Woodytom

All things considered, I think it's a fair price.. Owen Coyle was saying that Cahill would cost £30m, Lescott went for what? £20m?, Arsenal were rumoured to want £80m for Fabregas, the fact that we payed 3 or 4m more than he was probably worth at the time.. Not to mention that he's Young Player of the Year, the new rule for homegrown players and it's the richest team in the Premiership after him. I think £30m is a price that both parties would be happy with! £30m or £20m + Ireland or £15m + Ireland + Onouha I think any of those deals would be good for Villa Yes but lets be honest Owen Coyle is havin a giggle and so was Moyes

Could you explain this for me please? If Rooney is £28m, milner is worth £30. IMO for £30m would be a great deal Rooney I would say is more like 70million now. 28million was a few years back. No one is worth 30 million, but Milner is a player we could get 30million for

Oh no, not again. If he hadnt of hit the post twice and scored twice against us - You would not be saying this Do you honestly think I'd pass judgment on a player from one **** game? I don't play FM or whatever it is called now. I rate the kid okay! Yeah I do, cos hes dun jack shit else, and it was over 2 games

Oh no, not again. If he hadnt of hit the post twice and scored twice against us - You would not be saying this

oh dear

That's what I think. Like if we refused to sell him but a week later bid for Ireland what would they say? id get over it pretty quickly

Id love to know where you get your valuations for your summer transfer targets

Probably, and he was right Not necessarily Well yeah, cos hes not done anything since he moved to Barcelona. Not done anything since he ran clear in the champs league final for arsenal, to make it 2-0, and made a total arse of it, before blaming tired legs in his post match interview.

Probably, and he was right

Though it's true, there's more chance of him coming here than to West Ham! Not necessarily

It's not though. You can buy before you sell. "Sell-to-buy" means that the net deals should balance at the end. It does not mean you must rigidly do them in that order. But as we say, it's irrelevant for us anyway. It is right tho. I hear what you are saying BOF (and its (hopefully) is irrelevant to us) but - Lets say you run a restaurant. You dont go and buy a shite load of ingrediants on the HOPE that loads of people come in. What you do is say, right its a Monday night, we have 12 booked, and its forecast rain so we wont get many walk ins. And then you go and buy the necessary ingrediants that you think you will need. Now, you dont go and buy david Bentley on the back of paper rumours about James Milner. You get an agreement with Man City for example (and even then you run the risk of a transfer falling through), and then go and buy bentley. The Bentley transfer might be finalised before the Milner transfer but that doesnt mean you have bought before you have sold.

But Richards question/Opinion is Technically right!!

Chelsea were always a big club and before Abramovich came in, they finished 4th. First season in charge with the money, they finished 2nd. It's a different scenario. No it isnt. You could say that when Randy came in to save our sinking ship, we were spoon fed and got lucky. Its ok for us for what reason???????

Whether you like it or not, City are going bigger and better places faster than us. They may not be doing it as quickly as they should but you need to deal with the fact they are going to be more succesful than us very very soon.

Exactly!!!!!

is yes you can buy first. In theory but to buy you need to be at least guaranteed that you have the sales. I think this is what Richard is saying. If we were operating a strict sell to buy strategy (which were not) - and went and splashed £50m on players, thinking that we were going to recoup that in the future from sales (and then never did because sales fell through etc) - wed be in trouble

But yet when we get a billionaire owner, we all get excited about the millions were going to spend. until that is we realise we dont have that much money, and anyone who comes along with more, we get jealous of - and pretend we dont want to be linked with superstars and have players like Carlos tevez playing for us.

I agree in terms of Sidwell - although how much that is down to Steve Sidwell is questionable - I happen to think given a chance - Sidwell can do a job, and has before. But for Gudjohnsen - no way. He almost single handedly won them the game up at Stoke, which got them 3 points in a really tough match - and they never really looked back after that. 3 points they were clear of City at the end???? Not saying there the 3 points that won it obviously, but without them they might not have got 4th. Also, I dont underestimate the influence a player like Gudjohnsen, who has been there, done it and won it - had on the team. As someone posted earlier - hes a calming influence. Was he a main player? No Could he/Should he have scored more goals - Probably Did he play a part - Most definately

based on what?

You're half right, in my opinion.. The squad he has assembled lacks the quality for rotation while chasing a Top 4 finish. However, this squad has been assembled from a position of 16th. It's an evolutionary process. Moving from 16th to within 2 games of finishing 4th doesn't happen with the click of his fingers. The squad he has assembled is enough for us to finish Top 10, and the first XI got us close to the promised land. Now the evolution continues and the lesser players get moved out and replaced with sufficient quality to supplement the quality of our first XI. Even with the massive financial resources that Man City have at their disposal, they haven't been able to achieve Champions League football in the timescales they wanted. Spurs have achieved it, but it wasn't an overnight achievement for them either. We're on the right track, I believe. With some tweaking I'm sure we will get there. But a squad of quality cannot be assembled overnight, especially given the weak starting position MON was handed. Agreed. Don't quite agree. I think there has been room for considerable rotation, considering (a) the players we already have in certain positions, and ( the versatility of some players. Milner, can play on either wing, the centre or as full back. Cuellar (apparently) can play at full back or centre-half. Luke Young can play on either side as full-back. In the centre, attack-wise, we've got Milner and Sidwell, then more defensively, there's Petrov, Reo-Coker (when fit) and Delph. Apart from strikers, there's plenty of choice of good quality players to choose from. A useful comparison with Spurs would be players who were previously thought to be "surplus" and on the verge of being turfed out (yes, pun intended!) - the likes of Pavyluchenko, Bentley, Gomes and Dawson, only for them to rediscover their form, and fill the gaps when other players are injured (Lennon and Defoe weren't exactly missed when you consider where the Spuds finished up !). If only MON would rotate a bit more. I'm sure the likes of Davis and Luke Young would give him a real selection headache each week if given the chance. As for the rest. At the end of the 2008-9 season, I said the most improved players would be Milner and Cuellar. Next season, I think Downing and the Fonz are going to step up...hopefully Davies too. There's always another to come through. You cant compare Gomes, Pavlyuchenko and Bentley - to Sidwell, reo-Coker and Luke Young. Your talking about £40million for 3 squad players compared to what £18m?

Eidur Gudjohnsen who played his part in Tottenham getting to 4th?

I dont think MON and R.Lerner are sat there twiddling there thumbs. They know what there doing. Its nice to get a signing or 2 and I hear what you say with Milner, but signing a few players now, means that we probably wont sign any later, and then (as other teams are signing other playerrs later on) wel be worried that weve rushed in and missed opportunites. Just got to be patient.

Yeah united sold ronaldo and dont win the league....Arsenal sell players and look weaker now then they did 5 years ago just ask the arsenal fans. Oh and while we on it ask them if they think selling Fabrega is great and will mover them forward with all the money they will get. We sell milner it will be a big message to the fans and to other football clubs. We will be just another feeder club for big clubs and will never get in the top 4 selling our best players. Oh and what you think teams will do when they know we have 30 million from the sale of milner? Everything will be double its a waste of time selling and i for one hope villa dont sell him and keep him at all cost just to show we are moving forward. If man u and the arse are feeder clubs to the big sides, weve got bob hope........ face it folks - Milner is gone ! Oh for god sake. No he flippin hasnt

Vagner Love is not coming to Villa. These are just ridiculous statements

Think we need to chill out about this - for at least the reason that nothing will be resolved until after the world cup. The reason why james Milner wont come out and commit his future is because I believe hes a great professional and wants to maximise his chances of a world cup place - thereby focusing solely on England and being as passive as possible when it comes to club questions. The club statement said we have refused an offer and that we still intend to AGREE (not discuss) a new contract with James Milner after the world cup. No further news. The tabloids have nothing to write about. One day they say Man Utd cant spend any money, then they link them with a £28 million bid for Milner. 1 day Chelsea are interested, and then there not. Stop worrying - if he ends up going, he ends up going. We will deal with it. If anything, we should be pleased with the fact our players are being linked with such moves. It shows how far we have come in such a short space of time. And if you think back to last year, who would have said James Milner would have been linked with a £30m move. i certainly wouldnt. A credit to both James Milner and the coaching staff.