Jump to content

Selling Our Players


WooJung
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul Lambert is currently in his fourth transfer window since joining the club. I have lost count of the number of players he's bought, but it's much easier to count those he sold: TWO - Collins and Bannan. All the other players have either been loaned out (Bent, Given), released (Holman, Ireland) or left the club after their contract expired (Warnock, Lichaj).

 

Although most of these players have/had little or no value, I am starting to wonder if Lambert is responsible and to what degree. Is he not good enough at negotiating, or does he act in a way that makes our players unwanted by other clubs? (I am referring to the Bomb Squad policy, I think it's doing us more harm than good, it makes the players look like they have NOTHING to offer. If Hutton doesn't even make the bench when we have zero right backs avaliable and resort to playing a midfielder in that position nobody will consider buying him, will they? This is just an example)

 

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's the wages that is an issue, and none of the players wanting to take a pay cut to leave. Nobody in their right mind would spend a transfer fee on the likes of Ireland, Warnock, Makoun, Hutton, Given etc, they are all busted flushes on way too much money. Not much Lambert could do really. It's an added problem for him in that he hasn't been able to create his own funds to add to his transfer budget, as well as taking away money from the wage budget.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is most if not all of the players being bombed out are on wages far more than they're worth. There was a serious problem at this club which started in the O'Neill years and didn't really stop until 2012 - that is the purchase of players and sticking them on silly contracts earning far more than they should be. Consequently it's become incredibly hard to shift these players.

 

I don't think the policy has been that bad at all. The only player marginalised with any real quality is Bent, and even then he was on massive wages and as we've seen we've got better options anyway. Over time I think people forget just how poor the likes of Ireland, Bannan, Hutton etc were for us.

Edited by Mantis
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure we got a few quid for Makoun.

 

And possibly Ireland, unlikely though.

 

Lambert can't really be blamed for the stated players as they were before he started. He's managed to get most loaned out which if he's getting the other clubs to pay at least 50% of their wages I see that as a plus point.

 

Ireland & Bent are 2 players that others (Non-Villa fans) still seem to be under the impression that they are good and are 2 names that I've heard "why aren't they playing him" so many times. I think we will get some money for Bent in June, not much maybe 2m but it's still something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is one of the positive things that is happening at Villa Park.

Most the players at Villa now are worth more than what they were bought for. The only exceptions is the Bomb Squad.

I think financially (and football clubs are in a terrible financial state), we are looking not too bad while maintaining top flight football. I feel safe in the knowledge that the future of the club is bright and with a few other positive first team signings we could be pushing for a cup/europa league in a couple years!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure we got a few quid for Makoun.

Agreed. Plus we got a 'loan fee' for Bent from Fulham.

 

I actually think us trying to recoup some money has been an issue with shifting a few others, as we refuse to simply bankroll their departure.

I also think Lambert is in no way culpable. Now, if we started flogging his signings and getting nothing for them, I would point the finger, but as has been said, their lower wages and age will make them attractive to others, so we should be able to shift them quickly, without cost, and in most cases, for a fee.

Edited by Pez1974
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have a pretty clear opinion about this, and I think our approach has lost us some money no doubt.

 

Every single player is a commodity and has a market price. However, when you ship the player off to the reserves and never play them in a single game - well that kind of ruins their reputation no matter what and the price will nosedive. We "knew" Bent was a lost cause so to speak, we knew he had lost his spark, but other clubs will always have another opinion as they just remember what he was and could become. A bit like Hughes and Ireland, he has taken him to Stoke and paid him no doubt a reasonable wage because of the stuff he did a few seasons ago. But when we oust him completely, of course the clubs with the potential checkbooks become reluctant and stay away.

 

Bent had a good reputation, his age was still within reason and he was the guy that got you goals. Lambert decided to never play him, of course because of several factors where one is he was not good enough, but it drove away every single suitor. There were rumors about 6-8M for the player, and had we played him before the January window last season and let him score a few goals we could have gotten that price. Last season we were talking about the infamous system and how Bent never fitted into it. Well, my opinion is that no single player fit into it because it's not a very good system. In my opinion, Lambert ruined a very good player in Bent. Of course, it goes both ways, Bent surely hasn't responded in the right manner and probably didn't give Lambert a good reason to play him in the end. He was probably looking for a way out, since their relationship must have broken down. At Fulham he hasn't set the world on fire, but I think the damage was done whilst at Villa and he is never going to be the same player again.

 

My point is; instead of making the illusion of Bent being a valuable asset to the squad, we basically wrote off 6-8M and put him in the reserves. Now he is loaned out, he is playing poorly and now he is worth next to nothing. A better manager with a bit of nous would have gotten money for Bent and some of the other players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have a pretty clear opinion about this, and I think our approach has lost us some money no doubt.

 

Every single player is a commodity and has a market price. However, when you ship the player off to the reserves and never play them in a single game - well that kind of ruins their reputation no matter what and the price will nosedive. We "knew" Bent was a lost cause so to speak, we knew he had lost his spark, but other clubs will always have another opinion as they just remember what he was and could become. A bit like Hughes and Ireland, he has taken him to Stoke and paid him no doubt a reasonable wage because of the stuff he did a few seasons ago. But when we oust him completely, of course the clubs with the potential checkbooks become reluctant and stay away.

 

Bent had a good reputation, his age was still within reason and he was the guy that got you goals. Lambert decided to never play him, of course because of several factors where one is he was not good enough, but it drove away every single suitor. There were rumors about 6-8M for the player, and had we played him before the January window last season and let him score a few goals we could have gotten that price. Last season we were talking about the infamous system and how Bent never fitted into it. Well, my opinion is that no single player fit into it because it's not a very good system. In my opinion, Lambert ruined a very good player in Bent. Of course, it goes both ways, Bent surely hasn't responded in the right manner and probably didn't give Lambert a good reason to play him in the end. He was probably looking for a way out, since their relationship must have broken down. At Fulham he hasn't set the world on fire, but I think the damage was done whilst at Villa and he is never going to be the same player again.

 

My point is; instead of making the illusion of Bent being a valuable asset to the squad, we basically wrote off 6-8M and put him in the reserves. Now he is loaned out, he is playing poorly and now he is worth next to nothing. A better manager with a bit of nous would have gotten money for Bent and some of the other players.

 

Disagree somewhat.

It was reported I believe that we got a loan fee for Bent, with Fulham paying 100% of his wages. Although not a direct 'transfer fee' it does somewhat cover the reduced value of Bent as he will be for sale in May with only 1 year remaining on his contract.

It is my opinion that the overriding issue with Bent (and many of the others) is their wages. Nothing Lambert or anyone else could do would change this, and he is only worth what others would pay - and they wouldn't pay it. Clearly, no-one wanted to give Bent the (reported) £70k per week over 4 years that he would want to leave us, plus the £6m (ish) we wanted, making his full contract a cost to the new club of well over £20m. Fulham are paying £5m or £6m for a year of Bent, which clearly made economic sense to them.

We made a panic buy - and it worked in the short term. However, we must have known that his resale value would be massively reduced owing to his age and salary demands.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has as been said, the problem isn't of Lambert's making.

He inherited a squad of poor players, we vastly overpaid for, being paid two and three times what they should have been earning and all on long term contracts.

Quite a lot of them were and are, at the tail end of whatever careers they have had and understandably unwilling to take a huge pay cut to keep playing for some other club.

This can all be traced back to the one, many called and some still call, The Messiah and his policies.

If you check up on his previous clubs, you will find that he left them all in a far worse financial position, than when he took over.

To clear the books of so many has been a wonder. 

It seems as if he might be having some success in getting rid of those remaining, in the 'bomb squad,' as well.

We still need to get rid of, a goalkeeper, a right back, an ex-Wigan Frenchman and a forward.

There are then some academy players that need to go, as they are not good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the damage to Bent's reputation was done under McLeish to be frank.  Lambert didn't do much better but the player might have been completely pissed off with Villa by the time he came on the scene

.

 

Can imagine he'd be pissed off though - when he signed he had Downing, Young, and Albrighton at his best firing brilliant crosses at him. There was an England friendly around then when Downing, Young, and Bent played together and were brilliant. A year later he had Albrighton and N'Zogbia firing bugger all to him.

 

I seem to remember he said he pleaded with Young not to leave around the time McLeish took over.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't expect a manager to play somebody who has not only lost their spark but also doesn't fit in with the system at all in the vein hope it will heighten their reputation amongs potential suitors. Especially not during a relegation battle.

If we had gone down playing Bent over Benteke I think we'd be in a worse position now, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't expect a manager to play somebody who has not only lost their spark but also doesn't fit in with the system at all in the vein hope it will heighten their reputation amongs potential suitors. Especially not during a relegation battle.

If we had gone down playing Bent over Benteke I think we'd be in a worse position now, personally.

 

I think we'd be in a better position league table wise.... maybe pushing towards to top of the Championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

It might be worth listening to a post match interview with Mourinho, which was very interesting.

 

He was talking about the virtues/values of strikers and was highlighting how some can create their own chances and convert and others need feeding.

 

it makes a big difference to how effective they can be and how independent they can be....he also made reference to the consistency.

Edited by TRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
Â