KHV Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Sensible bit of business. Tony Parks was previously keeper coach at Norwich so knows Bunn well and knows what we are getting so I'd imagine this is a signing on his recommendation. Clearly coming in as number two with the departure of Given, only question is if he will be behind Guzan or someone else. someone else is my bet I feel that way too. Sherwood doesn't seem keen on Guzan and to be fair he has been getting progressivley worse between the sticks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 For the record, I have no problem with Guzan and him being our number one BUT I don't understand the logic in this signing from Villa/ Sherwood's point of view. He rated Given higher than Guzan, but releases him. Brings in Bunn who most would say isn't quite as good as Given either in performance or experience ways. So this then means Guzan has less competition for a starting spot. If financial reasons, I doubt it's even that great a saving. We're likely to be paying a percentage of Given's wages even if he leaves for Stoke, add on Bunn's and the saving probably is only 10k a week, if that. I've no problem with Bunn, but it feels a little pointless from both aspects. I also wonder why it took a week to sign a free agent from Norwich if this was planned development. He's not here to challenge Guzan (which Given did) and saves a tiny amount of cash in all likelihood. Confused. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 9, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 9, 2015 As someone who hasn't watched much of Bunn I have no idea how good he is so I'll reserve judgement. Probably won't see a whole lot of him though if I was to make a prediction. Welcome nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 For the record, I have no problem with Guzan and him being our number one BUT I don't understand the logic in this signing from Villa/ Sherwood's point of view. He rated Given higher than Guzan, but releases him. Brings in Bunn who most would say isn't quite as good as Given either in performance or experience ways. So this then means Guzan has less competition for a starting spot. If financial reasons, I doubt it's even that great a saving. We're likely to be paying a percentage of Given's wages even if he leaves for Stoke, add on Bunn's and the saving probably is only 10k a week, if that. I've no problem with Bunn, but it feels a little pointless from both aspects. I also wonder why it took a week to sign a free agent from Norwich if this was planned development. He's not here to challenge Guzan (which Given did) and saves a tiny amount of cash in all likelihood. Confused. It saves about £40k a week. Also, the summer is not over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 For the record, I have no problem with Guzan and him being our number one BUT I don't understand the logic in this signing from Villa/ Sherwood's point of view. He rated Given higher than Guzan, but releases him. Brings in Bunn who most would say isn't quite as good as Given either in performance or experience ways. So this then means Guzan has less competition for a starting spot. If financial reasons, I doubt it's even that great a saving. We're likely to be paying a percentage of Given's wages even if he leaves for Stoke, add on Bunn's and the saving probably is only 10k a week, if that. I've no problem with Bunn, but it feels a little pointless from both aspects. I also wonder why it took a week to sign a free agent from Norwich if this was planned development. He's not here to challenge Guzan (which Given did) and saves a tiny amount of cash in all likelihood. Confused. It saves about £40k a week. Also, the summer is not over. Genuinely, not winding up, is that definitely true? Because without knowing the figures I was under the impression Given was on about £50k, that we then had to pay a percentage of his wages for his final year, say 50%, to enable the move. Then even if Bunn is only on 10k, we're only saving £15k a week, minus any signing on fees. I know I'm more negatively minded (I like to say realist!) but based on what we KNOW this doesn't make any sense. If he replaces Guzan then it makes more sense. But even then I don't think we should be wasting budget on replacing Guzan anyway, especially if we need to save £15-40k a week to reduce the overall quality of the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 You've got all that from Given leaving and us signing a back up keeper to replace him? You seem to know much more than I do so I'm best off bowing to that knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 9, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2015 Decent backup. Can't see him pushing Guzan though. Guzan is way better. So another year of Guzan coasting as he knows he's No1. I imagine Sherwood dropping Guzan last season is more than enough to reassure Guzan that his position isn't safe and if he's not on his game he'll be dropped. Guzan wasn't dropped because Given was playing really well. He was dropped because he made a mistake. The quality of the backup keeper had little relevance to the situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 9, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2015 For the record, I have no problem with Guzan and him being our number one BUT I don't understand the logic in this signing from Villa/ Sherwood's point of view. He rated Given higher than Guzan, but releases him. Brings in Bunn who most would say isn't quite as good as Given either in performance or experience ways. So this then means Guzan has less competition for a starting spot. If financial reasons, I doubt it's even that great a saving. We're likely to be paying a percentage of Given's wages even if he leaves for Stoke, add on Bunn's and the saving probably is only 10k a week, if that. I've no problem with Bunn, but it feels a little pointless from both aspects. I also wonder why it took a week to sign a free agent from Norwich if this was planned development. He's not here to challenge Guzan (which Given did) and saves a tiny amount of cash in all likelihood. Confused. It saves about £40k a week. Also, the summer is not over. Genuinely, not winding up, is that definitely true? Because without knowing the figures I was under the impression Given was on about £50k, that we then had to pay a percentage of his wages for his final year, say 50%, to enable the move. Then even if Bunn is only on 10k, we're only saving £15k a week, minus any signing on fees. I know I'm more negatively minded (I like to say realist!) but based on what we KNOW this doesn't make any sense. If he replaces Guzan then it makes more sense. But even then I don't think we should be wasting budget on replacing Guzan anyway, especially if we need to save £15-40k a week to reduce the overall quality of the squad. This makes way more sense than replacing Guzan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Designer1 Posted July 9, 2015 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2015 Welcome Mark. I hear you're very hot on crosses. 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Apprently he is well chuffed for this move, Bristol City are not happy with us as he was on verge of signing for them and we stole him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 9, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 9, 2015 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Kind of wanted Guzan to be back up with us signing a really good keeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 what's happened to Jed Steer?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Will he use us as a stepping stone for bigger and better things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NulliSecundus Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 what's happened to Jed Steer?? Obviously not kneaded as much as Bunn 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Decent backup. Can't see him pushing Guzan though. Guzan is way better. So another year of Guzan coasting as he knows he's No1. I imagine Sherwood dropping Guzan last season is more than enough to reassure Guzan that his position isn't safe and if he's not on his game he'll be dropped. Guzan wasn't dropped because Given was playing really well. He was dropped because he made a mistake. The quality of the backup keeper had little relevance to the situation Not sure I can agree with that, Stevo, I doubt he would have dropped him if the back up keepers had been Steer and Bunn. Given is so much better than them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 This signing, to me, looks like Guzan remaining as number 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PongRiddims Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Heard Man City have matched his release clause already? How old is he though? What about Gil, he could've been backup keeper surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 So we have a Baker, a Bunn - who next?? the Uruguayan Rolan Pin?? I see no problem with this, replace one back up keeper with another and save approx £45k per week!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 You've got all that from Given leaving and us signing a back up keeper to replace him? You seem to know much more than I do so I'm best off bowing to that knowledge. Not really sure why you're getting so uppity about it! Thought this was a place for discussion?! The facts, based nothing on how much time left we have or who we are rumoured to buy, are: Sherwood dropped Guzan for Given - indicating he doesn't overly rate Guzan. He's now sold Given and brought in Bunn - arguably very little difference in quality and potentially wages when taking in to consideration likely payoff to Given. So, as it stands, we have brought in a slightly worse player than the one we had to be back up for a player Sherwood has indicated he doesn't rate as highly as the player he's just released. So AS IT STANDS it doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying there isn't a bigger picture to be played out, I'm not suggesting it's lunacy, I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I'm just saying it makes no sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts