dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There is NO SELL TO BUY. There is replace crap with better This is what I assumed. I don't think there is any way of arguing with that policy either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingysilvers Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 This is brilliant news, good riddance to ginger rubbish. He's been absolute cack for 2 years now. I assume Gazton's source regarding the striker is Stephen Ireland. In my opinion, that does not equate to Andy Carroll. Robinho? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Going to take a massive wild guess at Daniel Sturridge. That would fit the description of very exciting imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Going to take a massive wild guess at Daniel Sturridge. That would fit the description of very exciting imo. Plus he played with Ireland at Man City. I'd piss myself. Attitude or not, that buy can play football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There is NO SELL TO BUY. There is replace crap with better No problem with that but in this instance it certainly looks like we had to wait for a deal with collins to be on the cards before we agreed to the deal with Vlaar. What if next time we do business this way we lose out on the player. Vlaar was a top target, why couldn't we have signed him and worried about selling collins after? Sturridge would be a fantastic signing but not sure it will happen. Chelsea are short on strikers in their squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Robinho and Sturridge so far? It's fair to say their's a wave of optimism crashing through VT tonight!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted July 27, 2012 What if next time we do business this way we lose out on the player. Vlaar was a top target, why couldn't we have signed him and worried about selling collins after? Because we need to maintain a sustainable wage bill which isn't inflated by the wages of players we don't want, won't play but can't shift. A well run football club needs an element of balance, we've had none the last two years and in a different way we had none under O'Neill. It might be frustrating now that it is being implemented correctly by a manager and those above him but if the last two years have taught us one thing, the consequences of not doing it are far worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 What if next time we do business this way we lose out on the player. Vlaar was a top target, why couldn't we have signed him and worried about selling collins after? Because we need to maintain a sustainable wage bill which isn't inflated by the wages of players we don't want, won't play but can't shift. A well run football club needs an element of balance, we've had none the last two years and in a different way we had none under O'Neill. It might be frustrating now that it is being implemented correctly by a manager and those above him but if the last two years have taught us one thing, the consequences of not doing it are far worse. On top of which there is STILL absolutely no evidence we have ever missed out on a player because we couldn't move somebody else on in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 James Nursey thinks he's off to West Spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There is NO SELL TO BUY. There is replace crap with better No problem with that but in this instance it certainly looks like we had to wait for a deal with collins to be on the cards before we agreed to the deal with Vlaar. What if next time we do business this way we lose out on the player. Vlaar was a top target, why couldn't we have signed him and worried about selling collins after? Sturridge would be a fantastic signing but not sure it will happen. Chelsea are short on strikers in their squad. well we have signed him and now it looks like we will be working on selling collins, so we have done what you said. if we had to sell collins first why would we put in an offer for vlaar so long ago. maybe the delay was with feyenoord messing us about on price, maybe vlaar initially wanted excessive demands and now we have finally negotiated personal terms suitable to club and player. should we have just given in and paid whatever they want straight away? we had the same last year with nzogbia- people saying faulkner didnt know what he was doing, just give in and give wigan what they want to get it done quick. well in the end we held out and got the price down from what dave whelan wanted. lerner and faulkner may have messed up big style with managerial appointments, but all you ever hear about with player transfers is how professional we have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 What if next time we do business this way we lose out on the player. Vlaar was a top target, why couldn't we have signed him and worried about selling collins after? Because we need to maintain a sustainable wage bill which isn't inflated by the wages of players we don't want, won't play but can't shift. A well run football club needs an element of balance, we've had none the last two years and in a different way we had none under O'Neill. It might be frustrating now that it is being implemented correctly by a manager and those above him but if the last two years have taught us one thing, the consequences of not doing it are far worse. Surely the wage of James Collins would not make our wage bill unsustainable. And given the player there would be a very high chance he wouldn't be the sort to be happy to sit in the stands. How far do you push it with the wages? I think it is a fine balance and like i said as long as it doesn't cause us to miss out on players i haven't got a real problem with that approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 well we have signed him and now it looks like we will be working on selling collins, so we have done what you said. if we had to sell collins first why would we put in an offer for vlaar so long ago. I imagine we spoke in detail with Vlaar but couldn't confirm it until a bid for collins had come in. Once that happened and we knew collins was off we could then finally confirm with vlaar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moorski Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 West Ham likely destination for Collins,that'll do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Surely the wage of James Collins would not make our wage bill unsustainable. And given the player there would be a very high chance he wouldn't be the sort to be happy to sit in the stands. How far do you push it with the wages? I think it is a fine balance and like i said as long as it doesn't cause us to miss out on players i haven't got a real problem with that approach. You really don't get it do you? It's all well and good saying "it's only one wage". But you're talking forty thousand pounds a week. No, it wouldn't make it unsustainable, but two or three of those "it's only one wage" packets and we're right back to square one. The year of hell we've just had to endure truly was for nothing. Wouldn't be the sort to sit in the stands? Well what if nobody wanted to buy him? What then? We'd have to sell somebody else and that might not happen in which case we might have to face up to your horror scenario that we miss out on someone. I'm hopeful that will never happen, but I'd rather that than get back in to the dire state we were in 24 months ago. Like it or not balancing the wages against turnover is here to stay. It's something we should have looked towards 6 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 You really don't get it do you? It's all well and good saying "it's only one wage". But you're talking forty thousand pounds a week. No, it wouldn't make it unsustainable, but two or three of those "it's only one wage" packets and we're right back to square one. The year of hell we've just had to endure truly was for nothing. Not really. The problem with MoN is that everyone was on high wages. We've bought in replacements on lower wages, i don't think its going to bankrupt us if worst case scenario meant we had 2 or 3 players sitting in the stands till we can try again to sell them in january or next summer. And after last year is it really worth the risk of premiership survival to not bring in some top players? Also if the worst case scenario did happen and we were left with 2 or 3 would our new kit and sponsership deal not help cover that? The chances of finishing higher in the league would increase with new players so would the money from that not cover it? I'm not demanding that every transfer window Lerner should be out there blowing loads of cash and not worrying. But for this window, after last season i think there may be times when we need to take a bit of a financial risk, nothing thats going to ruin the club though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillanWA Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 You really don't get it do you? It's all well and good saying "it's only one wage". But you're talking forty thousand pounds a week. No, it wouldn't make it unsustainable, but two or three of those "it's only one wage" packets and we're right back to square one. The year of hell we've just had to endure truly was for nothing. Not really. The problem with MoN is that everyone was on high wages. We've bought in replacements on lower wages, i don't think its going to bankrupt us if worst case scenario meant we had 2 or 3 players sitting in the stands till we can try again to sell them in january or next summer. And after last year is it really worth the risk of premiership survival to not bring in some top players? Also if the worst case scenario did happen and we were left with 2 or 3 would our new kit and sponsership deal not help cover that? The chances of finishing higher in the league would increase with new players so would the money from that not cover it? I'm not demanding that every transfer window Lerner should be out there blowing loads of cash and not worrying. But for this window, after last season i think there may be times when we need to take a bit of a financial risk, nothing thats going to ruin the club though. We can't afford to have 2 or 3 players on 40 to 50 thou a week sitting in the stands. That is equal to 4 or 5 young up and coming players being in the squad. We have to be lean and mean now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 You really don't get it do you? It's all well and good saying "it's only one wage". But you're talking forty thousand pounds a week. No, it wouldn't make it unsustainable, but two or three of those "it's only one wage" packets and we're right back to square one. The year of hell we've just had to endure truly was for nothing. Not really. The problem with MoN is that everyone was on high wages. We've bought in replacements on lower wages, i don't think its going to bankrupt us if worst case scenario meant we had 2 or 3 players sitting in the stands till we can try again to sell them in january or next summer. And after last year is it really worth the risk of premiership survival to not bring in some top players? Also if the worst case scenario did happen and we were left with 2 or 3 would our new kit and sponsership deal not help cover that? The chances of finishing higher in the league would increase with new players so would the money from that not cover it? I'm not demanding that every transfer window Lerner should be out there blowing loads of cash and not worrying. But for this window, after last season i think there may be times when we need to take a bit of a financial risk, nothing thats going to ruin the club though. We can't afford to have 2 or 3 players on 40 to 50 thou a week sitting in the stands. That is equal to 4 or 5 young up and coming players being in the squad. We have to be lean and mean now. We can't afford another relegation battle. I think we can afford to take the risk of having some players left with us. I think it would be a slim risk to take as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There won't be another relegation battle. McRelegator is gone. We have a good manager now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Having shite like Collins in the squad is part of the reason we were in a relegation scrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 well we have signed him and now it looks like we will be working on selling collins, so we have done what you said. if we had to sell collins first why would we put in an offer for vlaar so long ago. I imagine we spoke in detail with Vlaar but couldn't confirm it until a bid for collins had come in. Once that happened and we knew collins was off we could then finally confirm with vlaar. or, we spoke to vlaar and lambert wanted to properly get a look collins, hence him featuring heavily in the states, before he would actually commit to anything. then after seeing him in the 3 games, as well as in training and with the squad on an away trip, he decided that he'd definitely replace him. vlaar took the hump because of the delay, probably despite being told that if anything would happen it wouldn't be until we got back, as he thought he might be seeing his chance to play in england slipping away villa returned, lambert had made his call on collins, and within 24 hours the vlaar deal was wrapped up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts