Rob182

Now you're talking. I don't care if it's purple, I think I'm getting this!

Because they may have to find someone who has to settle into the English game. They don't want an "up-and-coming".. they want it all, now and ready for them. Mbark Bouffousa looks quality, but he might not adapt to the English game. Stephen Ireland is good but Man City don't want him. I agree with Moseley that there are players out there. Just because Man City want to come for Milner doesn't mean there aren't other options for us.

I'd like it if the lion was a tad smaller, also I agree that the "AVFC" on the back ruins it. But they always put that or "aston villa football club" on the back.

They've blacked it out. I think he might have meant the black bar on the left of that picture, next to the claret and blue bars..

Huh? I think it's cockney rhyming slang... guns = buns... bunsen burner, nice little earner. mice = slice.. ginsters ham slice

They would get their man and I'm sure they consider themselves way ahead of us in terms of getting 4th so I think they would consider it waiting a year to get the player they want for a reasonable price. But they might not want him then, they want him now. They will either get him this season or they won't get him at all in my opinion. True. But they might be set on him and a guarantee of signing him with no circus around the deal as usual might be appealing to them. Ridiculous Man City are a circus and with their money they can do what they want. They wouldn't have to listen to silly demands like "You give us the money... but you don't get the player yet...." So Milner would play 2 games against City knowing that next year he'd be on their team? If we offered that deal to City they'd say "No thanks, we'll buy Mikel Arteta instead".

Okay, fair enough... a good point made with little thought and consideration for what 'could have been' if Luke Young was in the team and we hadn't lost so many chances through Cuellar last year.

Oh, btw.. this made me laugh as these 2 lines exemplify narrowminded-ness. You can't just quote the 'goals conceded' and have that backup your view. Each game is different. Goals might not have come down the right side of the pitch. We might have conceded a penalty through no fault of Luke Youngs. Luke Young might have been injured and we might have conceded 3 goals. Cuellar might have been playing at centreback and we conceded goals - yet you'll use that "goals conceded" stat to your advantage for having him play on the right - his unfavoured position!

Suprisingly, I disagree. Surely quitting international football will mean he fully focuses on club football? I think MON will fully understand his reasons for quitting. Though it's a massive honour to play for your national team. It's still just a career. Family and personal life should come first in the long run. Why would he want to go to South Africa and be away from his family in the first summer after the tragedy in his family? Back to the topic of rightbacks. How can you not consider the fact that playing a defence of "Young, Dunne, Collins, Warnock" could have conceded even fewr goals than having Cuellar in the side did? You only need to watch Villa to see how we lack a rounded game when Cuellar's on the right. Fast players target him, his passes end up in the stand and our attacks from the right side aren't as effective. The fact of the matter is that Cuellar is a central defender and has been playing as one for his whole career, until now. If Chelsea have injuries at right back and decide to play Terry on the right, do you think they'd continue playing that way when the rightbacks recover?

It didnt tho did it? That defence last year was the best weve had for years. The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was. Why didn't it? I don't see how the height of one player on the right side of the pitch has become the main reason why our defence was so good. Could it not be the fact that we replaced Knight, Davies & Shorey with Warnock, Dunne & Collins? Knight had his moments of insanity, Davies was only good when played next to Laursen & Shorey constantly got beaten due to his pace and sloppy passes. Luke Young was one of our best performers in the 08/09 season. Yet all of a sudden, him being out of the team has solved our problems. It doesnt matter who replaced who, the fact is that defence last year worked! Why? Because we let in less goals. Simple. Ive said before, and Im probably going to get torn to shreads again but the main problem with that defence was Laursen as he tried to do everything - ultimately causing absolute chaos. Leggin it out of the back line time and time again to opposition players with the ball 35/40 yards from goal - MADNESS!!! Now - dont get me wrong, I liked the guy and his passion was second to none, but we have a far better defence now. And unfortunately for Luke Young, hes not a major part of it. You dont break up a defence that for a long time was the best in the league "It doesn't matter who replaced who"...... Of course it does! How can that be your response to every point I made in my post? I'll admit that Laursen occasionally messed up, but so has Dunne, so has Collins. They've passed to the opposition, they've given away goals and penalties. Collins at Chelsea? Dunne against Man U in the League Cup Final? If our defence was: L Young, Laursen, Dunne, Warnock. I believe that it would have even better than this years. You're having such a narrowminded view on this situation it's unreal. Luke Young was probably our most consistent player in 08/09. Even when he came in last year he was back to doing what he does best - defend, attack down the wing and aid our attacks. He's been replaced with a guy who can defend but has no pace and sends half of his passes into the stand. How you can justify that with "It doesn't matter who replaced who" I don't know.

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air. Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra? Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback. It didnt tho did it? That defence last year was the best weve had for years. The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was. Why didn't it? I don't see how the height of one player on the right side of the pitch has become the main reason why our defence was so good. Could it not be the fact that we replaced Knight, Davies & Shorey with Warnock, Dunne & Collins? Knight had his moments of insanity, Davies was only good when played next to Laursen & Shorey constantly got beaten due to his pace and sloppy passes. Luke Young was one of our best performers in the 08/09 season. Yet all of a sudden, him being out of the team has solved our problems.

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air. Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra? Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

Unfortuantly I don't think it's that simple. We could just say "he's our best player, we don't need to sell him" but we don't know how James Milner feels about it. Of course it shouldn't be an issue but it is. Also, we could get offered an amount of money that is viewed, by Randy and O'Neill, as too much to refuse (Not just from the business side of Villa, but the fact we could probably buy a replacement and have an extra £15m on top to invest in the squad). I can see a couple of outcomes this summer. Selling Milner isn't the worst of them. 1) Milner signs an extension and stays at villa. :D 2) Milner get's sold to Man City and we get a hefty sum of cash. 3) We reject all offers, Milner stays but doesn't sign an extension. We eventually sell Milner for a cut price and struggle to get a replacement. :| :cry:

There ya go I knew it!.. grumpy b*stard

The taglines pretty small so it doesn't look bad to me. On another note.. they all look so happy! I reckon they had to blur out Shorey's grumpy mug.

It's unlikely it'd happen but it could be good to take him on a free and then loan him out to a Championship/ bottom half of Prem side.

I don't like seeing Gabby on the wing, he's wasted there. I think to play both of them together we'd need to play 4-4-2 or a 4-4-1-1 with Gabby acting as the "Target Man".

I haven't watched him recently but he showed potential and would he not be young enough to get over any injury problems? He's only 22/23.

I wouldn't mind us going for De Guzman. He's had a few injuries but he'd be a good backup for the "attacking midfielder" role that we could be trying with Ireland or Ash. Or even just as a replacement for one of the outgoing fringe players.

Unfortunatly he's also not denied an interest to go to City or stated a desire to stay at VP. If City's final offer really is £24m then I hope that Milner does sign a one year extension (even if it's as a good-will gesture towards the club) because I don't want to see him go for cheap next summer.

I heard that Gosling is most likely going to Newcastle, but also has West Ham and Sunderland interested. I don't think we really need to replace Salifou or Osbourne. They're both in the reserves which can be replaced by the best players in the Youth setup (I would imagine). Gosling's half decent but nothing special. Like a younger James Milner but without the drive, workrate and as much technical ability.

I don't understand how some of these kids throw it away/ lose their potential. I know it happens and it's just life or unforeseen circumstances.. but surely we can just show them a video of Moore and say.. "He looks good doesn't he?... well he's not now".

We will have to agree to disagree on that one, an uunbeleivably poor midfield IMO. I think "unbelievably poor" is a bit harsh on that midfield tbh. It'd be good but only for a few years until Petrov and Parker's legs both went.

I wouldn't mind NRC in a 5 man midfield, he could do the dirtywork! But I can't see him staying long because of his rift with MON and the fact we have a younger, more skillful version in Fabian Delph. Also, I don't think Gilberto Silva would cut it in the Prem now, he looks a lot better with Brazilians around him.

I like the idea of having two defensively-minded players to hold while others attack. But I wouldn't want Parker and Petrov. They'd both have to be replaced in a few years time and, if we sold them, would be worth no more than £3m/£4m each. If MON wants to have 2 DM's, which I doubt he does, then he should look abroad for a tall, strong ball-winner.