GlastonSpur

I see. So in the circumstances you describe, not only will Villa pass up on getting £19m (let's say), you'll also voluntarily deprive yourselves of your best player. In other words, in your scenario you end up with no incoming money and no player either. On a scale of 1 - 100, I'd give that possible outcome a zero .... which is one reason amongst several why all of the bargaining chips are NOT in Villa's hand, despite the many assertions on here to the contrary.

Well, OK. But the best of bad situation is hardly the same as being in a "fantastic position". The latter would be where Benteke had signed a new contract and declared great enthusiasm for the coming season at Villa. As it stands, it's unlikely that such an unhappy player is going to perform as well as last season and, even worse, could well cause serious ructions and spread demoralisation across your squad. Your club decision makers will have to decide whether the risks involved are worth turning down a transfer profit of £11m (my guess), being able to reinvest £19m in the squad and move on with a united set of players. I'm not saying that Benteke's sale to Spurs will happen, but I am saying that the choices are more limited and more difficult than the vast majority of posts in this thread would indicate. Spurs have lost several really good players in recent seasons - it's the way of the world. But we've mostly emerged with a stronger squad, because the sale proceeds have been spent mostly wisely. Villa can do the same.

fantastic position really we are in. .... Having your best player handing in a transfer request is a "fantastic position"? You should read 1984 by George Orwell: "War is Peace". "Ignorance is Strength" etc.

Will you please post a link to the report/article containing this quote from Lambert?

Try sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly: it's a convenient avoidance mechanism when it comes to points of view that you don't wish to contemplate.

Care to share what your thinking is? I am sure we could all do with a chuckle. Sure. I've managed to establish some important facts ... at least some of which seem previously to have been lost or ignored in this thread: 1) That the supposed £25m min. valuation figure (and anything higher) comes simply from media reports - not a very reliable source of information when it comes to transfer stories. 2) That Downing handed in a transfer request. This resulted in him being sold despite the Villa manager having previously stated that he was not for sale and he would not be leaving Villa in the summer concerned. This leads me to think that Benteke's sale to Spurs, for less than £25m, is not as impossible as most VTers profess to believe. I've also been thinking about the some of your other high profile sales: * Villa refused to sell Barry to Liverpool because the club's 18m valuation wasn't met. But then the club lost 50% of that price when he was sold to City for 12m a year later. * Downing's 20m price tag was paid by Liverpool during a time that club were still deep in their much-regretted phase of paying crazy prices for players left, right and centre (pace Henderson, Carroll etc). * Milner was sold for 20.5m (when Ireland's valuation was taken in account) to moneybags city. * Young was sold for somewhere between 15 - 20m, again to a very wealthy club. From this I conclude that Villa's "high-price" and "tough" negotiating stance is perhaps not quite all that it's cracked up to be ... and that when it comes to a player (Benteke) who has handed in a transfer request - and a player for whom no sign of a bidding war is emerging (at least not involving any clubs that Benteke is willing to sign for) - all talk of £25m+ is perhaps actually based on not much more than wishful thinking. My thoughts can be greeted with hoots of derision if you wish, but at least I have based them on some actual facts, rather than mere Villa-biased assertion.

OK. Thanks for that. So Downing did hand in a formal transfer request, but not Milner or Young (or Barry) it seems. This further clarifies my thinking re. the Benteke situation.

Out of interest again, because I honestly can't recall, did any of Downing, Milner or Young put in a formal transfer request?

But there is no such valuation it seems - at least not one set by AVFC. In which case, how do you (or anyone else on VT) know what the club will or will not accept? Isn't it all just subjective opinion, with no factual backing?

Thank you for answering my question. I had previously been led to believe that a price of minimum of £25m had been set, but it seems from your comments that this is not the case. My view of the situation has changed quite considerably.as a result.

Oh look, the other one is here too. Point out where somebody official from Spurs has expressed an interest in Benteke and we'll let you stay and pontificate all you like. All I've done is make a request, as I gather from numerous posts in this thread that there is some specific minimum price - a price set by AVFC - that any club has to meet if they wish to sign Benteke. Or have I gained the wrong impression and there is no such stated price? All I seek is clarity on the subject.

Out of interest, could someone please give me the link to where someone from Villa (manager/owner/official) cited a specific minimum sale price for Benteke?

My take on all this: Benteke wants to sign for Spurs. This is partly because he doesn't want to risk spending lots of time on the bench at somewhere like Chelsea. But Spurs are never going to offer £25m (far less more than that). My guess would be that we might offer £19m, at the very most, and even that would break our transfer record. For argument's sake, let's say the offer was £19m, which is £11m more than you paid for him, or so I gather. Villa would then have a very difficult choice IMO - regardless of those of you will say that a flat rejection should be automatic and easy. Because if the answer is "no", then you end up without £19m (and £11m profit), plus a very unhappy player who is likely to be a disruptive influence within the club. Yes, players who want to leave can be forced to stay. We did that with Modric for a year, but the difference (compared to Benteke) was: * He was on much higher wages already - i.e. without needing to sign a new contract to get them, a new contract that he was not willing to sign (as with Benteke). * He was still always likely to continue to do his best playing-wise (the same might be true of Benteke for all I know, but his past behaviour suggests this is a riskier proposition). * He was at a club that was at least challenging for top 4 and had finished in the top 4 whilst he was there. Of course Villa have every right to stick out for £25m (or whatever the figure is) and every right to say no to lower offers, if that's what you choose. But I don't believe another club will offer more than Spurs, or not at least another club that Benteke is willing to sign for. And it's all very well saying that he's worth £30m (or whatever), or citing the freak money that Andy Carroll was signed for by Liverpool, but the real world of transfers doesn't usually work like that .... or not unless there are several very wealthy clubs competing against each other, or one very wealthy club who are desperate to sign a particular player. Neither club will want a protracted wrangle: Spurs not least because we won't want to risk wasting the summer in a fruitless pursuit. So I believe Spurs will make their best offer and a deadline for Villa's response. And Villa may in any case do the same. So if Villa think it'd be better to force him to stay rather than to accept £19m (the "for argument's sake" max figure IMO) and be able to move on with clear water ahead into the rest of the summer window - then obviously that's your perogative. Personally I think it'd be a mistake, but then I'm not an unbiased spectator. And who knows, you could keep him and then be able to sell him next summer for more than the notional £19m Spurs offer. But with one year less on his contract this would seem unlikely ... unless he plays very well for you again this time around.

OK. Thanks for that. I'd reckon he's a bit of a miss for you, as I'd rate him as one of your better CMs.

Yes, that true: Lloris, Walker, Dawson ©, Caulker, Vertonghen, Huddlestone, Dembele, Dempsey, Lennon, Bale and Defoe. Assuming no injuries, for the Villa match I'd expect Friedel to return in place of Lloris, Gallas in place of Dawson and Sandro in place of Huddlestone. Perhaps also Adebayor will start instead of Dempsey (or Sigurdsson) since he's now been back in training for several days. Kaboul, Ekotto, Naughton and Parker will all (as far I know) still be out injured. Who is on the injury list for Villa?

Levy deals with fee negotiations (and wages for incoming players). He doesn't choose which new players are needed (or can be let go). It's stupid to believe that AVB has nothing to do with Spurs transfers. I've given an informed opinion about Defoe, who has been mentioned a fair bit on VT. Your response is aggressive nonsense.

I wouldn't take AVB's comments at face value - there's a lot of smokescreens swirling around at Spurs currently. I think there's a decent chance that Spurs will sign another striker, in which case, given Defoe's strong desire for regular first team football, it wouldn't surprise me greatly (but still a little bit) if Defoe is allowed to leave. This assumes, of course, that he'd be willing to sign for club X and that a reasonable fee is involved for Spurs.

"Luka Modric edges closer to Real Madrid move from Tottenham Hotspur Real Madrid made a significant breakthrough in their protracted attempt to sign Luka Modric from Tottenham on Wednesday after offering to increase their up-front fee beyond £30 million on a potential £38 million deal. Tottenham had initially placed a £50 million price-tag on their midfielder and had turned down a deal that could have risen to more than £35million because they were unhappy with the guaranteed proportion of the payment. Real, however, have indicated that they are willing to restructure the deal to guarantee Tottenham closer to £35 million and Modric is now finally expected in Madrid in the next 48 hours for a medical and to agree personal terms." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/tottenham-hotspur/9478617/Luka-Modric-edges-closer-to-Real-Madrid-move-from-Tottenham-Hotspur.html

Since most of the new stadium will adjacent to current one, except for one "side", we'll be able to carry on playing in the old stadium - albeit with reduced capacity for a period when the final "side" of the new stadium is being built.

"Paying for the stadium" will likely be an exaggeration. I'd say it's more likely to involve the sale of stadium naming rights ... for something that may be not far short of 200m. When combined with the 90m already spent (on buying the land and the design/planning permission process), plus the money coming in from the deal with Sainsburys (mega supermarket complex), plus the 27m from the Mayor of London/government fund, plus a bank loan, the total will hopefully allow Levy to announce that we have all the cash needed to begin construction. And hopefully the size of the bank loan required won't be so big as to drain resources away from continued squad investment over the next few years ... but we shall see.

In the league they didn't improve - they got worse: their average points-per-game declined under the new manager. This makes a nonsense of your claim that "If Di Matteo was there from the start of the season, Chelsea would of been higher then 6th"

I'd be happy with AVB. His record in the league at Chelski was better than that of his replacement ... and at Spurs he won't have the problems he faced with players like Terry, Lampard (etc) who clearly believe that their say should count for more than the managers. Nor will he have the problem of an interfering club owner. All managerial appointments are a gamble. This is one I'm glad Spurs are willing to make.

Spurs only appear to be without a manager. But behind the scenes I'd guess there is AVB, who can't be announced officially until on or soon after July 1st due to contract-severance clauses with Chelski.

Contract length is a factor, true. But in this case IMO it's outweighed by Naughton's now Prem-proven ability. In any case, Spurs rarely sell young players for less than they paid for them. But, hey-ho, if Spurs sell we'll see which of us is correct.

You're forgetting the 28 appearances for Norwich in the Prem. When we signed him he had no Prem experience, but now he's shown he can make the step up. Spurs took a gamble that this would be the case - a gamble that any new club won't have to make. So, pretty obviously, Spurs (if they sell) will expect to make a profit from a successful gamble.