Rob182

But for the same money we could have: Downing ---- Ireland ----- Young --------------- Gabby ------------- and in a years time we'd have Marc Albrighton ready to bring into the team for free.

Then what happens if (God forbid) something was to happen to either of the first team wingers? We'd drop Albrighton into the deep end... Is that really what you would expect of a club aiming for the champions league? You are more of a gambler than me! So you would like us to buy SWP? So we'd have one of SWP/ Downing/ Ash on the bench. What a waste of money. I'd much prefer us to spend that money on Ireland and have a quality first 11 with less-experienced subs than to have a weaker first team.

Does anyone know how much Rooney was sold for and what they subsequently did with the money? (which players they bought?) AG may be the best to answer this. But I'm just intrigued to see what they could afford when given a huge amount of cash - like we will possibly get for Milner.

Then what happens if (God forbid) something was to happen to either of the first team wingers? We'd drop Albrighton into the deep end... If Petrov get's injured then we'd bring in Sidwell/ NRC/ Delph. If Gabby get's injured we'd bring on Heskey or Carew or Delfouneso. We don't have many quality back-ups. But I'd much prefer us to spend out money on our first team instead of back-ups.

I don't understand the "he wasn't bought so he'll need help" part. But I definatly agree that SWP would hold up Albrighton's development. There's no point us buying a winger this window. We have 2 established Prem wingers and one who can be gradually brought into the team this season. Let's use the "Milner-Fund" to buy a central-midfield replacement, a RB and a striker (Or two of the three).

What have you heard?

Woo hoo! Cheers dodgyknees !

No in fact what we would be doing is constantly changing our style/ formation, bringing on young players and then selling them when they become our best player to a bigger more ambitious club. That is performing the role of a feeder club But we're not Wigan, Richard. If we were, as you call it, a "feeder club" for the bigger clubs. Then surely we'd be gradually getting more and more money from the bigger clubs? Eventually we could be in Tottenham's position. We could crack 4th and then the players would not want to leave for a bigger club. Being in the top 4 wouldn't garentee anything. If Man U or Chelsea came in for Bale he would be off in a shot. There will always be a bigger, better club who could make an offer for your player. No amount of Villa fans complaining will stop that. But if we were 4th then I'm sure our players would be a lot less likely to want to go to a bigger club. If we had finished 4th this year then Man City probably wouldn't be able to tempt Milner away from us. Yes, Chelsea or Man Utd could come in for Milner - but if we're improving all the time and the players know that they'll be playing alongside other great players, they'll be more likely to want to stay at Villa and sign contract extensions. If contract extensions are signed then the chance of bigger teams making offers for your players decreases. There are a lot of "ifs" and "buts", but my original point is that it's not a bad thing that a big club wants to come and buy one of our players for, probably, double what he is actually worth.

No in fact what we would be doing is constantly changing our style/ formation, bringing on young players and then selling them when they become our best player to a bigger more ambitious club. That is performing the role of a feeder club But we're not Wigan, Richard. If we were, as you call it, a "feeder club" for the bigger clubs. Then surely we'd be gradually getting more and more money from the bigger clubs? Eventually we could be in Tottenham's position. We could crack 4th and then the players would not want to leave for a bigger club.

Jesus, I'm sick of repeating myself in this thread. Why did Spurs sell Bent? Why did City sell us Dunne last year? Sometimes players just don't get on with teams or aren't rated. Mancini got Lescott for £24m. We got Dunne for £5m. Dunne was in the Team of the Year. Lescott wasn't. You are really viewing this situation as "Next season we will be a worse team and Man City will be a better team". There is more at stake here than just next season, av1. Surely there is a possibility that we could buy a £10m player who is as good as Milner was 2 years ago. Man City wouldn't want to buy that player because it'd mean they'd have to train that person up gradually. BUT. If we bought that player. In 2 years time we could have a player who is as good as Milner - PLUS the players that we could have bought with the extra Milner money. That leaves us in a better position, no? We're not Man City. We don't want to spend £300m in 2 years to try and win the league as quickly as possible. We're trying to gradually improve our team in a way that doesn't kill us financially.

If we get over the fact that we're going to lose one of our best players, then we'll surely realise that we will come out of this a stronger team? Even if we buy a player that, like Milner, takes one season to become a better player. Surely that's still a good deal? - Milner was bought for £12m. - A couple of years later and he's a £20m player (going for more than £20m). - We could buy Ireland (or another "£10m player"). - A few seasons later and that player could also be worth £20m. All we're doing is increasing the value of our assests and gradually increasing the quality of the team. This is not the way to do things but what choice do we have other than invest to keep them. I am not sure I 100 % agree that we are gradually improving the team, losing your best players does overall long term harm IMO. If we are gradually improving the team then the replacement of Milner will be of similar age and ability when we bought him with a little extra to continue the improvement of the squad. It´s the only way the Villa will convince me now. The talk of Ireland/SWP is great but it does not in any way improve on Milner or our chances of moving up the league. If it did they wouldn't sell them to us. Not in the short term, but in the long term it does. Then once we've gradually improved, year-on-year, players will be more likely to stay at Villa and think we can compete at a higher level. Spurs have done exactly what I've said; now they're looking to compete in the CL. That could be us in 2/3 years if we continue to buy players like Ash/ Milner.

If we get over the fact that we're going to lose one of our best players, then we'll surely realise that we will come out of this a stronger team? Even if we buy a player that, like Milner, takes one season to become a better player. Surely that's still a good deal? - Milner was bought for £12m. - A couple of years later and he's a £20m player (going for more than £20m). - We could buy Ireland (or another "£10m player"). - A few seasons later and that player could also be worth £20m. All we're doing is increasing the value of our assests and gradually increasing the quality of the team.

Oh, you're in for it now PompeyVillan! Damocles will soon correct you and name all the countries that Man City have played in..

I predict we will get an improved offer Tonight or Tomorrow.

There's nothing to indicate he's unhappy playing for Villa. He just fancies getting paid twice as much elsewhere. He would be unhappy here if he was kept against his will He was kept at Newcastle against his will when we almost signed him. He was then one of their best players for the following season. I doubt it's in Milner's nature to sulk.

The club statement says he won't play tomorrow. Which was expected as he only came back to training Today.

"Ilsinho" .. I'd get that on my shirt if we signed him! :winkold:

I don't think so. IIRC O'Neill didn't mention McGeady in the context of 'signing him' and the possibilities of it. He just mentioned that he's a good player who he thinks would be good in the Prem. Obviously someone asked MON a question and he answered.

Yawwwwwnnnn. Just get it over and done with, for everyone's sake! This statement hints to me that we're just awaiting a new offer from City. It doesn't confirm he's staying, it doesn't confirm he's going. We'll continue as normal until Man City offer us some money. Anything over £24m and I expect us to accept it and then move the deal through asap.

73 left!? Hmm.. I'm going to VP after work to try and get 3 tickets.

Isn't this the case at most professional sports clubs?? Its an occupational hazard surely?. I imagine it is the case in most clubs; but managers in other clubs tend to use their bench when their first team are injured or have played constant games for months and months. I can see where Randy is coming from. If MON had used his players more often then they wouldn't be on the "unwanted" list. If we'd used NRC and subbed Petrov for 5 or 6 games then his wages would be warranted. If we'd used Davies and took off Dunne when he was injured near the end of the season then he might not be on the way out either.

So he has given up on getting CL football then and want us to have free players that sit on the bench? Players that cost nothing in wages? Does this also mean that MON must always play every player that earns more than a certain amount per week from now on? No matter how they perform? Then Lerner has certainly **** up Villa, that is for sure. Also, you need to be very careful with how you word things on here. People seem to assume you are always giving us the inside scoop whenever you post. What a daft comment. (See what I did there...) That's obviously not what MM was implying. It's fairly obvious to everyone that it's a waste of money to have 5 or 6 players in the squad who are earning higher than £30k/£40k/£50k a week and aren't playing or even making the bench. We could easily offload these players and replace them with youngsters or players of a similar/ better ability but with lower wages. Delfouneso - he could replace Heskey in the squad and is surely on at least half Heskey's wages. Clark - he could replace Davies, "see above" regarding wages. Then we could bring in players like KPB who will probably ask for lower wages than what Sidwell is one. A young right back to be paid less than what Beye is on. etc etc.

MysteryMan, keep us updated with any goings on. Milner is returning and I think a lot of us expect to see some developments sooner rather than later.

villarocker, I see your point and I fully agree that it's a risk when leaving your transfers late. But I also doubt that MON has one transfer target. If a team decides they don't want to sell then I'm sure we could go for another player. I'm not saying it's an ideal way of working transfers - it definatly has it's faults: players missing pre-season, playing 3 or 4 games without your new transfers & the risk that players could end up staying with their squad. But I also think that if we are working on a tight budget (I'm not saying we are, I'm saying "IF") - then it's a way of getting players for cheaper and therefore having more money available to buy an extra player or two. I trust MON, he hasn't failed us in the past when it comes to strengthening the squad.

If that is the truth...then it is a lousy tactic. Not many clubs sit on golden "left overs" at that time and some are quite reluctant to sell. No I dont buy that...MON has huge problems with the transfer market and when he has come to a point where he need to act he go british to play it safe. There is no spark...no edge...with his signings...just a grey hopeful bunch of honest players or whatever he brands them. Well it worked last year when we got Richard Dunne for £5m and James Collins for around the same price. Both of those were two incredible bargains that, in my opinion, wouldn't have been as cheap if we'd splashed all our money in June. It could be the difference between getting one more player. For example: Spending money in July when opposing teams are at no risk to sell their players quickly: Robbie Keane £9m, Stephen Ireland £12m, Nedem Onouha £4m, Kevin-Prince Boateng £5m. Total of £30m (funded by the sale of Milner/ fringe players). OR. Wait until teams realise they'll either need to sell the players off or have an unhappy player in their ranks (or in Man City's case; possibly have a player that they can't register because their squad is too big): Robbie Keane £7m, Stephen Ireland £9m, Nedem Onouha £3m, Kevin-Prince Boateng £4m. Total of £23m. There probably won't be a massive difference in price but it could add up. In this example (with very rough guesses on prices) we'd get an extra £7m to spend on another player. It's a simple tactic that could pay off Luxa. The worst case scenario is that someone else lodges a bid with a player that we want - in which case, I'm sure MON would then pop up with an offer. I'm sure he wouldn't just think "Oh, well we aimed to spend money in August.. So we'll let the other team have this one" I trust MON and I'm confident that we will come out of this window a better team - with or without wantaway-Milner. The only problem with this transfer-tactic is that it does mean that you have to play a few games of the season without your new transfers. (But if it means that we also get an extra player - in hindsight I'm happy with MON's strategy)