Aaron Tshibola

[RussellC]

The problem is, we're writing off a £5m investment in the process. And I'd be extrenely surprised if Kilmarnock were covering all of his wages. Granted, Bruce didn't sign him, but don't you think that just discarding players that you inherit and don't rate (for whatever reason) has largely contributed to the financial situation that we're in.  Have we really benefiting at all from loaning out Tshibola and Gardner and buying Whelan and Lansbury? Is this not exactly the 'sticking plaster approach' that Bruce was so vocal about moving away from in the summer?

[Clampy]

It's not ideal but you have to give a manager the right to sort out who he want's in his squad and who he thinks he can do without. He did the same with Westwood and Gestede, who luckily we both got money for. I'm not going to pine for Thisbola or think what might have been because the likes of Lansbury have flattered to deceive.

[paul_e]

That's it for me, not wanting a player is fine, but surely the Lamberty Bomb Squad showed that just ignoring players isn't a great approach.

[RussellC]

That's it for me, not wanting a player is fine, but surely the Lamberty Bomb Squad showed that just ignoring players isn't a great approach.

Exactly. In how many other jobs would you just be allowed to discard assets that you inherited because you didn't like them?!

[tomd2103]

That's it for me, not wanting a player is fine, but surely the Lamberty Bomb Squad showed that just ignoring players isn't a great approach.

Used to be a pretty effective way of moving on players who were not wanted at a club ('training with the kids'), but totally redundant in an age where professional pride seem to be in short supply and many players will quite happily see out their contract watching games from the stands. 

[tomd2103]

I don't see any point in keeping someone like him on the payroll if the manager does not rate him. Bruce didn't sign him and he hasn't exactly pulled up any trees anywhere else. It's just a case of moving a player on who he thinks he can do without, like Gary Gardner for instance. There's not problem with it for me.

It's not that easy though.  If the only moves open to them involve a significant drop in wages, the player isn't going to move and they can't be forced to.  Unless a mutually agreed settlement can be reached, then the player isn't going to go anywhere in those circumstances and will see out their contract.  They might go on loan, as they will still get their money, but there's no chance they will move on if there is a big financial drop.   

[paul_e]

That's it for me, not wanting a player is fine, but surely the Lamberty Bomb Squad showed that just ignoring players isn't a great approach.

Used to be a pretty effective way of moving on players who were not wanted at a club ('training with the kids'), but totally redundant in an age where professional pride seem to be in short supply and many players will quite happily see out their contract watching games from the stands. 

I'm not sure it's about professional pride for many players.

Tish, for example, would be taking a step down the leagues to move on and if he thinks he's good enough and it's only because of Bruce that he's not getting a look in I can understand sticking it out in the hopes that Bruce fucks off and he gets a fresh start at what could be the biggest club he ever plays for.

[Mister E]

I put Tshibola in the same group as Bree and Bedeau; players bought for potential rather than immediate impact. Yes, I understand that Tshi had had gametime at Reading and had represented England but he still seemed pretty raw.
On the few occasions I've seen him play, he looked full of running, was strong and played with simple effectiveness.
He's probably beyond redemption for us, but there were the hints at a decent player.

[kieron]

Thread title needs adjustment, by the way.

[brian green]

Agree with you Mr E.  I think I saw a decent, strong, athletic player in Tshibola.  Not a world beater but no way valueless.

[Risso]

He was just a very average youth team player bought from an average Championship team. There was nothing in him to say that he worth even a fifth of what he paid for him.  I bet you could stick a pin at random in just about any Championship team youth team line up and get a player as good as Tshibola.

[tomd2103]

That's it for me, not wanting a player is fine, but surely the Lamberty Bomb Squad showed that just ignoring players isn't a great approach.

Used to be a pretty effective way of moving on players who were not wanted at a club ('training with the kids'), but totally redundant in an age where professional pride seem to be in short supply and many players will quite happily see out their contract watching games from the stands. 

I'm not sure it's about professional pride for many players.

Tish, for example, would be taking a step down the leagues to move on and if he thinks he's good enough and it's only because of Bruce that he's not getting a look in I can understand sticking it out in the hopes that Bruce fucks off and he gets a fresh start at what could be the biggest club he ever plays for.

Unless some kind of compensation was agreed, he would also be taking a significant wage cut if he moved down the leagues so you can see why players in that position are unwilling to move on.  We have a number of players in our squad who are surplus to requirements, but unlikely to get anywhere near the money they are on at Villa if they move on. 

[chrisw1]

That's it for me, not wanting a player is fine, but surely the Lamberty Bomb Squad showed that just ignoring players isn't a great approach.

Used to be a pretty effective way of moving on players who were not wanted at a club ('training with the kids'), but totally redundant in an age where professional pride seem to be in short supply and many players will quite happily see out their contract watching games from the stands. 

I'm not sure it's about professional pride for many players.

Tish, for example, would be taking a step down the leagues to move on and if he thinks he's good enough and it's only because of Bruce that he's not getting a look in I can understand sticking it out in the hopes that Bruce fucks off and he gets a fresh start at what could be the biggest club he ever plays for.

Unless some kind of compensation was agreed, he would also be taking a significant wage cut if he moved down the leagues so you can see why players in that position are unwilling to move on.  We have a number of players in our squad who are surplus to requirements, but unlikely to get anywhere near the money they are on at Villa if they move on. 

But surely it's not beyond the whit of man to reach a deal where the difference in wages is made up in an exit payment as part of the global deal?

[tomd2103]

That's it for me, not wanting a player is fine, but surely the Lamberty Bomb Squad showed that just ignoring players isn't a great approach.

Used to be a pretty effective way of moving on players who were not wanted at a club ('training with the kids'), but totally redundant in an age where professional pride seem to be in short supply and many players will quite happily see out their contract watching games from the stands. 

I'm not sure it's about professional pride for many players.

Tish, for example, would be taking a step down the leagues to move on and if he thinks he's good enough and it's only because of Bruce that he's not getting a look in I can understand sticking it out in the hopes that Bruce fucks off and he gets a fresh start at what could be the biggest club he ever plays for.

Unless some kind of compensation was agreed, he would also be taking a significant wage cut if he moved down the leagues so you can see why players in that position are unwilling to move on.  We have a number of players in our squad who are surplus to requirements, but unlikely to get anywhere near the money they are on at Villa if they move on. 

But surely it's not beyond the whit of man to reach a deal where the difference in wages is made up in an exit payment as part of the global deal?

Well no and I guess that is the only way we would be able to get rid of some of them, but it would be a costly exercise in some cases.   

[chrisw1]

It would as it crystallises some loss, but equally it shouldn't mean we are paying up their full contract, just part of it hopefully.