be fending off piss take offers for him until somebody makes something approaching a decent offer or has players we want.

The financial implications is that if there is also an appearance trigger (for arguments sake - £4m) its £4m Lambert doesnt have in January to spend on a player or players he thinks will help us climb the table and rake in more money. And how many goals will Bent score in a month, largely playing from the bench? Will it make enough difference?

I personally think its nothing to do with money. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

[Risso]

I think if there is a payment due to Sunderland it would be less than £2m.

[kippaxvilla2]

And also, if true about the contract situation just shows how short term and narrow minded we have become, £6m saving now, £40m potential loss at the end of the season.  Also, if true, it shows Lambert to be a yes man in my opinion seeing as he has 'no problem with Darren'.

If there is a financial clause re 50 appearances, why is everyone assuming it will be 6m? That sounds unlikely for a milestone like that. It could be a lot less than that. Which makes it more worrying if that really is the reason he is not getting used.

If the reason for selling him is he doesn't, and won't, fit in with the way we play, then I don't mind them selling him in January so long as the cash gets re-invested. The problem is, I think they'd flog him then go out and buy someone like Charlie Austin, or another lower leagues player who'll be on low wages when what we need are more experienced players.

If the reason for selling him is that we want him off the wage bill / we owe Sunderland some more money on 50 appearances then that's deeply worrying in terms of the way the club is being run.

As I've pointed out, it can't be £6m.  There wasn't that much owing at the end of May 2011 for all players with clauses like that.

Makes it even more concerning then that the club couldn't afford less than that for the sake of a potential bigger loss at the end of the season.

[eastie]

Indeed, the surplus to requirements cat is well and truly out of the bag.
We'll be fending off piss take offers for him until somebody makes something approaching a decent offer or has players we want.

The financial implications is that if there is also an appearance trigger (for arguments sake - £4m) its £4m Lambert doesnt have in January to spend on a player or players he thinks will help us climb the table and rake in more money. And how many goals will Bent score in a month, largely playing from the bench? Will it make enough difference?

I personally think its nothing to do with money. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

Well lambert has already said he has no problem with bent in training and there's been no bust up , so if he is to be believed the decision is because he picks a team to win and it's his choice - all very strange how a player with such a good goalscoring record cannot get even onto the bench of a team with such an awful goals total.

[N'ZMAV]

Funny how now he's got no problem with Bent, Redknapp is a c*** pure and simple

He's a moron. It's also funny how he no longer has a problem with Taarabt.

[supertommykN'iba]

There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.

The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market. 

However, we could be playing him and he could be playing badly, not scoring, rising his record to say, 2 in 15 this season. He's clearly not wanted so it's better this way IMO

He'd still be in the team and playing, though.

Somehow failed to make the point that if he was playing, and playing badly, then his value would drop. It would not benefit us and who is going to sign a striker who's scored 2 in 15 for decent money?

Just my take on things, I could be and probably am talking complete and utter b*llocks.

[kippaxvilla2]

The day we sell our best striker to QPR is when it's time to give up surely isn't it.  I mean, just how far down the pan do we have to go? 

[dave.woodhall]

The day we sell our best striker to QPR is when it's time to give up surely isn't it.  I mean, just how far down the pan do we have to go? 

Nice to see variations of "How low have we sunk" can be used on any occasion.

[QBVILLA]

There might be some appearance trigger. But it could be the case that Lambert has already decided that Bent isnt going to fit in with his plans, in which case why throw millions away giving Bent the odd cameo when he has somebody lined up in a month who will fit in? It could mean an extra player or two.

The one thing I don't understand about that is that it doesn't make financial sense. Apart from the 'more goals therefore higher up the table' argument, if he was playing we could say we want to keep him and drive the price higher. As it is, he's seen as surplus to requirements and it's now a buyer's market. 

Maybe there is already a deal in place which sees him leave on January 1st and the money coming in is in turn needed for deals which are set up for incoming transfers? Bit far fetched I agree but this whole thread is littered with theories.

[Davey B]

I think if there is a payment due to Sunderland it would be less than £2m.

The "rumour mill" up here is generating noises that it is 3 million owed if Bent plays another three games. This is from the actual press, not fan's chat sites, not that means it is any more truthful!   

[Mazrim]

I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.

Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.

[eastie]

I'd rather lambert just came out and said " Darren doesn't really fit into the system I'm trying to play and good player though he is we've decided he can look for another club come January ' in a similar way to how Brendan Rodgers froze out Andy Carroll , rather than the endless denials and press conferences dominated by the issue.

Twenty one questions were asked about bent in the last press conference on Tuesday night.

[QBVILLA]

I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.

Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.

Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.

[eastie]

I dont think there is much chance of Bent going to QPR after Redknapp's public humiliation of Bent. Not to mention they are probably favourites to go down right now and that probably (we hope) won't change much in January.

Fulham or Liverpool are more likely destinations.

Feel free to poo poo this but I think he's got a good chance of going to Chelsea or even Arsenal. Both are looking for a goalscorer, Chelsea moreso. The fact he is eligible for European competition and a proven goal getter makes me think Arsenal might take a punt on him especially if as rumoured Walcott leaves in January.

Bent would score a shedload of goals at arsenal - wherever he goes he will score goals .