MessiWillSignForVilla

Well, it's been said he's having a medical tomorrow by a Sky journo, and they asked Lambert after they game who didn't deny and it suggested that we were about to sign him.

Because 1 (the one he's replacing) has a broken leg, Helenius isn't the same type of striker as Kozak and still getting to grips with league, and Bowery is that great. Plus Gabby is utilised as a wide man as is Weimann (who's been cack all season). So I count 1 first team striker, 2 young backups and 2 wide men, plus one out for the rest of the season. Holt most likely won't start, he's a Kozak replacement. But you know, **** the logic behind the signing, let's slag off the club! EDIT: I'll add, I'm not over the moon with the signing, but it makes sense, as long as it isn't our only signing, which I doubt. It makes sense? Signing a player not fit or good enough to play in the league below makes sense? Yes. One of our strikers has broken his leg. We have identified a similar striker who would cost very little and probably on lowish wages. We signed him on a 6 month deal. He most likely won't start ahead of Benteke and is better than our current Kozak backup, Bowery. It makes sense.

Because 1 (the one he's replacing) has a broken leg, Helenius isn't the same type of striker as Kozak and still getting to grips with league, and Bowery is that great. Plus Gabby is utilised as a wide man as is Weimann (who's been cack all season). So I count 1 first team striker, 2 young backups and 2 wide men, plus one out for the rest of the season. Holt most likely won't start, he's a Kozak replacement. But you know, **** the logic behind the signing, let's slag off the club! EDIT: I'll add, I'm not over the moon with the signing, but it makes sense, as long as it isn't our only signing, which I doubt.

Oh come on, how naive are you? Gareth Barry and Scott Parker are experienced and also very good footballers, Grant Holt is of course "experienced" since he is turning 33 in three months - but he has only two seasons in the Premier League and he is a crap footballer. Two years ago, yes then I would have taken him on since he was robust and on top of his game. Now? 32 years old and barely getting a game for Wigan? Same with Wes Hoolahan, is he really the best we can get? The answer is no. They are the best Lambert can get a hold of, basically because he has no nous in the market. It's fine though, obviously he is a cover for the injured Kozak and he will probably cost next to nothing anyway. However, it is a big, big sign of our intentions. As a fan you always dream of something big to happen, that we suddenly start to invest again and that our team develops together in an extraordinary way. But as it is, we are just a team trying to stay in the Premier League. Everything above 18th is acceptable so to speak. No not naive, just not shitting myself over a 6 month deal and pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy on here. People on here wanted experience, we get it, they complain because it's not the experienced player they wanted, all whilst dismissing the logical reasoning behind getting said player just because it doesn't fit in with their argument. A short term loan move that will probably cost next to nowt and is an obvious replacement for a player who broke his leg just over a week ago, not much to shout about but not one to cause such outcry. Would we have signed him if Kozak didn't break his leg? I doubt it personally. As I said earlier on, if this is our ONLY signing, then I'll be hugely disappointed.

I've seen no-one who is cheering this and getting excited, only over-reactions from people who don't like it. And with every signing, I'm going to give him a chance to play first before judging him.

Weren't people complaining that we weren't getting experience in the summer? And now we get some, people are moaning?

No-one's getting excited, but people are hugely over-reacting to a short term loan deal that will most likely cost us peanuts.

Wasting an apparent lack of funds? But we're only loaning him, surely not on that much at Wigan, and we probably won't pay all his wages.

But before that, they didn't create anything, and only really broke through thanks to 2 horrendous mistakes. They may have sat back after their goals, but they weren't that threatening beforehand either.

Other than that 1 minute in the first half, I thought we were decent. Very positive signs at the end too, Benteke starting to play well again?

As a loan deal, I don't mind it. Permanent, **** off! Kozak's broken his leg, we need a short term replacement, and as Con said, if it's out only signing then I'll be hugely disappointed. Nothing to do with being broke. It's a short term fix to a short term problem, i.e. Kozak's injury.

PUT IT OUT!!!! Unlike us when we were attacking...

A kick up the arse maybe? please?

Benteke will be much better when he gets better service. Actually any service. With the midfield we have we could have Ronaldo up front and he won't do anything chasing hoof balls all game. As they showed before the match, he's had the same amount of chances since Sept as he did when he was in good form.

a report in the Mirror with no quotes? Welcome Grant!!!

Fortunately every team in the bottom half is absolutely embarrassingly bad. This is possibly the worst 20 teams there has been in the top flight for decades, so we might get away with it. The Premier League is pretty bad now considering everyone likes to remind us it's the best league in the world

Been a shite game all round. Neither team really created anything apart from when we decided Arsenal should be winning...

Apart from that 1 minute, we've been fairly good. Good to hear Baker's looking better too.

I'm liking this post just because you liked it yourself. Did I? Balls. Bloody IPad and fat fingers. Nah. Old-fashioned narcissism. He only did it so he could mention his iPad

**** me Baker! Another head injury!

Should of slipped Benteke in!

(Cut for size) I posted this earlier in the thread and think it's relevant once more: Clubs these days are seen as the ultimate marketing tool for promoting a company or region. Malaysia, Africa, The Middle East... Etihad, Emirates. So far, not one has needed to change the name of the club i order to achieve their goals, and should Red Bull take over a team I think this would be the same too. The other Red Bull owned teams are in more pliable leagues with far less history - but also far less global exposure. If Aston Villa were the team to be taken over, they'd still be named Aston Villa IMO. We may play at Villa Park too - although likely to be The Red Bull Arena in the fashion that Ashburton Grove and The City of Manchester Stadium are dubbed The Emirates and The Etihad Stadium whilst they're being sponsored. I couldn't envisage them getting away with a home strip change either, but their white and claret does make for good away kit. In short, were we to be taken over by a corporation, as a premier league team due to the sheer exposure of the league, the need to change everything about the club isn't as necessary as it is for clubs owned in less viewed leagues. I understand what you're saying RE Etihad and Fly Emirates, but they don't own the clubs though, just pay sponsorship. Owning a football club is not a viable business option, so if a global company were to buy us they would want to exploit every piece of advertising they could, as IMO, I don't think the size of the Premier League on it's own is enough to make owning a club viable.

What do you expect the club to do though? They're not gonna come out and say "Well, it's all gone tits up and we can't do anything to stop. I'm off to the Bahamas, enjoy the rest of the season guys!" Of course they're gonna come out, try paint everything in a good light and try turn the mood around.

Starting with Baker and Clark tonight.

Yes please So you hate Randy Lerner so much you'd rather us change to playing in Red & White and become Red Bull Birmingham? No matter how badly Lerner is running this club, I'd rather have him than be turned into another Red Bull FC. If we got bought by Red Bull, it would probably be the end of my support of football, as Villa is only thing that i'm currently clinging on to. Id rather have Red Bull than watch another minute of this bollocks Lerner and Lambert produce on a weekly basis Sums up modern football really. You don't like Lerner and Lambert so you'd rather have the club's soul sold off just so it might change. Give me a poorly run AVFC under Lerner over whatever Red Bull would turn us into anyday. It wouldnt be selling the clubs soul though. But it would. If Red Bull bought us (which they won't) they would want to change us to Red Bull Birmingham/Aston, want us to play at Red Bull Park and change us from Claret & Blue to Red & White, otherwise what's the point for them? Football isn't a profitable business. Sure they'll get some advertising from buying the club and probably be our shirt sponsor, but the main sponsorship of their other 4 clubs is that they are called Red Bull [insert region here], with the exception of Leipzig who are protected by German league rules, rules which the FA and the Premier League do not have AFAIK, so they'd want to do it to us too. What else do they get out of owning a football club? Pointless debating this though as it won't happen.