CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) Dembele is a CL quality player. Dream on. Edited November 17, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Demebele is a CL quality player. Dream on. That is why he is playing for Tottenham. Does of reality, mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) Or not as the case may be. Still not realistic. I'm sure we could get him if we pushed, but we won't. Fantasy. Edited November 17, 2013 by dont_do_it_doug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 We would have to sell Agbonlahor to free up his wages. I've been unsubtly hinting at that for the last few posts. Lambert is a manager with the cajones to sell the team mascot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) I haven't been Gabby's biggest fan over the years, but selling him now would be daft. As things stand we are a very liimited counter-attacking team, and selling Gabby would only make us an impotent, very limited counter-attacking team. Aside from Benteke (who's own contribution falls noticeably when Gabby isn't there), he's arguably our most important player. Now, if we want to play a different way, then yes by all means sell him, but I've seen nothing to suggest Lambert is considering such a change, and attempting to change what we do well mid-season, when we are realistically fighting to stay up, would be very, very risky move. Edited November 17, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I haven't been Gabby's biggest fan over the years, but selling him now would be daft. As things stand we are a very liimited counter-attacking team, and selling Gabby would only make us an impotent, very limited counter-attacking team. Aside from Benteke (who's own contribution falls noticeably when Gabby isn't there), he's arguably our most important player. Now, if we want to play a different way, then yes by all means sell him, but I've seen nothing to suggest Lambert is considering such a change, and attempting to change what we do well mid-season, when we are realistically fighting to stay up, would be very, very risky move. We are over-reliant on Mr. Counter-attack. What happens if he gets an injury and is out for the season? There goes our counter-attack and wage budget. 0-0 against Hull again and again. Meanwhile we also continue to struggle at home because we cannot afford the wages of a star creative midfielder. Villa have it backwards being better away from home than at home. Teams normally rely on their home form for most of their points. Being good at home is the safer bet for success in the league than being good on the road. We cannot afford Gabby now. Those who say he isn't good enough for a better team are simply wrong. He would be an excellent squad player in a CL side, and there won't be any shortage of offers at a reasonable £10-15m price valuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I haven't been Gabby's biggest fan over the years, but selling him now would be daft. As things stand we are a very liimited counter-attacking team, and selling Gabby would only make us an impotent, very limited counter-attacking team. Aside from Benteke (who's own contribution falls noticeably when Gabby isn't there), he's arguably our most important player. Now, if we want to play a different way, then yes by all means sell him, but I've seen nothing to suggest Lambert is considering such a change, and attempting to change what we do well mid-season, when we are realistically fighting to stay up, would be very, very risky move. I agree with all of that except the bolded. We're fighting for midtable at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdulaziz1 Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I'd either take him Or Chadli .. They all want a move now for the World Cup I'd assume ! It's our time to attract one of them ! Think of it , They have Lennon , Townsend , Lamela (isn't getting much time) .. And I don't know who else ! + many creative midfielders .. It depends on their wages though , Don't think Chadli is on more than 30 of 40k anyway .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I haven't been Gabby's biggest fan over the years, but selling him now would be daft. As things stand we are a very liimited counter-attacking team, and selling Gabby would only make us an impotent, very limited counter-attacking team. Aside from Benteke (who's own contribution falls noticeably when Gabby isn't there), he's arguably our most important player. Now, if we want to play a different way, then yes by all means sell him, but I've seen nothing to suggest Lambert is considering such a change, and attempting to change what we do well mid-season, when we are realistically fighting to stay up, would be very, very risky move. We wont sell him because no top side would want him. Dont understand the link with city. Obvs BS imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Would rather move on Weimann than Gabby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 We have Clark owning CB right now so if in January we still have 3 CBs plus Lowton, I think that's enough. I think we may go for another striker. Do we need a creative player? According to Squawka so far this season in the PL we have created 99 chances. League leaders Arsenal have created 118. Sunderland have created 77. That puts us in the middle of the pack for chances created. Since we had probably the toughest set of opening fixtures in the league that's actually not a bad total. We would be closer to league leaders Arsenal in chances created if we had an easier set of opening fixtures. Add to this the Grealish and Carruthers factor. Creative players from our academy we want to give a chance to. Why buy to replace talent we may already have? We do need another striker. If Benteke is sold in the summer, we need to replace him. Buying Kozak is a start but you can't replace a player as good as Benteke with one player. We're still in the market for another striker. Also, we might sell Agbonlahor. If the offer is right. Have a feeling about that. This is actually something that i dread this January Con especially if Benteke stays beyond January. Lambert has already purchased Kozak, Helenius, Bowery and extended Weimann's contract. We also have Gabby, with Fonz and Bent's probable return from their loan period at the end of the season. He has to show faith now not only in the strikers he has purchased but try and get the best out of whats already at his disposal before spending more on a position we have more than ample cover for and concentrate his limited budget on weaknesses elsewhere in the team. If Lambert sells Gabby to Man City (who could easily accommodate his wage package and would use his pace on counter-attack to fix their away form) we have only three proper strikers Benteke, Weimann and Kozak. Bent's a dinosaur in the modern game because he doesn't do the high press well. "Fonz" is nowhere near the first team standard - and neither is Bowery. Helenius was not bought to be a striker. That's just three. Once we sell Benteke selling clubs will immediately try to screw us on the fee so I think it's important we act this window to get another striker. I suppose thats one way in disregarding the strikers we have at the club but in regards to Gabby it's pure fantasy and pure Con so i won't bite further on that point. However, you've ignored the overall intentionally i suspect which is, that whether Lambert has decided that those players aren't good enough or not, we still have seven strikers including Helenius on our books and if Fonz and Bent return we will have to pay their full wages until either their contracts run down or someone wants to take them. With that in mind how could the manager legislate spending more of our limited budget on yet another striker to the chairman when he has already spent part of his limited budget on Bowery, Helenius and Kozak and how would Weimann and Gabby feel about yet another striker coming in? I sincerely hope that Lambert will now concentrate his budget in midfield where currently it is needed the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I suppose thats one way in disregarding the strikers we have at the club but in regards to Gabby it's pure fantasy and pure Con so i won't bite further on that point. However, you've ignored the overall intentionally i suspect which is, that whether Lambert has decided that those players aren't good enough or not, we still have seven strikers including Helenius on our books and if Fonz and Bent return we will have to pay their full wages until either their contracts run down or someone wants to take them. With that in mind how could the manager legislate spending more of our limited budget on yet another striker to the chairman when he has already spent part of his limited budget on Bowery, Helenius and Kozak and how would Weimann and Gabby feel about yet another striker coming in? I sincerely hope that Lambert will now concentrate his budget in midfield where currently it is needed the most. I agree with your basic point there are too many designated strikers in the squad. My point is that we don't yet have enough good enough strikers so we still need to buy. Lambert would have to sell Gabby to buy another striker, to make room for the wages. That is how he would justify it to Lerner. "I'm selling Gabby." Man City will buy him. He's the best counter-attacking player in the Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Never in a million years would we get Dembele, god knows why they put us in the article title. As for Gabby going to Man City, don't be daft. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I feel very confident we will sign someone. I am not ITK at all I just see the budget Lerner has given out every year and this summer Lambert kept a bunch back. If he picks up another Sylla like bargain I will be happy enough. When you say you see the budget, do you mean you actually know what it is?? God no. Just my guess is Lerner allocates 20-25 million per season for transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie09 Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Would rather move on Weimann than Gabby. I wouldn't. Weimann has natural talent, Gabby has pace. One of those attributes dimishes with age, the other doesn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Would rather move on Weimann than Gabby. I wouldn't. Weimann has natural talent, Gabby has pace. One of those attributes dimishes with age, the other doesn't. What about this for a solution... Move on both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AValon Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Getting rid of Gabby would be like kicking the old family dog out the door, bones and all. We could do with a pedigree or two, but they don't come cheap and are very expensive to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) Thing is, we could sell Gabby now, but if we leave it a couple of years, could we sell him then? What for, and what wage would he be on then? Any strategic restructuring of the team to make our home form better could mean we have to sell Gabby. For our club's situation, the high wage he is on is not justified by the fact he is only effective away from home.* By contrast, a CL with much greater revenues could justify spending this much on a counter-attack specialist they intend to play away from home, for the majority of his games. *Of the 9 goals he scored last season, 7 were away, 2 were home. Of the 7 wins he played in, 3 were at home, 4 were away from home. Edited November 17, 2013 by Con Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Getting rid of Gabby would be like kicking the old family dog out the door, bones and all. We could do with a pedigree or two, but they don't come cheap and are very expensive to keep. same time when the old family dog only gets you ur slippers the odd time when he feels in the mood but still expects to be fed then something has to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I like Weimann but he's really alarmed me by how lacklustre his performances have been this season. Not good with that new contract signed and seeing as he still has improvements to make in his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts