Given gone?

[LamBeast]

Your point is?

[supertom]

Good luck to him. He did well for us last year. In all honesty we probably survived because of some of Givens performances. But he's not as good as he once was and he's on too much money. I'd love to have him stay on as a number 2, but he's good enough to be playing in the top flight regularly still. I expect a number of clubs to come in for him.

[Villadroid]

Im not saying directors should dictate who we buy, but the contract handed to Given in times of austerity was madness.

It won't suit everyone but maybe it proves that it was a sellers' market and Villa were just as desperate for a top goalie in July 2011 as they had been for a top striker in Jan 2011 and they didn't have much of a choice other than to offer the long contract.

If Rafa's assessment of Given was correct; that he was a good goalkeeper but didn't command his area enough to allow a team to play a high line, then McLeish's decision to play his back-line a few yards nearer to their own goal-line than seemed reasonable is more understandable. 

[DrGonzo]

Im not saying directors should dictate who we buy, but the contract handed to Given in times of austerity was madness.

It won't suit everyone but maybe it proves that it was a sellers' market and Villa were just as desperate for a top goalie in July 2011 as they had been for a top striker in Jan 2011 and they didn't have much of a choice other than to offer the long contract.

If Rafa's assessment of Given was correct; that he was a good goalkeeper but didn't command his area enough to allow a team to play a high line, then McLeish's decision to play his back-line a few yards nearer to their own goal-line than seemed reasonable is more understandable. 

It's just ironic that the good keeper we were looking for was sat on the bench and McClueless couldn't see it.  Nothing against Shay, he's kept his head down and not whinged to the gutter press.  The bloke is getting on, if he still wants to pla then he best find a new club, in the best interests of both parties, I'm sure he will get a handsome pay off.

[junxs]

I don't think we're backed into a corner for a payoff as many of you suggest.

Its a 2 way street, he wants to leave so he can spend a couple of years playing first choice somewhere before retiring. We want to get rid to save money. If the pay off is near the money he would earn during the remaining term of his contract then theres no point in us shifting him as hes a more than capable back up.
So its common sense for him to move one without demanding a pay off as we could just as easily say no and make him sit on the bench until he retires.

So it's in his best interest to leave without a big pay off if he wants to play first choice somewhere

[Ad@m]

But that assumes he can find a club who will pay him what he's on at the Villa which will be a struggle I think. That's how it could cost us to shift him.

[pauliewalnuts]

Im not saying directors should dictate who we buy, but the contract handed to Given in times of austerity was madness.

It won't suit everyone but maybe it proves that it was a sellers' market and Villa were just as desperate for a top goalie in July 2011 as they had been for a top striker in Jan 2011 and they didn't have much of a choice other than to offer the long contract.

If Rafa's assessment of Given was correct; that he was a good goalkeeper but didn't command his area enough to allow a team to play a high line, then McLeish's decision to play his back-line a few yards nearer to their own goal-line than seemed reasonable is more understandable. 

It's just ironic that the good keeper we were looking for was sat on the bench and McClueless couldn't see it.  Nothing against Shay, he's kept his head down and not whinged to the gutter press.  The bloke is getting on, if he still wants to pla then he best find a new club, in the best interests of both parties, I'm sure he will get a handsome pay off.

To be fair to McLeish, though, I don't remember lots of us shouting for Given to be replaced by Guzan at the time.

[KevinGage]

Only hinting at a Summer exit because he wants to play more, fair play in my view. Bloody good keeper and would walk into any other Prem side.

WAS a good keeper, not anymore, overall a stupid signing, should have just given Friedel the 2 year deal he wanted.

Of all the crazy deals we have done in the past few years, Given in in place of Friedel was one of the few upgrades.  Brad had been showing signs of decline in 2010/11, Given was our best player in 2011/12.

I don't think Given's form in the Euros's showed him to be a spent force either, he was clearly injured.

He was ropey in the opening home match v Everton, but I'd have thought his form from last year would have bought him more time.   Lambert felt differently, and in fairness to Baby Brad, he seized the opportunity.

That happens.  If we had that level of competition for all positions we'd be in good shape (though having back up left backs on 60k per week wouldn't be the way to go).

[Ad@m]

That happens.  If we had that level of competition for all positions we'd be in good shape (though having back up left backs on 60k per week wouldn't be the way to go).

Absolutely, especially as we've only just got rid of Habib Beye!

[SoccerHQ]

Only hinting at a Summer exit because he wants to play more, fair play in my view. Bloody good keeper and would walk into any other Prem side.

WAS a good keeper, not anymore, overall a stupid signing, should have just given Friedel the 2 year deal he wanted.

In hindsight we should've just given Friedel a 5 year deal when he signed although I feel his standards were slipping near the end.

We gave Brad a 3 year deal thinking he was going to retire at the end of it and of course he was nowhere near so we had to offer him another one, I've always thought that was part of the thinking behind Given's 5 year deal but a) still a mental length and b) it's fair to say Given isn't as reliable fitness wise as Brad.

[SoccerHQ]

Im not saying directors should dictate who we buy, but the contract handed to Given in times of austerity was madness.

It won't suit everyone but maybe it proves that it was a sellers' market and Villa were just as desperate for a top goalie in July 2011 as they had been for a top striker in Jan 2011 and they didn't have much of a choice other than to offer the long contract.

If Rafa's assessment of Given was correct; that he was a good goalkeeper but didn't command his area enough to allow a team to play a high line, then McLeish's decision to play his back-line a few yards nearer to their own goal-line than seemed reasonable is more understandable. 

It's just ironic that the good keeper we were looking for was sat on the bench and McClueless couldn't see it.  Nothing against Shay, he's kept his head down and not whinged to the gutter press.  The bloke is getting on, if he still wants to pla then he best find a new club, in the best interests of both parties, I'm sure he will get a handsome pay off.

To be fair to McLeish, though, I don't remember lots of us shouting for Given to be replaced by Guzan at the time.

Not at the start of the season but Guzan played well over the xmas period and didn't deserve to lose his place once Given was fit again.

[junxs]

But that assumes he can find a club who will pay him what he's on at the Villa which will be a struggle I think. That's how it could cost us to shift him.

Not really, its not a written rule that you have to be on the same money as your previous club.
At his age, I'm sure he realises he's not worth £50k/w anymore.
There'd be plenty of clubs he could do to for £20k/w if he's willing to take the cut to play for a couple of years before retiring.

Option A) stay at Villa effectively retired for £50k
Option B) take a pay cut and be first choice and not regret it for the rest of your life.

I know what i'd choose if i was an already multi-millionaire couple of years from retiring.

[ozzjim]

Im not saying directors should dictate who we buy, but the contract handed to Given in times of austerity was madness.

It won't suit everyone but maybe it proves that it was a sellers' market and Villa were just as desperate for a top goalie in July 2011 as they had been for a top striker in Jan 2011 and they didn't have much of a choice other than to offer the long contract.

If Rafa's assessment of Given was correct; that he was a good goalkeeper but didn't command his area enough to allow a team to play a high line, then McLeish's decision to play his back-line a few yards nearer to their own goal-line than seemed reasonable is more understandable. 

It's just ironic that the good keeper we were looking for was sat on the bench and McClueless couldn't see it.  Nothing against Shay, he's kept his head down and not whinged to the gutter press.  The bloke is getting on, if he still wants to pla then he best find a new club, in the best interests of both parties, I'm sure he will get a handsome pay off.

To be fair to McLeish, though, I don't remember lots of us shouting for Given to be replaced by Guzan at the time.

Not at the start of the season but Guzan played well over the xmas period and didn't deserve to lose his place once Given was fit again.

Some of us were adamant that Guzan should have kept the shirt, especially after being a breath of fresh air in the Stoke away game.

Given did ok, but in all honesty was never the keeper I thought he was. I thought he was a much better player than he was last season. I hope someone takes him on. As said above, he asks for a big pay off I would refuse and just let him sit it out. In his interests to go and play, so he should take the financial hit.

[DrGonzo]

Im not saying directors should dictate who we buy, but the contract handed to Given in times of austerity was madness.

It won't suit everyone but maybe it proves that it was a sellers' market and Villa were just as desperate for a top goalie in July 2011 as they had been for a top striker in Jan 2011 and they didn't have much of a choice other than to offer the long contract.

If Rafa's assessment of Given was correct; that he was a good goalkeeper but didn't command his area enough to allow a team to play a high line, then McLeish's decision to play his back-line a few yards nearer to their own goal-line than seemed reasonable is more understandable. 

It's just ironic that the good keeper we were looking for was sat on the bench and McClueless couldn't see it.  Nothing against Shay, he's kept his head down and not whinged to the gutter press.  The bloke is getting on, if he still wants to pla then he best find a new club, in the best interests of both parties, I'm sure he will get a handsome pay off.

To be fair to McLeish, though, I don't remember lots of us shouting for Given to be replaced by Guzan at the time.

To be fair to us we  weren't taking training everyday.

[Toronto Villa]

Im not saying directors should dictate who we buy, but the contract handed to Given in times of austerity was madness.

It won't suit everyone but maybe it proves that it was a sellers' market and Villa were just as desperate for a top goalie in July 2011 as they had been for a top striker in Jan 2011 and they didn't have much of a choice other than to offer the long contract.

If Rafa's assessment of Given was correct; that he was a good goalkeeper but didn't command his area enough to allow a team to play a high line, then McLeish's decision to play his back-line a few yards nearer to their own goal-line than seemed reasonable is more understandable. 

It's just ironic that the good keeper we were looking for was sat on the bench and McClueless couldn't see it.  Nothing against Shay, he's kept his head down and not whinged to the gutter press.  The bloke is getting on, if he still wants to pla then he best find a new club, in the best interests of both parties, I'm sure he will get a handsome pay off.

To be fair to McLeish, though, I don't remember lots of us shouting for Given to be replaced by Guzan at the time.

I was delighted to get Given as were most on here. Handing him a 5 year deal was nuts mind you, and for me, he lost confidence as did those around him as the season went on.