Transfer Speculation / Gossip

[Dave Cooper please]

It was madness to bomb out Bent when we should have used him on the pitch.

Is that the Darren Bent who scored a massive three goals in 23 games for relegated Fulham?

Yes. It's 3 goals more than Jorden Bowery scored.

But not as many, in more games, than the player who was really bought in as back up to Benteke, Libor Kozac.

[CJ]

It was madness to bomb out Bent when we should have used him on the pitch.

Is that the Darren Bent who scored a massive three goals in 23 games for relegated Fulham?

Yes. It's 3 goals more than Jorden Bowery scored.

Thank goodness we had the prolific Weimann (5 goals in 24 league games) and Gabby (4 goals in 30 league games) so clearly Bent doesn't deserve a look-in

[saunders_heroes]

It was madness to bomb out Bent when we should have used him on the pitch.

Is that the Darren Bent who scored a massive three goals in 23 games for relegated Fulham?

Yes. It's 3 goals more than Jorden Bowery scored.

But not as many, in more games, than the player who was really bought in as back up to Benteke, Libor Kozac.

Would you honestly have preferred to see Bowery come off the bench than Bent?

[ktvillan]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I am under no illusion of the financial deep freeze situation we are in.

I am actually starting to feel more kinship for Lambert, given the absurd working conditions.

Randy has done a lot of good things for Villa, but I honestly don't think I could ever forgive, or overlook, the totality and speed of his disengagement from the club.

He's basically made it extremely clear (after the club informally denying it for two years) that he's got bored.

We deserve better than that.

I'm not sure Lerner has simply got bored.  It seems to me his priorities have changed with his divorce and if his and Krulak's recent utterings are anything to go by he may even have gone all religious or spiritual.  It may also be that he's finally realised what many of us have suspected for the last four years, and Browns fans were saying for years before he bought us - that however well intentioned, he just isn't very good at running a sporting institution.  By trying to run us on a shoestring with the same underling fools in charge until he sells is merely underlining his incompetence both as an owner and a businessman.   

[hilts_coolerking]

We had accumulated the amount of points it eventually took to survive by the end of March. We were fucking awful in the run in but essentially we were already safe.

That's such a bogus statistic.  I'm not having a pop at Dave specifically because he's far from the only person who has used it but it only makes any sense, if indeed it makes any at all, in purely retrospective theoretical terms.  At the moment we reached that number of points plenty of games had yet to be played and several positions were still up for grabs.  It's nonsense to say we were already safe at that stage because manifestly we were not.

[Rolta]

We had accumulated the amount of points it eventually took to survive by the end of March. We were fucking awful in the run in but essentially we were already safe.

That's such a bogus statistic.  I'm not having a pop at Dave specifically because he's far from the only person who has used it but it only makes any sense, if indeed it makes any at all, in purely retrospective theoretical terms.  At the moment we reached that number of points plenty of games had yet to be played and several positions were still up for grabs.  It's nonsense to say we were already safe at that stage because manifestly we were not.

But in reality we were. You can argue about it any way around but we did get enough points to stay up in March.

[hilts_coolerking]

But in reality we were. You can argue about it any way around but we did get enough points to stay up in March.

In reality we weren't because none of the rest of that season's matches had been played yet.  It's only in retrospect you can say that, knowing the results of all the matches.  The fact is we weren't safe at the end of March.

[Clampy]

I've said this before but we were very lucky Norwich had the horrible run in that they did because we were absolutely woeful from the Chelsea game onwards.

[Chris Smith]

We had accumulated the amount of points it eventually took to survive by the end of March. We were fucking awful in the run in but essentially we were already safe.

That's such a bogus statistic.  I'm not having a pop at Dave specifically because he's far from the only person who has used it but it only makes any sense, if indeed it makes any at all, in purely retrospective theoretical terms.  At the moment we reached that number of points plenty of games had yet to be played and several positions were still up for grabs.  It's nonsense to say we were already safe at that stage because manifestly we were not.

Of course it was still possible for us to go down then but the fact is that the way it turned out the points we had accumulated at that point were enough to keep us up.

Apart from the MON interlude we have spent much of the last few years hovering around that end of the table so I think we have got quite good at reading these situations and it always seemed that however poor our run was not enough of the teams at the bottom ever looked capable of catching us.

Now that isn't anything to be proud of, just suggesting that despite missing several important players we have always kept our head above water. It therefore isn't too great a leap of faith to think that with those people fit again and a few additions we can hope for a different season this time.

[paul_e]

But in reality we were. You can argue about it any way around but we did get enough points to stay up in March.

In reality we weren't because none of the rest of that season's matches had been played yet.  It's only in retrospect you can say that, knowing the results of all the matches.  The fact is we weren't safe at the end of March.

In reality we were, it's just that no one knew for sure at the time, to think otherwise means that you believe that if we'd had a few points less it would have affected the performances of the teams below us.

That said I did point out in January that the 38-40 points that people were talking about was well over the actual figure it was going to need to be safe, I think I predicted 34.  When the top 5-6 are finishing with more points (between them) than pretty much any other season those points have to come from somewhere, which is clearly going to be the bottom half.

There were 6 teams who, by the end of January, were averaging less than a point a game, even if 3 of them turned things round (Palace, West Ham and Sunderland) it was safe to assume that at least 3 would end up on less than 35-36 points, and those teams they did pull away would have taken points from other bottom half sides.  That meant, for us, that 10 points for the last 15 games was always going to be enough, we actually got 11 and that proved to be 4 more than we needed.

[hilts_coolerking]

In reality we were, it's just that no one knew for sure at the time, to think otherwise means that you believe that if we'd had a few points less it would have affected the performances of the teams below us.

That said I did point out in January that the 38-40 points that people were talking about was well over the actual figure it was going to need to be safe, I think I predicted 34.  When the top 5-6 are finishing with more points (between them) than pretty much any other season those points have to come from somewhere, which is clearly going to be the bottom half.

There were 6 teams who, by the end of January, were averaging less than a point a game, even if 3 of them turned things round (Palace, West Ham and Sunderland) it was safe to assume that at least 3 would end up on less than 35-36 points, and those teams they did pull away would have taken points from other bottom half sides.  That meant, for us, that 10 points for the last 15 games was always going to be enough, we actually got 11 and that proved to be 4 more than we needed.

No, when the match against Hull kicked off on 3 May we were still in danger, i.e. not safe.  Can't put it any more plainly than that.  To think otherwise is just not in accordance with the facts.

[The Man With A Stick]

Arsenal looking at loaning out Joel Campbell again according to reports.  From what I've seen of him in Brazil, and if we're not in the market to spend more than twenty quid on anyone, we should be in there like a shot.

[paul_e]

In reality we were, it's just that no one knew for sure at the time, to think otherwise means that you believe that if we'd had a few points less it would have affected the performances of the teams below us.

That said I did point out in January that the 38-40 points that people were talking about was well over the actual figure it was going to need to be safe, I think I predicted 34.  When the top 5-6 are finishing with more points (between them) than pretty much any other season those points have to come from somewhere, which is clearly going to be the bottom half.

There were 6 teams who, by the end of January, were averaging less than a point a game, even if 3 of them turned things round (Palace, West Ham and Sunderland) it was safe to assume that at least 3 would end up on less than 35-36 points, and those teams they did pull away would have taken points from other bottom half sides.  That meant, for us, that 10 points for the last 15 games was always going to be enough, we actually got 11 and that proved to be 4 more than we needed.

No, when the match against Hull kicked off on 3 May we were still in danger, i.e. not safe.  Can't put it any more plainly than that.  To think otherwise is just not in accordance with the facts.

Mathematically yes, realistically no.  To have gone down from that point would've required a bunch of results to go other than they did which wasn't very likely.  The win against Hull removed any lingering threat but in reality had no bearing on us staying up, I can't put it any simpler thanthat.

[adrenachrome]

I've said this before but we were very lucky Norwich had the horrible run in that they did because we were absolutely woeful from the Chelsea game onwards.

Good point, and it is worth remembering that in the game at our place, they were a goal up and had carved our defence open several times before Benteke's wonder goal turned the tide. With that cock McNally for a CE though, they deserved to go down.

[hilts_coolerking]

Mathematically yes, realistically no.  To have gone down from that point would've required a bunch of results to go other than they did which wasn't very likely.  The win against Hull removed any lingering threat but in reality had no bearing on us staying up, I can't put it any simpler thanthat.

Exactly.  We weren't safe from relegation even in May.  Not at the end of March as some insist on claiming.  No-one could possibly say with certainty at the end of March that we were safe.  You can only do that in the close season with the luxury of hindsight, at which point it's entirely academic anyway.  The only reason I keep pointing this out is because some keep repeating it as if it's true, which it isn't.

Anyway, back to transfer speculation.  Oh there isn't any.