Darren Bent joins Fulham on loan (Reply #486)

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

Whoever he signs for, he'll have a great first season, inevitably scoring against us, get in the England squad, still do well in the second and then be looking to move after the third.

[mr underhill]

at nearly 33 by then he'll probably be retiring

[olaftab]

I am shedding tears of blood for our "humiliated" players. I am hoping they will find some solace in having collected £60 grand a week whilst sitting around last season and urge to club to make sure they keep on being paid on time to reduce their pain.

[Shrek]

What has Bent done wrong?

[Salsa Party Animal]

be old fashioned goal poacher and not ideal for modern game who expect 11 men to play.

[danlanza]

What has Bent done wrong?

Nothing. I wish the bloke all the best at any club he goes to.

[Mister E]

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.

That is exactly the point.

[SamTheMouse]

It's also disrespectful. We have a contract with Bent, which we want to end and so we are basically telling him to get lost because he's not wanted, and making him train with the kids, which for a player of his age and ability must be pretty humiliating.

We can hardly demand loyalty from players like Benteke when we treat cast-offs like this.

I'm still assuming he's done something to piss off Lambert in some way.

[dekko]

Whatever happens, hes been a good servant to the club (his goals keeping us in the league 2 seasons running) and has been very professional about the whole getting-dropped-for-an-unknown-belgian thing.

So good luck to him sez I

[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.

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.

I understand that, I just don't see how getting them to train with the kids in any way shape or form makes it easier for us to get rid of them. We did that for Hutton, for example, and he's still on our books.

If it becomes entirely about the wage bill, then we might as well just give him away.

I fail to see how what most clubs do - make their availability known to agents, and see what happens - is not good enough, and somehow humiliating them like this helps. It's not as if making them train with the kids makes anything clearer - the whole world and his wife knows Bent and Given are available, certainly the most important parties, the clubs and agents.

[paul_e]

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.

I understand that, I just don't see how getting them to train with the kids in any way shape or form makes it easier for us to get rid of them. We did that for Hutton, for example, and he's still on our books.

If it becomes entirely about the wage bill, then we might as well just give him away.

I fail to see how what most clubs do - make their availability known to agents, and see what happens - is not good enough, and somehow humiliating them like this helps. It's not as if making them train with the kids makes anything clearer - the whole world and his wife knows Bent and Given are available, certainly the most important parties, the clubs and agents.

I stopped reading when you mentioned Hutton.  Surely comparing bent to hutton is more likely to stop people giving us lots of money for him!

[OCD]

I don't see why it would be humiliating, there's probably been discussions and likely an agreement to this approach. They know they're looking for a move and they may take some joy from training with the kids - passing on their knowledge and experience in the process. They're probably more concerned with their fitness levels to ensure that they're fit for when they join their new club (I think we can be confident Bent will get a move). They'll certainly get their fitness training with kids.

[Chris Smith]

I really can't fathom why people are so bothered by this. He's not part of the first team squad for next season so he's not training with them, leaving the coaches to concentrate on those that are.

[Toronto Villa]

I really can't fathom why people are so bothered by this. He's not part of the first team squad for next season so he's not training with them, leaving the coaches to concentrate on those that are.

Yep. I like Bent of all of those on the outside looking in, but if he's no longer part of the future, then who cares where he trains?

[eamonn]

I really can't fathom why people are so bothered by this. He's not part of the first team squad for next season so he's not training with them, leaving the coaches to concentrate on those that are.

Removing Lambert's decision, do you rate Bent?
I think while Benteke's future is a wee bit cloudy at the moment I'd rather that be sorted before doing everything we can to get shot of the other Ben(dtner).