Darren Bent

[JJ-AV]

Bent is supposedly on between 60-80k a week isn't he?

With those wages and between £14-18m, Lambert would probably be able to bring in three players.

Not surprising he wants rid.

[Matt Collins]

You have to ask who would pay anywhere near £18m for him, especially when he'll have no resale value. Perhaps QPR? I can't see Liverpool wanting to, because I don't see how he'd fit into their system on a constant basis.

I imagine around £12m is the most we could get

Randy must weep when he sees the money we get back for so many of his purchases

[NeilH]

Neil Moxley is a great journo, but I don't believe for a moment that we are looking to get that much back. Even taking into account that Randy and Boy Wonder have the football business acumen of my 10 year old son on Fifa13, it's inconceivable that they'd think that Bent is worth that. It we are offered 12m from a club we should leap at the chance.

[PaulWinch again]

Don't think we'd have a chance of getting that much.

[Ron Manager]

Don't think we'd have a chance of getting that much.

12mil.....and not a penny less. I think the Jan sales are going to throw up a few surprises ,not just for us, but all round.

[TonyD]

How much will we get for the Zog?   Two balti pies anybody?

[danlanza]

How much will we get for the Zog?   Two balti pies anybody?

1 very soggy chicken and mushroom, if we are lucky.

[N'ZMAV]

Of course we won't get £18mil but we're hardly going to let other clubs know we'd accept a lot less. We've got to play the game.

[Villadroid]

Darren Bent is worth £18m of any club's money and if he can score 20 goals in 47 for Villa, and help keep a club in the Premiership like he certainly helped Villa, he would represent good value.

He's only 28 and retains substantial sell-on value.

Obviously Villa are determined to sell him because not only is he being paid £65k a week (£3.38m) according to some sources, he's costing the club at least £4.5m a year in amortisation, depending on what you believe the transfer-fee to be.

Bringing a total of £7.88m.

As we know, Villa's losses over the past few years, have been caused by a combination of a wage bill which represented too high a proportion of turnover and the amortisation (the depreciation of the value of the clubs playing assets). Addressing this has been the main aim of Mr Faulkner and explains why Villa are buying cheaper players and paying lower wages these days.

Darren Bent was obviously a distress purchase which went contrary to the club's general policy.

Anyone understanding this to be true would probably conclude that selling Bent was always the plan and that doing so would represent a fantastic piece of business for the club, assuming the consequences do not involve relegation.

The temptation to sell too cheaply will be hard to avoid because the rewards in terms of improvement in the numbers is so tempting.

If they can get what they paid for him, the amortisations vanishes from the books and the cost of purchasing Bent drops by more than 50%.

If that happens I am sure there will be a certain amount of dancing around the Villa's Chief Executive's office.

How much of those gains will be reinvested remains unknown but it will not be impossible to calculate eventually.

[Mazrim]

I disagree that Bent was a panic purchase because we made first enquiries about him early in the season.
Ergo we weren't really in trouble then but needed a goalscorer. That was still the case when the window opened and we spent a fortune on the best striker we could have feasibly got and paid him lavishly i the process.

Also, I fail to see how selling Bent was ever a means to make money. His price at his age will not represent a profit or even the same money back and paying him around 70k a week doesn't seem all that profitable either.

I think the truth is that Houllier wanted Bent as we needed a top goalscorer and the club went out and made it happen at great expense. Now he doesnt really fit what this manager wants to do and may have to be sold to make room for others. It happens.
Anything else is, with respect, absolute bollocks. In my opinion.

[Villadroid]

I disagree that Bent was a panic purchase because we made first enquiries about him early in the season.
Ergo we weren't really in trouble then but needed a goalscorer. That was still the case when the window opened and we spent a fortune on the best striker we could have feasibly got and paid him lavishly i the process.

Also, I fail to see how selling Bent was ever a means to make money. His price at his age will not represent a profit or even the same money back and paying him around 70k a week doesn't seem all that profitable either.

I think the truth is that Houllier wanted Bent as we needed a top goalscorer and the club went out and made it happen at great expense. Now he doesnt really fit what this manager wants to do and may have to be sold to make room for others. It happens.
Anything else is, with respect, absolute bollocks. In my opinion.

I can't recall suggesting that a profit was possible.

But if you think the words say that it would be pointless to dispute with you.

[Eugene Fraxby]

Of course we won't get £18mil but we're hardly going to let other clubs know we'd accept a lot less. We've got to play the game.

True.

QPR may be desperate enough to pay £12m however I don't see anyone else wanting him at that sort of price.

I seriously doubt any of the big clubs would want him nor the rest be able to afford him (or want to pay his fee + wages).

So if QPR are the only team interested and we're clearly looking to sell it doesn't leave us in a great position.

[Irish villain]

So judging by the news, he is now for sale?

[Mazrim]

I disagree that Bent was a panic purchase because we made first enquiries about him early in the season.
Ergo we weren't really in trouble then but needed a goalscorer. That was still the case when the window opened and we spent a fortune on the best striker we could have feasibly got and paid him lavishly i the process.

Also, I fail to see how selling Bent was ever a means to make money. His price at his age will not represent a profit or even the same money back and paying him around 70k a week doesn't seem all that profitable either.

I think the truth is that Houllier wanted Bent as we needed a top goalscorer and the club went out and made it happen at great expense. Now he doesnt really fit what this manager wants to do and may have to be sold to make room for others. It happens.
Anything else is, with respect, absolute bollocks. In my opinion.

I can't recall suggesting that a profit was possible.

But if you think the words say that it would be pointless to dispute with you.

Well, I said profit or the same money back. You were after all suggesting that was a possibilty or even some sort of plan from the begining "if they can get what they paid for him". But if you want to go down the semantics route to avoid the point, that's up to you.
And in any case, I argued that Bent was bought because he was a player we needed and not because of any fears of relegation. Which you have not addressed but instead have chosen a glib reply. Which just tells me your argument is weak.

Shall we try again?

Essentially your argument is:
- Bent was bought to avoid relegation and make some money back like some sort of mercenary on a sale and reurn policy.

No, I disagree and think it far fetched to say the least based on the fact we first approached Sunderland in August when there were no apparent relegation issues and that there were no doubt cheaper options available than one we had to practically double our record outlay for.

We had a new manager, we'd made some money from selling Milner, he wanted to use it to buy some players and we did just that. Circa £30m. That's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.
And if Bent goes it's Lamberts decision, a footballing decision, not some sort of sinister financial endgame.

[Villadroid]

I disagree that Bent was a panic purchase because we made first enquiries about him early in the season.
Ergo we weren't really in trouble then but needed a goalscorer. That was still the case when the window opened and we spent a fortune on the best striker we could have feasibly got and paid him lavishly i the process.

Also, I fail to see how selling Bent was ever a means to make money. His price at his age will not represent a profit or even the same money back and paying him around 70k a week doesn't seem all that profitable either.

I think the truth is that Houllier wanted Bent as we needed a top goalscorer and the club went out and made it happen at great expense. Now he doesnt really fit what this manager wants to do and may have to be sold to make room for others. It happens.
Anything else is, with respect, absolute bollocks. In my opinion.

I can't recall suggesting that a profit was possible.

But if you think the words say that it would be pointless to dispute with you.

Well, I said profit or the same money back. You were after all suggesting that was a possibilty or even some sort of plan from the begining "if they can get what they paid for him". But if you want to go down the semantics route to avoid the point, that's up to you.
And in any case, I argued that Bent was bought because he was a player we needed and not because of any fears of relegation. Which you have not addressed but instead have chosen a glib reply. Which just tells me your argument is weak.

Shall we try again?

Essentially your argument is:
- Bent was bought to avoid relegation and make some money back like some sort of mercenary on a sale and reurn policy.

No, I disagree and think it far fetched to say the least based on the fact we first approached Sunderland in August when there were no apparent relegation issues and that there were no doubt cheaper options available than one we had to practically double our record outlay for.

We had a new manager, we'd made some money from selling Milner, he wanted to use it to buy some players and we did just that. Circa £30m. That's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.
And if Bent goes it's Lamberts decision, a footballing decision, not some sort of sinister financial endgame.

You missed this sentence: "Anyone understanding this to be true would probably conclude that selling Bent was always the plan and that doing so would represent a fantastic piece of business for the club, assuming the consequences do not involve relegation."

If you don't think it is true then your conclusions are as reasonable as the opposite conclusion would be, if someone believed it.

It may not be a fact but it is my opinion that Bent was a distress purchase and my argument follows from that.

I don't make any claim that it is a conspiracy, I just say that given Villa's losses, selling would improve the clubs accounts substantially.

The argument merely follows from asking the question Cui bono? (who gains?), which is not an unreasonable starting point when trying to work out why someone might do something.

But of course, if someone thought that there is absolutely no evidence that Faulkner is trying to cut costs, then indeed it would be, as you say, total bollocks.