Concrete Ron

[chrisw1]

"We will be talking with him in due course about extending his deal"

So when the f does "due course" kick in?

We are so short sighted it's unbelievable.

[The Laughing Policeman]

Seeing as Ron is on his hols, I should think the talks will start when he returns to training.

[ozzjim]

"We will be talking with him in due course about extending his deal"

So when the f does "due course" kick in?

We are so short sighted it's unbelievable.

In what respect? The club has many faults, but using the term due course to describe a period of time that could encompass the next 4 weeks or 4 months, seems appropriate in reality.

[Clampy]

"We will be talking with him in due course about extending his deal"

So when the f does "due course" kick in?

We are so short sighted it's unbelievable.

Maybe when he comes back off his holibobs.

[Toronto Villa]

"We will be talking with him in due course about extending his deal"

So when the f does "due course" kick in?

We are so short sighted it's unbelievable.

You're right. Lambert should have gone to see Ron in Brazil or pestered him on his holiday until he signed the deal. We are so poor in everything we do.

[RussellC]

I think probably not letting him get into the last year of his contract at all would have been the sensible thing to do.

[dave.woodhall]

I think probably not letting him get into the last year of his contract at all would have been the sensible thing to do.

And as was said last week, at which point during his previous two injury-plagued, inconsistent years would you have offered him the contract he now deserves?

[RussellC]

I think probably not letting him get into the last year of his contract at all would have been the sensible thing to do.

And as was said last week, at which point during his previous two injury-plagued, inconsistent years would you have offered him the contract he now deserves?

Having watched Villa with and without him in the side last season I'd have offered him a contract extension without any hesitation. He played 32 games for us last season, he was hardly awol. Surely it was clear that we were a much better side with him in it and therefore a contract extension was a no-brainer?

[dave.woodhall]

Look back on this site alone and see the criticism Vlaar has got for his performances since he joined us. Think of the type of wage he would have had to be offered not to have opted to hang on until after the World Cup. Now imagine the stick the club would have got if they'd offered him such a contract.

[Dennis Keeks]

I'd offer him a two-bed in Northfield, a new iPhone and a whiff of complacency. No man could resist that offer. Period.

[Villa in Denmark]

I think probably not letting him get into the last year of his contract at all would have been the sensible thing to do.

And as was said last week, at which point during his previous two injury-plagued, inconsistent years would you have offered him the contract he now deserves?

Having watched Villa with and without him in the side last season I'd have offered him a contract extension without any hesitation. He played 32 games for us last season, he was hardly awol. Surely it was clear that we were a much better side with him in it and therefore a contract extension was a no-brainer?

From last week in case you missed it.  Hopefully save us all several million inconvenienced electrons having the same circular argument.

Trouble is, we have fecked up by letting his contract wind down, great business not.

When we signed the first batch of Lambert's signings, there was general approval of only signing them up on 3 year contracts so that se didn't get stitched with unwanted players with 2-3 years left on long contracts as with a the likes of Beye.

After his first season, where he'd looked off the pace and spent a large chunk of the season injured, he had done nothing to justify a new contract.

At the point where we could have sensibly offered a new contract during the course of last season he was injured again, casting further doubts on his long term fitness.

Once we approached the end of the season there was never going to be any contact negotiations, first we were too busy worrying about survival (again), followed by Vlaar departing for Brazil.

He's now on a well earned holiday and the earliest anything can happen is on his return.

When would  you have offered a new contract?

Commonsense v commenting with the clarity of hindsight.  I'm with you, surely the time to negotiate on a 3 year contract is at the end of year 2 unless it is a young player that you have picked up and want to tie them down (as much as you can these days).  Vlaar's performances in the world cup possibly came at the wrong time for us.

Not quite, the time to look to tie down players like Delph and Vlaar was March/April, unfortunately we were occupied by suspending our assistant manager and 'head of football operations' and trying to reach the end of the season safely.  It's fairly easy to slag the club for not sorting it before the world cup but we really do have a reasonable excuse for things stretching out a little this year, it's just unfortunate that 1 of the players involved had a better world cup than anyone would've imagined.

[RussellC]

Look back on this site alone and see the criticism Vlaar has got for his performances since he joined us. Think of the type of wage he would have had to be offered not to have opted to hang on until after the World Cup. Now imagine the stick the club would have got if they'd offered him such a contract.

But surely it would still have been sensible for the club to have offered him an extension pre-tournament, not just start talking about it once his stock's at a career-high? Best-case scenario now for the club is that he signs-on, but at an inflated figure given his World Cup showing.

I'd also be more inclined to believe that this was actually a sensibly though-out approach from the club if they hadn't allowed Delph to get into exactly the same situation.

[dave.woodhall]

We don't know when they first spoke to him.

[RussellC]

We don't know when they first spoke to him.

We don't, but it would make Lambert's reference to things happening "in due course" odd if talks were already underway / had already happened. If that was the case I would have thought the club would be keen to let it be known that they'd been pro-active.

[PeterWithesShin]

Sometimes the club cannot win and whatever they do they will get stick for it. I said this over a week ago, although not giving Delph a new deal still remains bonkers mind.

I can see why we only offered him a 2 year deal when we signed because of his previous, can you imagine this place if we'd stuck him on a 4 year deal and he was always injured?

And then after the first season, one in which he missed nearly a third of our league games through injury, and his performances weren't always impressive when he did play, again, imagine if we'd given him a new contract last summer?

Which actually takes us to this summer. So I can understand the club waiting.

Not giving Delph a deal is bonkers though.