Zhan_Zhuang Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 ^ Handbags at dawn again on VT... Anyway, Collins is likely to score from a set-piece now; gentlemen place your bets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrian Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 guaranteed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Vlaar will score 1 as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 2, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2012 Ok let's forget then about perceived ability. Who said anything about forgetting percieved ability Percieved ability is not the only determining factor in a transfer fee however, never has been, never will be. Zat Knight had plenty left on his contract, Collins doesn't, hence Collins is cheaper when relative abilities are taken into account. Zat Knight was much younger than Collins, therefore potential resale comes into play plus potential player improvement, Collins' will be much smaller and has probably peaked. We paid much more for Knight so were looking to recoup more on him. Transfer fees are a factor of many things not just percieved ability. Collins vs Knight as a defender in a Villa shirt, Collins wins every single time I think about it Also sorry for the delay in answering your question, I was busy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I'm completely with Bickster here. Collins was the far better defender. However I am quite glad he's gone - not in the same way I'll be pleased when Hutton is gone, but that his exit will free up wages for new defenders of Lambert's choosing. I wish him the best at West Ham, his hoof ball tactics will fit in with West Ham well. Decent solid defender also, I can see him doing well there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villatillidie1980 Posted August 2, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2, 2012 Thanks JC but its for the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I'm completely with Bickster here. I also concur with our Liverpudlian friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Ok let's forget then about perceived ability. Who said anything about forgetting percieved ability Percieved ability is not the only determining factor in a transfer fee however, never has been, never will be. Zat Knight had plenty left on his contract, Collins doesn't, hence Collins is cheaper when relative abilities are taken into account. Zat Knight was much younger than Collins, therefore potential resale comes into play plus potential player improvement, Collins' will be much smaller and has probably peaked. We paid much more for Knight so were looking to recoup more on him. Transfer fees are a factor of many things not just percieved ability. Collins vs Knight as a defender in a Villa shirt, Collins wins every single time I think about it Also sorry for the delay in answering your question, I was busy So, taking that all into consideration concerning the points you have made, do you then think that we would have got more for Collins if say he was on a longer contract? I'm afraid i do not and thats what i mean by his perceived ability which i believe was the most important factor in this particular transfer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8pints Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I wonder how he feels/sums up his time with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Ok let's forget then about perceived ability. Who said anything about forgetting percieved ability Percieved ability is not the only determining factor in a transfer fee however, never has been, never will be. Zat Knight had plenty left on his contract, Collins doesn't, hence Collins is cheaper when relative abilities are taken into account. Zat Knight was much younger than Collins, therefore potential resale comes into play plus potential player improvement, Collins' will be much smaller and has probably peaked. We paid much more for Knight so were looking to recoup more on him. Transfer fees are a factor of many things not just percieved ability. Collins vs Knight as a defender in a Villa shirt, Collins wins every single time I think about it Also sorry for the delay in answering your question, I was busy So, taking that all into consideration concerning the points you have made, do you then think that we would have got more for Collins if say he was on a longer contract? I'm afraid i do not and thats what i mean by his perceived ability which i believe was the most important factor in this particular transfer! If Zat Knight had been 28 years old with a year left on his contract when we sold him we would have struggled to get 500k for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I wonder how he feels/sums up his time with us? "It was all a blur." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTTERDAM1982 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 We've swapped the Dutch C/H for the Welsh C/H.Not a bad deal in my eyes. Collins was a committed defender, who was prone to lunge in, and either give silly free kicks away or get caught out of position,Would have preferred Dunne to go, but want both to go along with Warnock and Hutton. Would be delighted if Douglas comes in tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8pints Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I wonder how he feels/sums up his time with us? "It was all a blur." Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Arguing about who is the worst out of Zat Knight and James Collins? Both poor, poor players in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8pints Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Who will he be partnered with at West Ham? Is their angle that they're yet to buy him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Collins was a lot better than Zat Knight but let's face it. Non of them are fit to lace the boots of Laurson, Mellberg, Cahill and even Davies before his injury. This is the standard of defender we had become used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pupkin Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Ok let's forget then about perceived ability. Who said anything about forgetting percieved ability Percieved ability is not the only determining factor in a transfer fee however, never has been, never will be. Zat Knight had plenty left on his contract, Collins doesn't, hence Collins is cheaper when relative abilities are taken into account. Zat Knight was much younger than Collins, therefore potential resale comes into play plus potential player improvement, Collins' will be much smaller and has probably peaked. We paid much more for Knight so were looking to recoup more on him. Transfer fees are a factor of many things not just percieved ability. Collins vs Knight as a defender in a Villa shirt, Collins wins every single time I think about it Also sorry for the delay in answering your question, I was busy So, taking that all into consideration concerning the points you have made, do you then think that we would have got more for Collins if say he was on a longer contract? I'm afraid i do not and thats what i mean by his perceived ability which i believe was the most important factor in this particular transfer! If Zat Knight had been 28 years old with a year left on his contract when we sold him we would have struggled to get 500k for him. Zat Knight was actually 29 when we sold him. Contract-wise he had two years left so not much longer than Collins (although it is a key extra year) Maybe they paid the extra because they thought he would mature with age like a fine wine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8pints Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Corked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I still think he was a good defender. But we needed to sell defenders and he's the only one any other team would make a decent offer for. In other words, best of the four. But agree it's for the best. All the best of luck JC, in every match except those against Villa. When we are the opponent, any help you can give will be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Ok let's forget then about perceived ability. Who said anything about forgetting percieved ability Percieved ability is not the only determining factor in a transfer fee however, never has been, never will be. Zat Knight had plenty left on his contract, Collins doesn't, hence Collins is cheaper when relative abilities are taken into account. Zat Knight was much younger than Collins, therefore potential resale comes into play plus potential player improvement, Collins' will be much smaller and has probably peaked. We paid much more for Knight so were looking to recoup more on him. Transfer fees are a factor of many things not just percieved ability. Collins vs Knight as a defender in a Villa shirt, Collins wins every single time I think about it Also sorry for the delay in answering your question, I was busy So, taking that all into consideration concerning the points you have made, do you then think that we would have got more for Collins if say he was on a longer contract? I'm afraid i do not and thats what i mean by his perceived ability which i believe was the most important factor in this particular transfer! If Zat Knight had been 28 years old with a year left on his contract when we sold him we would have struggled to get 500k for him. Possibly, but my real point was that due to Collins perceived ability would anyone have paid more for him if he was on a longer contract and in my opinion no-one would have due to Collins being a very limited footballer. I also see those posters who said that we would have to pay someone to take him off our hands have now suddenly disappeared? Maybe those are the same posters who are now licking the arse of one of the mods? I generally feel we have done well to get the 2.5m for Collins due to the points i have already made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts