Pez1974

I am concerned about Lambert. His tactics concern me; and his hit rate on signings concern me. But I don't think we should get rid - that would be too expensive and we need stability to progress. I understand (and am frustrated by) the financial constraints he is working under, and think his appraoch is correct, albeit with a few cock-ups along the way. But to judge someone in the most difficult phase of his job here is somewhat unfair, and if the club think they have to spend a few years putting right previous mistakes, why would you throw it all away when we are 11th?

I genuinely can't make my mind up either way. For me it's 50/50. I don't think Randy will stretch to 50/50 - it all seems a bit high given budget restrictions. Maybe 10/10

Very true. But do you mean important?

Some of the negativity does make me wonder..... Sure, some signings haven't been up to it, but we aren't going to lose the amount of money on them that we have on Ireland, for example. In our current predicament, that is crucial. However, everyone knows that it is unlikely you will find more than than the very occasional gem either. The cheap signings will hopefully do an acceptable job, rather than become England regulars - and we just have to accept that, whether we like it or not. So, Bennett and Luna haven't cut it yet. Bennett has had a lot of injuries, so he may be the next Delph or the next Ivo Stas - let's wait and see. Luna is clearly struggling, so he may be the next Petrov or the next Bosko Balaban - let's wait and see. It isn't just us getting it wrong either - ManUre paid more for Anderson (and Fellani) than Man City paid for Yaya Toure. Ashley Young has been terrible at Man U, but we were gutted when he left. Sack Fergie? And sacking Lambert, and his staff, would cost us millions in compensation. Money that could be spent on a midfielder!

I thought we could have up to 4 loanees, but only 2 from the Prem?

Most clubs do nothing in January, so IMO in Holt and Bertrand we have already improved both our first team and our options in the squad, and probably for the same amount as shifting out Ireland permanently. Good business, and we aren't affecting our financial stability. Heopfully we have a few quid for the right CM and/or CB.

Reports here turned down Liverpool to come here. It's in the Metro, but.... if true, he clearly wants to play and likes a challenge

Hopefully. I can't see Luna surviving if Suarez/Sturridge are running at him. I don't think he will start though given that he only signed today. Yep - imagine him starting without having been coached here how to play left back

Wow - VillaTalk in agreement over "good signing" STOP THE PRESSES!

Good signing. Somehting to prove, and behind Cole and that Azipilacueta (sic) guy there. May even have a chance of perm?!?!?!?!?!

As a finisher - Shaw, Saunders, Yorke for me in that order. Dennis Mortimer was also a brilliant finisher IMO - the amount of 1 on 1's he had, particularly in 80/81, was mad, and he never seemed to not score! Worst - Heskey, no question.

Exactly. If we had bought Holt when first Lambert arrived on a 3 year deal, I think most people would have thought this good business (price depending). 18 months later, he's terrible (in some people's eyes) for 5 months, as cover! You can look at WHam and see a lot worse than us - Roger Johnson, Andy Carroll for that much, now this rumour. At least we have a plan, whether we like it or not!

A huge success? Really? Absolutely. No striker coming off the bench has scored a single goal for Villa all season. Pretty sure ( I may be wrong ) the only goal scored from a sub was Bacuna's against Cardiff. Why would you expect Grant Holt to do much more? Kozak came on early for Benteke at Norwich and scored the winner

Yep. The main issue seems to be that Holt isn't good enough based upon personal judgements (his weight and fitness) and 6 months at a club (Wigan) in a period of massive change having got relegated, lost a few players and trying to compete in Europe. Plus he isn't a midfielder or defender. All of which, in my opinion, is utter bollocks. Fact - we lost our first reserve striker to a season ending injury. Fact - our main striker has been out of form all season. Fact - we do not have a lot of money. Fact - there is still more than 2 weeks of the transfer window left. Fact - our team is very young Opinion - we need to replace the role that Kozak filled for us, as an injury to Benteke and we are screwed Opinion - in the circumstances, he provides a very low risk and relatively low cost option, short term solution to this problem, which is not our main priority Opinion - we will sign others during January, and certainly in midfielder Opinion - reinforcements in defense are less important than covering Kozak, as Okore is due to return in March apparently, and at least we have cover in that area Opinion - the defensive cover isn't good enough so needs a long term permanent solution rather than £2m or £3m on Lescott for a few months (or the best part of £20m for 3 1/2 years as WHam are proposing it seems - the Shay Given method!) Fact - some people react too quickly, but if we don't sign midfield reinforcements in January, There will be Blood!

Could be worse. WHam signed Roger Johnson from a team 2 divisions below, and he went straight into their team for a cup semi-final! And Johnson has been relegated for 3 consecutive seasons. Would Carlton Cole have been better? Or the recent free agent Marlon Harewood? Some may say Guidetti, but he has no experience! Remember, Holt is coming in as a bench warmer, but with experience and is a player that was spoken about in England terms only 18 months ago. This isn't one to exactly celebrate, but a gap in the squad has been (amply) plugged. I reckon he will do the job that is required, which a few in the team aren't at present.

Another thought on Holt. There are a few players who need to put on a bit of weight - Lowton, Bennett, Westwood, Delph. Perhaps Grant can help there too!

Whereas bringing in Holt ... does what to help our youngsters or first team ? Cheers for taking my quote out of context! The point of the whole comment was that no matter what was done for a striker, PL would be castigated unless it was a £20m superstar, when he would be castigated for not buying a midfielder! The alternatives to Holt within the squad are Helenius (who PL seems to have an issue with) or Bowery (meh). We need an extra striker with Kozak injured IMO. We crave experience, Holt has it. Do I think it's a really good singing? No. Do I think it is understandable and appropriate in the circumstances - yes. He brings experience and an ability to play within the system we use.He is available. He is (I assume) cheap. And his experience and obvious leadership will help the youngsters in the team, and may help them off it too.

I haven't got an issue with this signing, if..... It is only on loan until the end of the season, as we could do with some cover for Kozak The cost to the club for 5 months is quite low (i.e. reasonable wages only) and doesn't impact on our ability to do other business It doesn't disrupt the obviously good atmosphere within the dressing room (what is the proper man comment about?! Frankly, I have no idea who else we could get. If we brought in Guidetti and he did well, we would only be doing Man City a favour and hindering our youngsters progress, but if he did shit we needed more experience. However, if we sign no-one else - I expect choas.

It does seem odd to loan players to Championship clubs when they appear to be nowhere near our first team (given that half of our players are Championship level ). I think the Grealish loan is an example of it working perfectly, and the 'fact' he and the club apparently turned down Championship cliubs for the remainder of the season is a good sign, as we know he will play at County.

It's unfair to bash Given, but as a few have said, why a 5 year contract for a 35 year old? Players often just drop suddenly in their performance levels as they age. If only to bring him in, surely a 3 year deal would have done, with perhaps an option for another 2 year. As has been said - committing to £18m was just bonkers.

I like the Holtby option - if it is even an option! Some players are terrible when they don't get a run in the team, and Holtby may be one of those. He look great in the Bundesliga for a couple of years, and you don't do that if you're shite.

Don't really agree with this point of view. Take Benteke - and ignore the fact that he turned out alright. (Assume) We signed him for about £7m, paying him £20k per week, on a 4 year deal. That is about £2.75m a season, without taking account of any additional fees we may have had to fork out, plus the cost of forking out the largely upfront lump sum (even now, a few million quid can get a decent return from a financial institution). But - it isn't £2.75m a season - it's £11m over 4 years - whether he turns out well or shite. You pay (guessing) £5m for one year, but that's it. If it goes wrong, you get to cut your losses and walk away. And don't forget Lukaku was bought by Chelski for £20m wasn't he? £2m to own him for 20% of his conract which you paid £20m for? West Brum may have go a bit of a bargain! Just my point of view

Can't feel sorry for hgis career. In the same way I can't hate Given or Hutton (et al) for being unwilling to walk away from their contracts. Players have to accept the risks too! However, hope he does well and finds his level. He's never done anything wrong to the club, and a free transfer to continue his career elsewhere would be good for all concerned.

Don't get the issue with loaning out our reserves keepers. We would be able to recall them easily enough, but what would you prefer if we get injuries - someone who has only saved a few shots in training or someone who has played a couple of games, albeit at a lower level recently? Also, even if they are only paying £10k a week towards his wages, that's still £50k less we have to pay him - better than a kick in the bollocks. Finally, if he does well, perhaps someone will come in during January to buy a keeper who has recently shown what he can still do. Makes sense to me!

No - there is no reason why any add on's would not have been provided for upon purchase. It would be tax deductable (and any losses can be carried forward) and prudent. It would also be required, unless there was some 'bizarre' clause which would be unlikely to occur. Bonuses? If we agreed a bonus on performance for some (most) of our Lambert purchases, would that be included as a transfer fee? Or only once the bonus is realised? No, nothing like bonuses either. They would be treated as wages and accrued when they are earned. Accounts, for all the clever accountancy shite, are fairly straighforward and auditors would not let you put something in that could be misleading. The £21m is on transfers, nothing else. This will include all costs associated with the transfer, such as agents fees and signing on fees, but nothing that would be paid and incurred over time. Basically, footballers are employees, and companies do not account for your wages for the year in advance. They account for them on a weekly or monthly basis, as they become due to you. My guess is that the amount of lower and 'lesser' league transfers has resulted in a number of players coming in on lower upfront fees, but with add ons for their potential. I think this could easily explain the variance, and to be fair, would back up both what Lambert has said and what the accounts show. For example - say Westwood cost £1m upfront, with an additional £1m if he played for England, and another £1m based upon appearances. This would probably be in the accounts at £3m, but may only ever cost us £1m. I would expect the additional £2m to be shown in the accounts as provisions, but can't be arsed to get the accounts and start digging (and then get into the debate over whether the appearence fees should be accrued per appearance or upfront) - I do this for a living and support the Villa to get away from it!