Darren Bent

[Mazrim]

Selling Bent would improve the clubs accounts until the inevitable situation of replacing him arose and would do so immediately. So in essence, it wouldn't. The money would and I believe will be, redistributed towards the squad.
The squad needs strengthening, and so selling those players who don't figure makes perfect sense. If only MON did it sooner, or at all.

And I don't recall saying there was no evidence that Faulkner is trying to cut costs. Clearly it has to or had to be done, such was the extravagant waste of resources under MON. No doubt the board were naive in his lavish backing.
But which is the worse crime, naivety? or willful negligence?

Regarding Bent. If we approached Sunderland to sign him so early in the season (which I know to be the case) how could it have been a distress purchase? Why wasnt it simply a case of going for a player we wanted? Why does Darren Bent = distress?
The fact we signed him in January doesn't mean we approached them in January. In fact that's not even likely given how long deals take to complete, especially very expensive ones.

I've explained "who gained" or more accurately "to whose benefit". Clearly Villa gained the player they wanted and Sunderland gained a price they thought too good to refuse and so also gained. No cui prodest here I think.

[Villadroid]

Selling Bent would improve the clubs accounts until the inevitable situation of replacing him arose and would do so immediately. So in essence, it wouldn't. The money would and I believe will be, redistributed towards the squad.
The squad needs strengthening, and so selling those players who don't figure makes perfect sense. If only MON did it sooner, or at all.

And I don't recall saying there was no evidence that Faulkner is trying to cut costs. Clearly it has to or had to be done, such was the extravagant waste of resources under MON. No doubt the board were naive in his lavish backing.
But which is the worse crime, naivety? or willful negligence?

Regarding Bent. If we approached Sunderland to sign him so early in the season (which I know to be the case) how could it have been a distress purchase? Why wasnt it simply a case of going for a player we wanted? Why does Darren Bent = distress?
The fact we signed him in January doesn't mean we approached them in January. In fact that's not even likely given how long deals take to complete, especially very expensive ones.

I've explained "who gained" or more accurately "to whose benefit". Clearly Villa gained the player they wanted and Sunderland gained a price they thought too good to refuse and so also gained. No cui prodest here I think.

I was saying "who gains" from selling Bent, not "who gained" from his original purchase.

It depends what you think Villa's priorities are.

As I wrote in the original post, we will have to wait a while before we know whether any saving from the sale have been reinvested in the squad.

But I will be amazed if the costs of the squad weren't substantially lower next time the accounts are published.

[ktvillan]

Citing the improvement since Bent has been left out as evidence that Lambert is right to do so is spurious in my opinion.  Many of Bent's appearances this season were during the time when Lambert hadn't really hit on a formation that worked.  Apart from Swansea at home and Newcastle away, the whole team was misfiring and Lambert's spurning of wingers never played to Bent's strengths anyway.  To imply Bent was the main reason for those early struggles, or the heavy defeat at Southampton (in which Benteke also played I believe),  doesn't hold water.  It reminds me of the time some people tried to claim Cuellar was our best option at right back because we got hammered 7-1 by Chelsea when Luke Young was brought back, as if it was all Young's fault. 

Since our general play/results started to improve slightly (and let's face it we're still a long way from convincing), Bent hasn't really been given a chance.  There is no evidence to suggest we would revert to general shiteness if he were brought back in.   

[themossman]

I agree kt - that non argument is doing the rounds a lot lately. Bent may be sold and it may be the right thing in the long run but his lack of contribution so far this season, given his qualities and track record, combined with our paucity of playing resources, is to lambert's discredit, not Bent's.

[N'ZMAV]

Lambert could be setting up for one hell of a fall with this. He must have a lot of faith in Benteke. Which, is understandable. It's Gabby I'm worried about. If Benteke gets injured after Bent leves then we're fucked.

[Toronto Villa]

Lambert could be setting up for one hell of a fall with this. He must have a lot of faith in Benteke. Which, is understandable. It's Gabby I'm worried about. If Benteke gets injured after Bent leves then we're fucked.

what if he has a replacement for Bent that will actually be able to contribute?

[Mazrim]

As I fully believe he has. Perhaps two forwards.

[themossman]

Is that ITK Maz or a tingling of your spidey sense?

[Mazrim]

Spidey sense all the way.

[Irish villain]

As I fully believe he has. Perhaps two forwards.

Me too, I think we could see Bent leave and three or four really good players coming in. A centre back, a couple of midfielders and a forward.

[tomd2103]

As I fully believe he has. Perhaps two forwards.

Me too, I think we could see Bent leave and three or four really good players coming in. A centre back, a couple of midfielders and a forward.

If that scenario transpires then I think Lambert's decision to sell Bent would have been justified and would have been a good one.  It would be similar to the way Big Ron used the money generated by the sale of David Platt to buy Steve Staunton, Garry Parker, Kevin Richardson and Dalian Atkinson. 

[eastie]

If bent does go and we need the money for new signings then I hope it doesn't drag on through January as we don't want to haggle until the final day and find ourselves out of time in getting a replacement like Liverpool did .

We need to get our targets early in January .

[Mazrim]

We do and Lambert knows it. Inevitably some will drag on longer than you'd wish when all the shysters get involved but Lambert has shown he won't be messed around too much and will have more than one option for each position he wants. It's the smart game.

[Phil from the upper holte]

If we do sell Bent I hope the money is re-invested

[Villadroid]

The piece from Neil Moxley making the claim that Bent is for sale, has been removed.