Rovers13

He starred for bilbao as they finished top four on Spain last year. You not having heard of him is kinda irrelevant to how good he is.

Well, they signed ander Herrera from a club in the champions league already. They attracted a manager that has won the champions league and surely would've had champions league clubs interested. They got a kit deal larger than anyone in the champions league. Real has always been more attractive than Man U, even before they were outside of the champions league. It isn't the be all end all you act like

I know Ancellotti likes his midfielders but c'mon son, you don't need Rodriguez. Kroos I can understand as he's clearly Alonso's replacement.

Modric Kroos

Ronaldo Rodriguez Bale

Benzema

?

Benzema would be the first one I would be replacing.

Very good striker but never world class, and rarely does it when it matters the most.

What does that mean? He was pretty brilliant in the champions league semis against bayern this season. That matters a lot

Villa would undoubtedly partner with Ramen

That's intriguing and would no doubt be pretty effective, but there's no defensive midfielder and that would require more defensive work from ronaldo and bale than they did last year.

That was an excellent point made by City's owner. He said basically, "We have no debts, pay all money to other clubs up front, and invest in out local area. Manchester United and Real Madrid have hundreds of millions of pounds of debt and spend nearly as much or more on players. And we're the ones who are punished by financial fair play."

Exactly, the number of players matters. If villa had an almost complete squad and he only had to spend on 5 or 6 players with those funds, then yeah, you'd expect quality. But he's had to spend on what, 15 or 16?

There's more to it than that though. Lallana was also a lot more important to Southampton than Kroos was to Bayern. (He'd been there for years, was their captain, probably their best player)

And you're wrong, if he had four years left they wouldn't have sold him in the first place. Certainly would've taken more than £30m for them to even consider it.

Man city might have something to say about that

12m for a player coming off an achilles rupture and not due back until at least October? Newcastle fans are nuts. If true, then Newcastle nuts.

I don't think they'd regret that purchase

When has lambert even spent £10m on a player? I really doubt he'll spend a ton on an out and out striker.

Wasn't Benteke 8m? Near enough 10m!

I think 7m. Which is a 3m difference. At most clubs that's small, but at villa, that equates to two players.

The only thing I'll say (because I'm not british) is I really don't think today's youth are much worse than yesterday's youth, or decades ago youth. We tend to romanticize past times because the positive aspects get remembered more, (as long as there's nothing really bad) but in current times we see the issues all the time, and the press is all too eager to jump on the narrative that the young today are these lazy, morally corrupted people.

Van gaal is a good manager, but he's had some pretty bad failures to go along with his successes.

Also, Zabaleta can play left back so they could play him there and Sagna on the right if they want defensive solidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Premier_League#League_table

Only 38 games to hold on.......

Seeing burnley there looks wrong

I don't think it will happen. But, City missing out doesn't seem like it would be that surprising. They're not strengthening in the same way as the others, and they have some aging players. (Like yaya toure)

They're about to sign Mangala who is like a Kompany clone and already have Fernando. I think they'll push Chelsea for the title.

I do too. I kind of think they'll win it. But, I'm not convinced by their midfield depth

I don't think it will happen. But, City missing out doesn't seem like it would be that surprising. They're not strengthening in the same way as the others, and they have some aging players. (Like yaya toure)

Just like watching Brazil

You're on fire

If I were vlaar I'd want more than a 50% increase

The Guardian has Ron on their list of "Don'ts" in their World Cup Transfer Do's and Don't's article:

Ron Vlaar, Holland and Aston Villa

The Villa defender was undoubtedly one of the standout centre-backs in Brazil – which begs the question of whether he has looked unimpressive in the Premier League only due to the standard of his team-mates. Don’t be fooled – Louis van Gaal is a shrewd operator who built a defensive system around Vlaar, often favouring a back three to compensate for the appalling lack of pace. The heat of Brazil and naturally slower rhythm of international football suits the veteran far better than the helter-skelter stylings of English football.

And that's not even taking into account his injury record, which is a bit spotty. I'm certain that neutrals don't rate him as highly as (some) Villa fans do. I'm going to remain positive that we'll be able to hang onto him.

But that's so inaccurate it's not even worth reading

I think he would play on the right side of a diamond at villa. Which I wouldn't mind at all

The Roma interest in Vlaar rumor actually makes sense.

Some people ask the question as to why we get so animated about Israel's missile attacks and have very little or nothing to say about Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan or the British parliament's overwhelming endorsement of the use of missiles in Libya.

It does seem that we are rather selective in our outrage.

To be fair, though I don't like the drones, they seem more targeted and kill less civilians. It still sucks though

The Arabs who stayed put are currently citizens of the Israeli state, enjoying this democracy, being a part of the parliament, enjoying all the rights the non-Muslim citizens do.

Is this what they teach Israeli kids in school?

The Arabs have been thrown off their own land, had their homes stolen, and the state has been complicit in this. They are prevented from farming their remaining land by blocks and barriers enforced by armed forces who shoot to kill at the slightest excuse. Their water is taken to serve the illegal settlements, all with the active encouragement of both the government of Israel and the great majority of Israelis.

Israel is the aggressor, the thief, the intruder. I find it incomprehensible that with the Nazi aggression still in living memory, so many Israelis should not only copy their approach and attitudes, but pretend to be shocked and puzzled that people should find this wholly unacceptable.

What are you referring to? That Arabs within the borders of Israel are full citizens of the state. That's what I said.

Also - you keep talking about "shoot to kill", but the numbers don't add up. 27 deaths in 2013 in the West Bank is far from "Shoot to kill". I was there, I served there, shoot to kill?! Can you please try to look into things and not just repeating unfounded mantras?

Comparing Israel to the Nazis is preposterous. Or maybe not? Give me a couple of minutes, I'll try to locate the killing pits with the bodies. Maybe I'll find some to support your claim.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying right now. But I think it detracts from your argument by trying to argue against any similarities by taking the comparison so literally and dismissing any possible similarities.