Pez1974

 

 

People expecting him to score 5-7 goals in 17 games, presumably as s bench player... Talk about setting him up to fail.

I'd say if he scores a single 3-point winning goal he'd be a huge success.

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

There are many problems that I find about this signing.

 

Lambert clearly hasn't learnt his lesson about how our style of football has been this season, this signing is pretty much saying that Lambert is happy with the way we are playing and it is the way he will get the team to play for the rest of the season.

 

He doesn't play/isn't wanted by a Championship team who are struggling in mid-table.

 

The fact that we have to loan a player from a league below is completely embarrassing and if it happened to any club in this league people would be in that team's thread in Other Football laughing their heads off about it.

 

Finally, the player himself obviously hasn't looked after himself, has been regressing for the last 2 seasons and has somehow found a way back into the PL.

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!

 

 If we brought in Guidetti and he did well, we would only be doing Man City a favour and hindering our youngsters progress

 

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.

I know Lukaku is a good player but £2m plus huge wages is a massive waste of money when you don't get the option of keeping him. Just about £5m down the toilet.

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!

Could it include payments for Bent/N'Zogbia etc for any add ons over time?

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.

 

It's not wages - see innumerable posts from Risso above patiently explaining that wages aren't  included in transfer fees.

 

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!

The date the accounts were submitted would mean the note in question would cover transfers in Summer 2012 and January 2013 and these total £21m.

The wording in the accounts states players (and not staff) so any compensation for Lambert and co would be excluded.

The full cost associated with acquiring an asset (or in some cases a liability) would be included in he acquisition costs, so agents fees and signing on fees would be included, but definitely not wages. I think it is highly unlikely that additional fees from previous transfers (i.e. Bent) would not have been provided in previous accounts so would not be in this figure.

I suppose the only question (for those who care) would be whether the lower figures alluded to by Lambert for some players would leave a gap which could be accounted for by agents and signing on fees. For example, if Benteke did 'cost' £7m, would this be an additional couple of million for other upfront costs? Or more?

Frankly, **** knows!

I have said for a while that football is a prime target for money laundering possibilities (not suggesting we do that, but it seems possible) because of the amount of money going around, and because of the amount of different people in different tax regimes each receiving a bit. This has happened in Italy quite a bit over recent years, especially on the back of loan deals.

The solution? Make the home FA of the purchasing club responsible for handling all funds, and make them publish the full details for every transfer. Seems simple to me!

_{No. No. And no.}

_{Personally I like that we are buying bigger players - we need a bit more muscle. However, if you look at Benteke's goals, an awful lot are the result of play between the front 3, particularly on the counter attack. All teams will hoof from time to time, and we have that option. But it is not option #1 - that is based around pace.}

Gabby, Gabby, Gabby Agbonlahooooooooooorrrrrrrrr

He's fast as fuuucccckkkk; he makes girls chuuuuuucccckkkkkkkk

I feel a bit sorry for the One DIrection guy to be honest. He played in a charity match, and probably helped add a reasonable chunk to the amount raised, so fair play to him. He got hit by a professional athlete, and although puking up as a result is a bit sad (and funny as ****), he now looks like a total wimp. Now, a lot of the reporting is is not having a go at Gabby, so this kinds reflects badly on him.

BUT - he should have come out (  ) by now and told his 'fans' that they are acting like morons and taking the gloss off the day. He hasn't to my knowledge, so can I assume he would prefer to allow this stupid situation than criticise a few idiots as the latter may cost him a few quid.

He has a contract, and to my knowledge we are not threatening to not pay him. His contract does not entitle him to a first team lot, nor even a game. We are upholding our end of the bargain.

He wants us to take a particular course of action (let him play at a club and place of his choosing, at a level below his current earnings level) but is seemingly not prepared to bring anything to the bargaining table, such as a reduced salary in line with his new performance levels. In short, he seems to be pissed off because we won't do him any favours.

I have some sympathy, but players seem happy to screw over clubs when they over perform, but when they under perform, there is nothing the other way. Player power is a problem in the game, and we are taking a stance on it. For me, this is a good thing.

To summarise - **** him!

People really need to look at the teams around us and what they have spent. Southampton have spent £23.5m on Osvaldo & Lovren, factor in we've spent about £9m on Kozak & Okore, now that's a head scratcher. Swansea spent £12m on Bony yet we spent half that on Benteke last season. Cardiff paid 4 times more than we did for Helenius when they bough Corneilus, yet Helenius had a better record in a poorer team. West Ham spunked about 15m on Andy Carroll and 100k a week, Benteke is on half that and is twice the player. Look at Fulham they've brought in Parker who's legs are gone, Bent, Taarabt give me Andi any day of the week. We were all envious of Newcastle last January and how many of their signings would we want now on the money they are on? When you consider the relative impacts of Sissoko & Syla and their relative wages who's proving the better signing? It's not what you spend it's how you spend it.

Spot on

i think to an extent we are always going to have a bomb squad which will cost us money, currently we have Given, Hutton, Stevens, NZogbia, Ireland, Bent and Delfouneso, imo, being loaned out doesnt count until theyre completely off the books

 

but when these are gone, whos next? if we buy better players, then those who we currently rate as good will be surplus to requirements, we could see el ahmadi, in there, maybe bowery, herd or albrighton, who knows, we just dont until new players arrive every window

I don't think this would be the case Andy.

The crux of the 'Bomb Squad' was a load of players who are not doing the job earning a massively disproportionate amount of wages. As much as Enda Stevens was included, he is not really a fully paid member of the bomb squad as I suspect his wages would be less than £10k pw.

It is the combination of Ireland, Bent, Hutton and Given - plus Dunne and Warnock last season - who resulted in the creation of this mob (for different reasons).

Moving forward, we will not have a player (let alone 5 or 6) contributing nothing on £50k+ a week.

It is the massive wages that mean we can't shift them, and despite Bannan earning some £20k per week apparently, that has not meant we couldn't shift him eventually.

I think that we, as fans, always want a bit more. If at the start of the window we were told we would sign this many players, whilst having moved on as many as we have, we would all have been delighted.

For me, this window secures last season as the proper transition season we needed 2 years ago; there is a bit more work to do both with the maturity of a couple of our players and finally moving on Bent, Given and Hutton (plus Zog?) for good, but I am not sure we could have expected more.

I feel the comparisions to the promoted clubs are unfair. They started with a much smaller cost base than ours and are 'gambling'. We tried that, and with one mis-step were in the shit. What we are doing is right, and I think that a lot of credit needs to be given to Paul Faulkner who is really starting to look like he is getting to grips with his job now. However, most credit remains with Lambert!

He shouldn't get booed. He should be ignored.

However, it will be interesting to see how he plays against us. He got so much shit about Hollywood passes will he dare try some? Or will he go into his shell and just play those devastating 3 yard passes in the centre circle?

Today is getting better!

I would expect Stoke to pay at least £40k per week for the moron, if there is no loan fee.

Bannan on the way (for good); Ireland on the way (for good); Given likely to be on his way for a year.

Even allowing for us paying some of their wages - this has to shift at least £5m off our wage bill this year.

I understand the signing, as Benteke is so integral to our play and we don't really have a like-for-like replacement.

It's the mooted fee that baffles me - either it's bollocks (which is usually the case) or PL really sees something in this guy.

Either way - in Lamber we trust.

James Nursey has blogged that the fee is in the region of £1.75m!

Paul Faulkner, take a bow.