PompeyVillan Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Maybe we should loan Ireland let him get some confidence and maybe try again in the summer when hopefully we have a higher ability of footballer in the squad. I think Houllier might be thinking of loaning him out to put him in the shop window. Celtic are rumoured to be interested. He'd kill that league, we might even recoup our transfer money if he went there and did well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Yeah a loan spell to Celtic would be a good move, unless Houllier is sacked in the next week or so. Get him some games, probably do well there, comes down having played games, maybe found some form, at worst, we probably get a chance for a bigger fee, quite possibly he comes back in and starts to impress and things work out here. Probably best not to sell him just yet if Houllier could be going.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Apparently Ireland is a candidate for saving. He isn't. He has always been unhinged, and the absolute rejection from Man City was likely to push him over the edge, which it has turned out to be. His signing was always going to be a huge mistake, compounded by the fact that the board of managerless Aston Villa thought it crucial that we had a player as replacement for Milner (sic). I wrote at the time that we only got £18m for Milner, as Ireland was going to cost us at least his £8m valuation. I now fear that he may end up costing us even more than that. At the 11th hour we should have changed our demand to £26m cash and left Man City with the problem that is Ireland, a problem that they could well afford to overcome themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 At the 11th hour we should have changed our demand to £26m cash and left Man City with the problem that is Ireland, a problem that they could well afford to overcome themselves. I agree with all of that apart from this bit because I don't think we could, depending upon your definition of 11th hour. There was the the Memorandum of Understanding, was there not, that basically **** us. If the word is true it would have cost us 5m to break the deal. I suppose the argument could go is that we should have done that and taken circa 20m for Milner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 At the 11th hour we should have changed our demand to £26m cash and left Man City with the problem that is Ireland, a problem that they could well afford to overcome themselves. I agree with all of that apart from this bit because I don't think we could, depending upon your definition of 11th hour. There was the the Memorandum of Understanding, was there not, that basically **** us. If the word is true it would have cost us 5m to break the deal. I suppose the argument could go is that we should have done that and taken circa 20m for Milner. Hindsight is a wonderful thing in this regard, I suppose. If we had accepted £20m for Milner, having held out for £25m+ all summer, fans would have been in uproar. Especially if we had done this the week after MON resigned. It would have given the impression that MON left because we were prepared to let Milner go for £5m less than the price MON had demanded for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 At the 11th hour we should have changed our demand to £26m cash and left Man City with the problem that is Ireland, a problem that they could well afford to overcome themselves. I agree with all of that apart from this bit because I don't think we could, depending upon your definition of 11th hour. There was the the Memorandum of Understanding, was there not, that basically **** us. If the word is true it would have cost us 5m to break the deal. I suppose the argument could go is that we should have done that and taken circa 20m for Milner. Hindsight is a wonderful thing in this regard, I suppose. If we had accepted £20m for Milner, having held out for £25m+ all summer, fans would have been in uproar. Especially if we had done this the week after MON resigned. It would have given the impression that MON left because we were prepared to let Milner go for £5m less than the price MON had demanded for him. Was the price ever confirmed beforehand or was it just press prices? My understanding is we got 18m plus Ireland but that was, if true, the MOU deal. As you say hindsight is a wonderful thing but with the benefit of it I think many of us would have taken the 20m for Milner and not had the Ireland problem. Big earner on a long contract who hasn't fitted in. This is from someone who actually wanted him, BTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Yeah but as said hindsight is wonderful. I think you'd of asked anyone on here, including people who didn't even rate Ireland, they'd of took the Ireland deal for re-sale value as well. Even with his poor form, we'll probably get £5-6 million for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 At the 11th hour we should have changed our demand to £26m cash and left Man City with the problem that is Ireland, a problem that they could well afford to overcome themselves. I agree with all of that apart from this bit because I don't think we could, depending upon your definition of 11th hour. There was the the Memorandum of Understanding, was there not, that basically **** us. If the word is true it would have cost us 5m to break the deal. I suppose the argument could go is that we should have done that and taken circa 20m for Milner. Hindsight is a wonderful thing in this regard, I suppose. If we had accepted £20m for Milner, having held out for £25m+ all summer, fans would have been in uproar. Especially if we had done this the week after MON resigned. It would have given the impression that MON left because we were prepared to let Milner go for £5m less than the price MON had demanded for him. Was the price ever confirmed beforehand or was it just press prices? My understanding is we got 18m plus Ireland but that was, if true, the MOU deal. As you say hindsight is a wonderful thing but with the benefit of it I think many of us would have taken the 20m for Milner and not had the Ireland problem. Big earner on a long contract who hasn't fitted in. This is from someone who actually wanted him, BTW! "The Ireland problem" is a phrase that irks me. He's only played 10 games for us, a number of them off the bench. He hasn't, in my opinion, had the easiest transition. Forced out of a club he had been at since the age of 15, he arrived at a Villa in turmoil. Injured his hamstring and has since found himself being pushed towards the exit door by a new manager. "The Ireland problem" wouldn't, again in my opinion, be a problem if his manager hadn't handled the situation so poorly. In terms of pure economics, if we were to sell Ireland tomorrow for anything above £3 million, then we'll have made more (in terms of transfer fees) than if we had broken the MOU and sold Milner for £20million cash. That's assuming that Man City would have come back to the negotiating table after Villa pulled the plug on the deal too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 At the 11th hour we should have changed our demand to £26m cash and left Man City with the problem that is Ireland, a problem that they could well afford to overcome themselves. The main problem with that is that it was us demanding Ireland as part of the deal. They would have settled for a cash only deal, but we wanted Ireland in return, which was one of the factors that pushed O'Neill to leave because he didn't want Ireland. If reports are to be believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 "The Ireland problem" is a phrase that irks me. He's only played 10 games for us, a number of them off the bench. He hasn't, in my opinion, had the easiest transition. Forced out of a club he had been at since the age of 15, he arrived at a Villa in turmoil. Injured his hamstring and has since found himself being pushed towards the exit door by a new manager. "The Ireland problem" wouldn't, again in my opinion, be a problem if his manager hadn't handled the situation so poorly. Seems a fair assessment. It will be interesting to see what a change in manager will do. I think it needs to be remembered that Ireland is not the only player failing to deliver under Houllier. 90% of the players are, especially the senior ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 I think people also need to remember this is Ireland under the second manager that he is not performing, Whilst it could be both managers fault im not ruling out the possilbity that Ireland a) doesn't want to be here is just a one season wonder We'll see though, i hope he comes good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honest_bertie Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 I think people also need to remember this is Ireland under the second manager that he is not performing, Whilst it could be both managers fault im not ruling out the possilbity that Ireland a) doesn't want to be here is just a one season wonder We'll see though, i hope he comes good. Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjamesk Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Is he still here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 I think people also need to remember this is Ireland under the second manager that he is not performing, Whilst it could be both managers fault im not ruling out the possilbity that Ireland a) doesn't want to be here is just a one season wonder We'll see though, i hope he comes good. c) doesn't want to be anywhere d) is crap He won't come good, he needs to drop a couple of divisions to be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Is he still here? Yep. And getting about £72,000 a week for his trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanky Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Is he still here? Yep. And getting about £72,000 a week for his trouble. He might as well be of some use and be in the matchday squad then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Is he still here? Yep. And getting about £72,000 a week for his trouble. He might as well be of some use and be in the matchday squad then. My thinking exactly. He wants to play, why put him on the scrapheap? It makes my blood boil that Pires earns an appearance bonus when he comes off the bench for his weekly stroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjamesk Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Is he still here? Yep. And getting about £72,000 a week for his trouble. He might as well be of some use and be in the matchday squad then. My thinking exactly. He wants to play, why put him on the scrapheap? It makes my blood boil that Pires earns an appearance bonus when he comes off the bench for his weekly stroll. Crazy really, I take it he`s off in Jan then Gazton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Is he still here? Yep. And getting about £72,000 a week for his trouble. He might as well be of some use and be in the matchday squad then. My thinking exactly. He wants to play, why put him on the scrapheap? It makes my blood boil that Pires earns an appearance bonus when he comes off the bench for his weekly stroll. Crazy really, I take it he`s off in Jan then Gazton? I don't have any new info on top of what i've said before. MM has said there's been a "thaw" on the part of the management, I hope that's true but nothing from GH's track record in this case gives me confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Yeah but as said hindsight is wonderful. I think you'd of asked anyone on here, including people who didn't even rate Ireland, they'd of took the Ireland deal for re-sale value as well. I don't believe that's correct. Here, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts