praisedmambo

24 minutes ago, Jimmyg said:

Yep...El Ghazi from his videos looked twice the player...in a better league...and a lot cheaper. 

I disagree. I remember thinking El Ghazi's videos were very average. It's possible Trezeguet's videos are better imo.

I think everything that's possible to say about the clause has been said many times now. 

Sheeeet. That list yesterday was true!

17 minutes ago, VillaAlex said:

Not sure if this had been mentioned but it's also sensible because he's played with Wesley at Brugge and can probably help him settle + both speak Belgian if Wesleys English isn't fluent 

He speaks belgian does he? 

13 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

I just saw that. Very bold of them to say that the signing is completed. Although they follow it up by saying that it looks set to be announced in the ‘coming days’.

Probably BS and, like the rest of us, hadn’t heard of this chap until the French Football place tweeted it earlier.

I bet they hadn't either. 

31 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Why do people thing him playing signals its over. That's ridiculous

Ha I agree. Some willfully half empty glasses around. 

18 minutes ago, thabucks said:

A work in progress with raw attributes smith can work with which is wait he does best... He has the right attitude and works hard, so personally I can’t see why some are so opposed... Just look how much El Ghazi grew as the season progressed and  apparently Suso watched him 3 times at the AFCON so @ under £10mill makes sense in many ways. Not all our signings will work out how we hope based on the law of averages so time will tell... If he signs

For me the only way he looks raw any more than a dozen other people is because someone said he looked raw last week. All this work in progress stuff too. He looks like a pacey winger who may or may not adapt well to the Prem. 

He looks fine. I don't know what you're all talking about. 

12 minutes ago, RadioTom said:

Nope, Aston Villa is a singular, not a plural.

 

It could be written either way. For me using the singular for football teams sounds American. I'd never say Villa is winning. I'd say Villa are winning.

9 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

No it's not. You are wrong. You are mixing core personality traits with maturity and adapting to social expectations. And if we go back to Dan Crowley he will always be a greedy prick who thinks he is above his station, who will never show any loyalty to this club whether he is 16 26 or 36. In my opinion. Now you may have a different opinion, and that's fine. If people want him to sign that's okey. Personally I think he'd be cancer to this club and exactly what we need to avoid. 

You said people are the same at 16 as they are at 30. That's what I was responding to.

It doesn't matter if that change is down to maturity in spite of their core personality traits. Traits can wax and wane through maturity. People can learn to be less selfish—not every trait is 'in their nature', a lot of traits can and have been learnt too. I get it that there are biological traits that are consistent, but they mature and develop in surprising ways. As I say, there are learnt traits too.

The second point—about Dan Crowley. You might be right, but you don't know that. If he has matured and sorted himself out, good luck to him. Sure, there's a possibility that he is  one of those people born a true dickhead. But, regardless, there's no way he's coming to Villa anyway.

5 minutes ago, Villarocker said:

I work with a guy that I went to school with. He was a w@nker back then and now he's an even bigger w@nker! 

However, I've also met up with people from my teenage years that I worked with that were idiots back then but now much smarter and wiser now that they're patents and married.

Maybe @KenjiOgiwara more sees himself as the first type!

17 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Your personality traits are largely the same. You can change maturity on levels, but you most likely are who you are. That goes for pretty much everyone I've ever known. 

Nah. It's nonsense. And you contradict yourself even within a sentence. Sure, you have traits that are on some level more or less consistent, but maturity levels change people beyond recognition. And there's more than one stage to it too—16, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40 and so on. Anyone who doesn't change and mature with age needs to open their mind a little bit, because if you really think you had it all worked out at 16 then you're a **** idiot!

EDIT: Nice, I like the Mohamed Ali quote.

9 hours ago, AXD said:

He was GK of the year in Belgium 2 years in a row and in Croatia before that. 2nd keeper in the world cup runner up team and he in fact  was the number one after Subasic retired. Lost his place after his injury.

so yeah, not highly rated

None of this speaks to me of his being highly rated. If he was so good he would have won his spot back after his injury, as happens with all the good keepers in the world. Being the best keeper in the Belgium and Croatia domestic leagues is not that impressive. And having nobody pick him up until he was 28 is actually a potential bad sign in a way. Being second keeper to a good keeper does not make him good. He was number one for about 6 games.

33 minutes ago, useless said:

Leeds actually did the same thing last summer, they used their best player Ronaldo Vieira to promote the new kit, and then a couple of days later they sold him to Sampdoria for £7m, probably making sure they don't make the same mistake again this year, on the off chance that Phillips doesn't agree a deal with them.

Hmmm. How cheap.

54 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

Everyone living in the British Isles is British, be they English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh. The United Kingdom consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. `Great', by the way, in this context, only means large - as in the largest of the islands which makes up the British Isles. 

Within that, of course, the inhabitants of these Isles are also English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh.

Anyway, Terry loves it here and ain't going nowhere.

The nationality British is specifically people from the UK. The nationality. Nobody uses the word any other way! You're a citizen of a county, a state, not an island.

People who don't know what they're talking about use British generally for people from the British isles (so Ireland too) but, although it might be technically true, nobody anywhere uses it like that. 

British = a UK citizen

Also the Olympic team should be Team UK, not Team GB. 

5 minutes ago, NIVillan said:

No I wasnt referencing the British Isles but the Island of Britannia (Great Britain).   

I dont know how exactly it works but if Scotland left the Kingdom of United Kingdom/Great Britain would they still be British?  I say yes as Scotland is still situated on the Island of Great Britain.

 

 

British refers to the nationality of people from the UK. That's the way we use it. As I say, ireland is technically part of the British isles, and you could call everyone who was born on the collection of islands British, but that's not how anyone uses the word. You don't call people from the republic of Ireland British as for us the word British is a specific nationality. Someone from Northern Ireland (you perhaps with your username?) Is also considered British when referring to their nationality as they're citizens of the UK.

So they'd be Scottish. And as British as someone from the republic of Ireland (geographically British but not British when anyone talks about nationality). 

8 minutes ago, NIVillan said:

Eh?  Scotland will still be British as it is part of the Island of Brittannia, just if they leave they would not be part of the United Kingdom

Yet the nationality British refers to people from the UK specifically, so they'd be known as Scottish. Ireland is technically part of the British isles but you wouldn't call someone from Cork or Dublin British now. They're Irish.

4 minutes ago, QldVilla said:

Maybe check my previous post mate, Purslow and Smith have both said they won’t be loaning players. Did they lie?

I know what they said. But things change. Why cut your nose to spite your face? There's a massive difference between loaning five players in the Championship every season and loaning one or two players in the Premier League on top of a £100million+ net spend when we've already had to build an entire squad from bare bones. One or two loans can ease that pressure and give us a better chance at staying up and having more money to spend on the squad next year.

11 minutes ago, av1 said:

Agreed. We simply weren't in any sort of position to be commiting to a £17m transfer. I dread to think what the consequences of losing the play off final would have been. 

Peeps seem to be confused over the meaning of the word 'option'!

2 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

Which players?

I was about to say the same thing. A DM is the most important buy now. Hourihane was caught out a lot in that position in the Championship. I would dread relying on him all season there! To be fair to him, it's not his natural position.

1 minute ago, hippo said:

Mcginn, Connor, Lansbury  - 

Two of them are far too slow. We'd be destroyed. The other has never played there. It would also leave a big gap in his natural position, so we'd have to buy another midfielder anyway.

2 minutes ago, QldVilla said:

I thought the exact same thing and was about to write then thought, why would we loan someone we've already loaned, yes a buy out clause, but we already know we want him, why wouldn't we just buy upfront.

Because we don't have endless money?

10 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

As far as I know is what (apparently) means, where it comes from else where and your mind isn't yay or nay because you dont know what's been said is true or not.

I guess a lot of the subtlety of meaning comes across with tone, which obviously doesn't translate on message boards. I think if you put it in sarcastic italics I might have got that more! Or something like that. 

9 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

The word (((apparantly))) should give you that answer

In fairness, to me, using apparently makes you seem as if you believe it might be true.

5 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

Not really - this will be two seasons running he has been priced out of a move due to a truly ludicrous valuation. Last year it was £35m I believe.

A good agent gets his client the move. He burns bridges and royally pisses the club off but he gets the move.

I'm still sure it's Stoke who choose his value!