Concrete Ron

[paul_e]

Well why aren't we talking to him now, TV?

I don't believe much of what is made public. I expect him to sign a new deal with us. Lambert has said he'll sit down with those players. I have no reason not to believe him given that has he has tied down pretty much all of our players deserving of new deals. If he managed to get Benteke to sign against all odds, I'm not worried about Delph.

The short answer is to ask what makes you think we aren't?

I'd suggest its been discussed but he doesn't want to commit to anything without talking to his agent (who is unlikely to be in the US with him) so he's waiting for the end of the tour.

[silhillvilla]

Who is actually leading any of these negotiations though (if they are happening) Lerner nope, Faulkner nope, lambert nope. I'm convinced the club are sleepwalking into another mess.

[paul_e]

Who is actually leading any of these negotiations though (if they are happening) Lerner nope, Faulkner nope, lambert nope. I'm convinced the club are sleepwalking into another mess.

Once again, what we know is that Lambert wants to offer them new deals and Delph at least wants to sign a new deal, they've both stated their positions pretty candidly in interviews on this tour.

Given that is the situation only someone looking for bad news could make the assumption that we're not offering new deals and we're "sleepwalking into another mess".  There are plenty of things to moan at the club over, why make more when all the evidence suggests that Delph at least will sign a new deal fairly soon?

[kippaxvilla2]

Vlaar will not be going to Southampton. It just won't happen.

Under this regime anything is viable.

If his only choice was Southampton I honestly believe he would stay with us.  And the manager has already said he isn't for sale.

[silhillvilla]

I suppose it's possible that with both vlaar and Delph the club will let things roll until say Dec and then see how the land lies.

[villan from luton]

We should have signed both of them to new contracts ages ago, unless they didnt want one

[Steve67]

What price would you put on his head? Last year of his contract, great world cup, replaceable?

[villan from luton]

Lovren has gone for 20 mill apparently, not going into Villas coffers though Enjoy youself

[RussellC]

Especially for vfl and Silhilvilla.

Maybe we should post this once a day to refresh the reasons why, in this instance, the club hasn't fucked up.

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.

This keeps getting rolled out like its a definitive answer and in some way an end to the debate. Whether you agree or not, there are still those of us who think the club have made a mistake in allowing Vlaar and Delph's contracts to run this far without being renewed. And if we're really expected to cut the club some slack because they were too busy dealing with the Culverhouse/Karsa fiasco, then we really are in a mess.

[PeterWithesShin]

Same as it is rolled out that it is the club's fault they haven't signed new contracts. Truth is none of us know the full facts.

[RussellC]

Same as it is rolled out that it is the club's fault they haven't signed new contracts. Truth is none of us know the full facts.

Delph is quoted as saying, "I'd love to sign a new deal and am ready to talk but it's not up to me so we'll have to see." For any of the suggested excuses for the club not offering Ron a new contract the Delph situation makes no sense to me, and further increases my scepticism about the club's handling of Vlaar.

[PeterWithesShin]

Which confirms that we don't know the full facts.

[KevinGage]

Delph sounds like he wants to sign but he hasn't been offered a new deal.

On leaving, Albrighton said he was wasn't offered any sort of new contract at all -despite Lambert saying he was hoping to keep him from about March onwards.

And Vlaar -one of our most important players even prior to the World Cup- has been allowed to enter the last 12 months of his current deal. 

That sounds like a consistent (if fuckwitted) strategy to me.  . 


Someone mentioned on here earlier that it was unfortunate that Vlaar played so well in the World Cup, as if to excuse the boards lack of urgency.   

Even before Benteke's injury, we only had two players who were likely to play at the World Cup (Brad being backup to Howard for the US) so it might have been prudent to offer a new deal to the only other representative we had there.   

[Mister E]

That sounds like a consistent (if fuckwitted) strategy to me.

It seems to me far more likely that Lerner led Lambert to believe that the club would be sold sooner rather than later and that the contracts of key players would get sorted out by a new owner.
That the club has not been sold leaves Lerner in the difficult position of having to sign key players up to new contracts. It really shouldn't be an issue, since the players concerned are assets, but in a sale situation it's added complexity.

[jeowje]

Dealing with these matters may be an added complexity given the circumstances, but that still does not excuse the fact that somebody somebody within the club should have been given/sought to take respondibilty for it, thif situation appears to have been avoidable.