Darren Bent joins Fulham on loan (Reply #486)

[villanois]

While I'm surprised Bent and Given have received the same treatment I was expecting for Ireland and Hutton, it does put the onus on the players to pressure their agents to find them new clubs. One other thought is that with Lambert bringing in several new players that indicate new tactics and attacking threat, maybe he is reducing how much info these two can offer their new clubs when preparing to face us this coming season

[pauliewalnuts]

We are desperate to shift them, and as I suggested a while back, the club will do anything to move them on. They will make the players that are surplus to requirements as attractive as possible to any potential club, and clearly they are sending a message to those players that they need to move on. It might seem harsh but it's business. Just as we have lost players who suddenly lost their emotional attachment to us when a bigger club comes knocking, the club are saying they want them gone.

I'd imagine we want to shift them, but also to get as much money back for them as we can.

I understand the idea of telling the players they need to find a new club - that happens all the time, at all clubs - but I don't see how expressing how alienated they are from the way we want to move forward, ie by not letting them train with the first team, is going to have any effect other than driving down the money we get for them.

We look like we're absolutely desperate to move them on, and that is only going to drive prices down. It is playing our hand in public when there is no need to do so.

[eastie]

We are desperate to shift them, and as I suggested a while back, the club will do anything to move them on. They will make the players that are surplus to requirements as attractive as possible to any potential club, and clearly they are sending a message to those players that they need to move on. It might seem harsh but it's business. Just as we have lost players who suddenly lost their emotional attachment to us when a bigger club comes knocking, the club are saying they want them gone.

I'd imagine we want to shift them, but also to get as much money back for them as we can.

I understand the idea of telling the players they need to find a new club - that happens all the time, at all clubs - but I don't see how expressing how alienated they are from the way we want to move forward, ie by not letting them train with the first team, is going to have any effect other than driving down the money we get for them.

We look like we're absolutely desperate to move them on, and that is only going to drive prices down. It is playing our hand in public when there is no need to do so.

Totally agree paulie, i said similar on the last page - we are devaluing them by isolating them from the main squad .

[Hoppo]

I'm of the opinion transfer fees are the least of The Clubs issues. Getting them off wage bill is paramount.

[Ron Manager]

Yep I agree with that. Wages are becoming an issue with all clubs. Even with Man City

[Chris Smith]

We are desperate to shift them, and as I suggested a while back, the club will do anything to move them on. They will make the players that are surplus to requirements as attractive as possible to any potential club, and clearly they are sending a message to those players that they need to move on. It might seem harsh but it's business. Just as we have lost players who suddenly lost their emotional attachment to us when a bigger club comes knocking, the club are saying they want them gone.

I'd imagine we want to shift them, but also to get as much money back for them as we can.

I understand the idea of telling the players they need to find a new club - that happens all the time, at all clubs - but I don't see how expressing how alienated they are from the way we want to move forward, ie by not letting them train with the first team, is going to have any effect other than driving down the money we get for them.

We look like we're absolutely desperate to move them on, and that is only going to drive prices down. It is playing our hand in public when there is no need to do so.

Everyone in football will know that we're looking to sell him, Bent and his agent do not exist in a vacuum so I'm not sure that this will make much difference as anyone who needs to know will be aware that he's available.

It would be a waste of his and our time to spend time involving him in coaching sessions ahead of the new season when he's clearly not going to feature.

[pauliewalnuts]

Everyone knows we are looking to sell him. There's nothing unusual about a club being in that situation. Bent's agent will have been speaking to potential buyers.

By putting him in with the kids, though, it makes it clear we're not prepared to countenance him staying.

For Given, that's a bit daft, as one injury to Guzan and we're screwed for an experienced replacement, so we may actually turn out to need him.

I'd have thought that by making it so utterly clear they have no place here, our desperation to get shot of them is clear, thus our bargaining position is weakened.

If I were, say, Newcastle thinking of spending 8m on him, I'd now be revising that amount down, and waiting as long as I could before getting him in.

Plus, what happens if nobody does buy them in this window? Two expensive players we're still forking out wages for, who are not going to be prepared mentally or physically to come in and do a job.

[Chris Smith]

Everyone knows we are looking to sell him. There's nothing unusual about a club being in that situation. Bent's agent will have been speaking to potential buyers.

By putting him in with the kids, though, it makes it clear we're not prepared to countenance him staying.

For Given, that's a bit daft, as one injury to Guzan and we're screwed for an experienced replacement.

I'd have thought that by making it so utterly clear they have no place here, our desperation to get shot of them is clear, thus our bargaining position is weakened.

If I were, say, Newcastle thinking of spending 8m on him, I'd now be revising that amount down, and waiting as long as I could before getting him in.

I just don't see it, I reckon that would happen whatever we do. When clubs know players are surplus to requirements it becomes a buyers market and it's done very much on their terms.

Edit for your add on: Squad numbers are limited these days, they probably won't be listed so it becomes a moot point.

[eastie]

Can see the possibility of it going right down the midnight on deadline day and us facing a take it or leave it low offer for both.

With the wages they are on we wouldn't want them training with the kids all season surely if we don't offload them?

[VILLA MOLE]

There may well be brinkmanship , but lets not forget somebody will need and be getting a proven goalscorer

[Toronto Villa]

We are desperate to shift them, and as I suggested a while back, the club will do anything to move them on. They will make the players that are surplus to requirements as attractive as possible to any potential club, and clearly they are sending a message to those players that they need to move on. It might seem harsh but it's business. Just as we have lost players who suddenly lost their emotional attachment to us when a bigger club comes knocking, the club are saying they want them gone.

I'd imagine we want to shift them, but also to get as much money back for them as we can.

I understand the idea of telling the players they need to find a new club - that happens all the time, at all clubs - but I don't see how expressing how alienated they are from the way we want to move forward, ie by not letting them train with the first team, is going to have any effect other than driving down the money we get for them.

We look like we're absolutely desperate to move them on, and that is only going to drive prices down. It is playing our hand in public when there is no need to do so.

All of which will have been considered by the club and they clearly feel this is the right approach. They want the players gone and are making that fact absolutely clear to all concerned. If it means getting 5m not 7m for Bent, but shifting his 70k a week then that's the bigger savings as opposed to having him be here for the balance of the next two years contributing nothing to the cause. same applies to Given, Ireland, Hutton etc. Getting their wages off the books is far more important than the fee itself, and getting rid of the potential distraction the presence of all of these players causes is just as appealing.

[placeforparks]

if these humiliated men want to leave so badly, they can always ask for a transfer to force the issue and waive their 'loyalty' bonuses.

[eamonn]

Has Bent been tweeting at all about this or anyone been trying to rile him on it? Footballers who use the medium must be dying to contravene their confidentiality clauses. Not that it stops Joey Barton mind you.

Lambert clearly made the bold move early on to strip back the experienced, ergo high-earning players. Not one I entirely agree with but we aren't privy to the realities of what spending power he has. I do think Randy is a bit embarassed about all this. He was very "proud Dad" in demeanour towards Bent for a long time after his arrival. Not to Uncle Doug levels, but there was stuff like stopping by especially at Bodymoor to see our record singing, giving him loads of Cleveland Browns/American Football paraphernalia when realising Bent was a fan of the game. Maybe Darren has remembered this good treatment in biting his tongue through all this. Someone mentioned moving him abroad.  I imagine that  is probably less-likely after his recent marriage.

[Vancouver]

But if you are a club looking to buy a proven goalscorer like Bent, you wouldn't want to wait too long before trying to snap him up otherwise you may miss out to another club. Therefore I don't think that the price will hit rock bottom. The market price is what someone is willing to pay. I can see him leaving for around 8m to the likes of Newcastle who need a striker. If they try to wait until nearer the deadline then a deal may already be in place and they miss out. So pay the 8m now, or risk not getting him.

[eastie]

But if you are a club looking to buy a proven goalscorer like Bent, you wouldn't want to wait too long before trying to snap him up otherwise you may miss out to another club. Therefore I don't think that the price will hit rock bottom. The market price is what someone is willing to pay. I can see him leaving for around 8m to the likes of Newcastle who need a striker. If they try to wait until nearer the deadline then a deal may already be in place and they miss out. So pay the 8m now, or risk not getting him.

Or if a fee is agreed for him they may step in and match it - bluff and counter bluff , i will be very surprised if we get £8m though - more likely £5m i expect.