foreveryoung Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I think people might be surprised if they think he's just coming as cover. True, he sounds like Lamberts drinking partner, he is hardly gonna leave him on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limvillian Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I BLAME CLARK FFS if he didn't break Kozak's leg this wouldn't be happening Hmmm I wouldn't be 100% sure of that with Lambert in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwan Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 It is a shit, horrible signing if it comes true. I would have rather signed no name McGee from League 2 than Holt. We know what we get with Holt. A fat, cheating, target man that is a complete antithesis to whatever "plan" that was here in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I can't believe signing Holt is at the expense of signing others. Certainly not an alternative to signing a striker on a permanent basis. Again, as an option to bring on in the tail end of matches when either chasing a goal, or defending a lead, I really don't see the issue. Not exciting, just back-up. Like I said before, had we unveiled a couple of decent signings already I doubt many would bat an eyelid here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I think people might be surprised if they think he's just coming as cover. True, he sounds like Lamberts drinking partner, he is hardly gonna leave him on the bench. Good Lord. I think you may be right. FFs what an awful day this has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 For me I think it just shows where the club currently thinks we can compete. It shows how low our ambition is. If was on the back of a good midfield purchase then maybe I would be happy. But as our first business in the window, it smacks of being small time. It doesn't really show anything about our ambition if you take into account what the deal will be and why we're doing it. Why does it smack of being small time? The window isn't even over yet! Don't see why it matters what comes first. Oh come on man. I am an optimist as well but you are strecthing credulity there. Let me ask you this, if Suarez broke his leg and Liverpool brought in Grant Holt as cover what would you think of Liverpools ambition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain4Life Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I'd have preferred young and hungry Wells, but as we couln't compete with Huddersfield *shrugs shoulders*. Can you show me where we bid for Wells and were subsequently out-muscled by Huddersfield? Well, no granted, I don't have an email from Lerner confirming our interest to PM you, but as you also know, all the paper-talk was, we were interested in this chap. And he is young and up-and-comer, so he would fit in with what has been tried these last 18 month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Weren't people complaining that we weren't getting experience in the summer? And now we get some, people are moaning? Oh come on, how naive are you? Gareth Barry and Scott Parker are experienced and also very good footballers, Grant Holt is of course "experienced" since he is turning 33 in three months - but he has only two seasons in the Premier League and he is a crap footballer. Two years ago, yes then I would have taken him on since he was robust and on top of his game. Now? 32 years old and barely getting a game for Wigan? Same with Wes Hoolahan, is he really the best we can get? The answer is no. They are the best Lambert can get a hold of, basically because he has no nous in the market. It's fine though, obviously he is a cover for the injured Kozak and he will probably cost next to nothing anyway. However, it is a big, big sign of our intentions. As a fan you always dream of something big to happen, that we suddenly start to invest again and that our team develops together in an extraordinary way. But as it is, we are just a team trying to stay in the Premier League. Everything above 18th is acceptable so to speak. No not naive, just not shitting myself over a 6 month deal and pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy on here. People on here wanted experience, we get it, they complain because it's not the experienced player they wanted, all whilst dismissing the logical reasoning behind getting said player just because it doesn't fit in with their argument. A short term loan move that will probably cost next to nowt and is an obvious replacement for a player who broke his leg just over a week ago, not much to shout about but not one to cause such outcry. Would we have signed him if Kozak didn't break his leg? I doubt it personally. As I said earlier on, if this is our ONLY signing, then I'll be hugely disappointed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 For me I think it just shows where the club currently thinks we can compete. It shows how low our ambition is. If was on the back of a good midfield purchase then maybe I would be happy. But as our first business in the window, it smacks of being small time. It doesn't really show anything about our ambition if you take into account what the deal will be and why we're doing it. Why does it smack of being small time? The window isn't even over yet! Don't see why it matters what comes first. Oh come on man. I am an optimist as well but you are strecthing credulity there. Let me ask you this, if Suarez broke his leg and Liverpool brought in Grant Holt as cover what would you think of Liverpools ambition? How am I? I'm not even happy about this deal, I just don't see what people are getting so hysterical about. We're not challenging for the Champions League/title and Suarez is 10 times better than Kozak so it's not really a valid comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 This sums up many posters here....... Can't wait for the 31st Jan and this can all be over 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 For me I think it just shows where the club currently thinks we can compete. It shows how low our ambition is. If was on the back of a good midfield purchase then maybe I would be happy. But as our first business in the window, it smacks of being small time. It doesn't really show anything about our ambition if you take into account what the deal will be and why we're doing it. Why does it smack of being small time? The window isn't even over yet! Don't see why it matters what comes first. Oh come on man. I am an optimist as well but you are strecthing credulity there. Let me ask you this, if Suarez broke his leg and Liverpool brought in Grant Holt as cover what would you think of Liverpools ambition? How am I? I'm not even happy about this deal, I just don't see what people are getting so hysterical about. We're not challenging for the Champions League/title and Suarez is 10 times better than Kozak so it's not really a valid comparison. Ok then, can you think of any team in the premier league who could sign Grant Holt as cover and you would think "oh thats a good move"? Even Sunderland would be worse with Grant Holt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papillon Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 A confirmation as to the type of football we'll continue to play for the rest of the season is probably the most depressing aspect of this signing. We've seen that Helenius can link up well, why not start using and trying getting the best out of him instead. Makes no sense to me at all. I just see Lambert reverting back to the ways in which he got success scrapping his way out of League 1, concerning to say the least. Excuse me, but when have you see Helenius link up well? In the combined 51 minutes he has on the pitch this season in the Premier League? Or are you talking about the cup game against Sheffield United from League 1? Scoring a goal against such teams means nothing, it doesn't prove he will suddenly go on the pitch are score a hat-trick against Liverpool next week. "He deserves a chance" is also something I have read numerous times on here, but what do people know about his ability? Tonev is getting some games, even Bowery gets on the pitch from time to time - two absolute woeful players far away from being Premier League-players, so just imagine how far Helenius is from being one. People have to understand that what happens in the cups have very little significance compared to the real deal, which is the league. Lambert got him in, of course he wants to play him to avoid another fail in the market, but if he isn't good enough he isn't getting games. He isn't getting games for Denmark either, and we have seen Cornelius at Cardiff struggling immensely to get a hold of the tempo, the Danish league is lightyears away from being a comparable league. People are looking for solutions and are starting to find hope in players like Donacien and Helenius, players they have never seen in games. It's not like you can just walk into this league, it's a bit harder than that. If Helenius is crap then he shouldn't be playing, and if better players are fit then he should only warm the bench. A proven player out of form is still a better choice than an unproven player that hasn't played at this level. Now I don't know how good or how poor Helenius is, because like all of you I haven't seen much of him, but the only indication we have is that he is not playing. The sad thing is that he is turning 23 in a few months, it's not like he is some 18 year old gem still learning his way. He is over two years older than Lukaku, and we know how far away he is from being at his level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeParker91 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 My major problem is a lot of people want to see Helenius given a chance and this is just another indication that Lambert doesn't have faith in him. I've seen people on here argue that Helenius isn't a target man so he shouldn't be compared to Kozak and I agree that he isn't, probably one of the reasons he doesn't get a game, but why is being different a bad thing? Holt does show our intent, whether a loan or not, as in if we are losing (which we predominately are) our tactic will be to throw him on and go long. And god forbids if he starts. Our style of football is abysmal and Grant Holt will fit perfectly into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobler Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I can't believe signing Holt is at the expense of signing others. Certainly not an alternative to signing a striker on a permanent basis. Again, as an option to bring on in the tail end of matches when either chasing a goal, or defending a lead, I really don't see the issue. Not exciting, just back-up. Like I said before, had we unveiled a couple of decent signings already I doubt many would bat an eyelid here. It's more the statement though for me. I was hoping that we'd move forward under Lambert, this football club has played stone age football for too long and regardless of whether he plays 1 minute or every minute, it concerns me a little that in hard times Lambert is reverting back to the type of player that epitomizes one style of play. We know that we have huge wage restrictions, to the point where if one comes in, another probably has to go out and new signings are limited. We've seen that Helenius linked up fairly well recently, something to work on, yet, Holt will undoubtedly be ahead of him and when he does feature the team will only play to his strengths which will affect the team as a whole. I just can't throw away this signing as a nothing signing, it's one we just don't need, imo. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Ok then, can you think of any team in the premier league who could sign Grant Holt as cover and you would think "oh thats a good move"? Even Sunderland would be worse with Grant Holt. I never said I thought it was a good move. As I've said half a dozen times I don't agree with it, I just don't see why people are getting so upset about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AValon Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 For me I think it just shows where the club currently thinks we can compete. It shows how low our ambition is. If was on the back of a good midfield purchase then maybe I would be happy. But as our first business in the window, it smacks of being small time. It doesn't really show anything about our ambition if you take into account what the deal will be and why we're doing it. Why does it smack of being small time? The window isn't even over yet! Don't see why it matters what comes first. The problem for me is the timing. Holt is a 31st January last ditch option, not what we are in desperate need of. If Lambert pulls the 'meltdown' AM signing out of the bag, then it'll go by the way. But if he does'nt..... Its not hysteria, its worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 It's only a 6 month deal. Of course I'm not jumping for joy but he isn't going to be starting up top on his own next match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevangrealish Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Look on the bright side, PL could have signed a different player who wasnt ' a real man'. At least if hes that then it shouldnt matter that he cant get into wigans side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I'd have preferred young and hungry Wells, but as we couln't compete with Huddersfield *shrugs shoulders*. Can you show me where we bid for Wells and were subsequently out-muscled by Huddersfield? Well, no granted, I don't have an email from Lerner confirming our interest to PM you, but as you also know, all the paper-talk was, we were interested in this chap. And he is young and up-and-comer, so he would fit in with what has been tried these last 18 month. According to Kendrick there was no interest in Wells. Saying with can't compete with Huddersfield is ridiculous, simply for the league we're in if nothing else. It would seem our interest was passing at best, and did not result in a bid. I guess we couldn't compete with them for Joe Lolley either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Ok then, can you think of any team in the premier league who could sign Grant Holt as cover and you would think "oh thats a good move"? Even Sunderland would be worse with Grant Holt. I never said I thought it was a good move. As I've said half a dozen times I don't agree with it, I just don't see why people are getting so upset about it. I'm not upset, I'd just rather that fat chancer wasn't a Villa player. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts