Darren Bent

[brommy]

Agreed 'Electric Avenue' and where ever he does go he will score a bucket load of goals in the right system and probably one or two against us as well.

If Bent went to a team that created bucket loads of chances, he could score 15 to 20 goals for the next season or two. Thing is those teams good enough to create bucket loads of chances want a better player capable of converting 30 chances, not 15 to 20.

I think Bent's prime time has past. A 30 year old Bent could be decent for a middling club willing to play exactly the way Bent needs to get himself 15+ goals/season, but at what compromise to the effectiveness of the rest of their team?

I've seen good players leave us and I've almost dreaded them playing against us, only for them to have a 'mare. I've seen poor players leave us only for them to play well against us. Sod's law shouldn't dictate Bent's possible sale.

Those are all interesting points but where in my post have i said anything about sod's law dictating Bent's possible sale?

I didn't claim that you did.

 

You are also alluding to the same conditions here which might be prevalent in other teams and how that will affect that team if they buy Bent. Any manager purchasing Bent will know exactly what he is good at and will probably have a system in place to get the best out of him and i don't think any manager would be stupid enough to purchase Bent irrespective of that.

I'm sure many a manager would envisage creating a system that enables Bent to score plenty whilst he also contributes well to the rest of the team. For this player past his prime, the reality is likely to be very different.

[AshVillain]

Selling him for £6m will leave another massive dent in this years accounts, same with giving Ireland Hutton and Given away. In total signed for something like £40m and it looks like we'll be lucky to get £8m back for all 4 of them.

ummmmmmm well .... none of those purchases were in this calender year or financial year. Or the year before that. So .......... it's not really going to effect this years' accounts at all in a negative way. Also, Given was free (0), Ireland was part of the Miler deal so he didn't actually cost us a fee (0), Hutton was 4mil and Bent was 18-24, so that's 28 mil max.

 

I agree with the point you are trying to make however.

[bannedfromHandV]

Given wasn't free was he? Thought he cost about £5M. Could be making that up entirely tho........

On topic, I'm not impressed with making bent train away from the first team. I get it and the reasons in principle are valid, but are they just?

I've not noticed him moaning particularly despite being out of the first team toward the end of his prime years in a team scraping above the relegation line, unless something has gone off behind the scenes then I think we're lacking a bit of class here.

[P3te]

£3.5m for Given I think

[Jimmytheirishvillain]

I am split on this one. On one hand I thank Darren Bent for almost single handedly keeping us in the premier league when HOullier was in charge. Plus arguably his early season goals in the horrid season under Mcleish before he got injured kept us up that year also ................but......... Hasn't it been reported lately that he was willing to sit out his contract at villa because he won't take a pay cut to join another team and also he's not been a favourite of mine since he was seen shopping in Birmingham during the Liverpool game at villa park. Also he's a mercenary aka money grabber. If he was willing to take a pay cut to join another team we would prob accept something like 5 or 6 million but he won't so let him rot in the reserves

[villa-revolution]

I am split on this one. On one hand I thank Darren Bent for almost single handedly keeping us in the premier league when HOullier was in charge. Plus arguably his early season goals in the horrid season under Mcleish before he got injured kept us up that year also ................but......... Hasn't it been reported lately that he was willing to sit out his contract at villa because he won't take a pay cut to join another team and also he's not been a favourite of mine since he was seen shopping in Birmingham during the Liverpool game at villa park. Also he's a mercenary aka money grabber. If he was willing to take a pay cut to join another team we would prob accept something like 5 or 6 million but he won't so let him rot in the reserves

 

In the modern game it's usually the agents calling the shots & advising players how to play the potential transfer game. It's also worth bearing in mind that it wasn't Bent's fault that we offered him £65k per week. Those are the terms both parties agreed to.

 

I like Darren Bent, have no problem with his attitude since he has been at the Club. Yes he's lazy, but as previous posters have said that's just his style.

 

The bottom line is that love him or hate him, create the guy chances & Darren Bent will score more than his fair share of goals.

 

By making him train  away from the first team squad our Club are confirming that Bent has no future at Villa Park.

 

Hopefully this unfortunate situation can be resolved sooner rather than later as it is pretty obvious that any more potential incoming transfers really do depend on moving out Bent, Ireland & Given.

[Electric Avenue]

Selling him for £6m will leave another massive dent in this years accounts, same with giving Ireland Hutton and Given away. In total signed for something like £40m and it looks like we'll be lucky to get £8m back for all 4 of them.

ummmmmmm well .... none of those purchases were in this calender year or financial year. Or the year before that. So .......... it's not really going to effect this years' accounts at all in a negative way. Also, Given was free (0), Ireland was part of the Miler deal so he didn't actually cost us a fee (0), Hutton was 4mil and Bent was 18-24, so that's 28 mil max.

 

I agree with the point you are trying to make however.

Don't the players show up as assets on the balance sheet ? My point was, there's huge depreciation which will be factored into this years accounts if we end up selling Bent for say £6m

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

Agreed 'Electric Avenue' and where ever he does go he will score a bucket load of goals in the right system and probably one or two against us as well.

If Bent went to a team that created bucket loads of chances, he could score 15 to 20 goals for the next season or two. Thing is those teams good enough to create bucket loads of chances want a better player capable of converting 30 chances, not 15 to 20.

I think Bent's prime time has past. A 30 year old Bent could be decent for a middling club willing to play exactly the way Bent needs to get himself 15+ goals/season, but at what compromise to the effectiveness of the rest of their team?

I've seen good players leave us and I've almost dreaded them playing against us, only for them to have a 'mare. I've seen poor players leave us only for them to play well against us. Sod's law shouldn't dictate Bent's possible sale.

Those are all interesting points but where in my post have i said anything about sod's law dictating Bent's possible sale?

I didn't claim that you did.

 

You are also alluding to the same conditions here which might be prevalent in other teams and how that will affect that team if they buy Bent. Any manager purchasing Bent will know exactly what he is good at and will probably have a system in place to get the best out of him and i don't think any manager would be stupid enough to purchase Bent irrespective of that.

I'm sure many a manager would envisage creating a system that enables Bent to score plenty whilst he also contributes well to the rest of the team. For this player past his prime, the reality is likely to be very different.

 

You implied it and how do you know Bent is past his prime?

 

Are you basing this on his age or his recent performances with us?

 

If it's his age your referring to, players are able to play longer now at the top of their profession when the technology is there to help them extend their careers.

 

If its his recent performances with us then you are judging a player being asked to play in a system that clearly doesn't suit him which is more than a tad unfair.

 

When Bent does leave it will be for a team that will play to his strengths and not expect him to contribute to the team in the way you suggest as he is simply an out and out goal scorer and not a link striker. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Selling him for £6m will leave another massive dent in this years accounts, same with giving Ireland Hutton and Given away. In total signed for something like £40m and it looks like we'll be lucky to get £8m back for all 4 of them.

ummmmmmm well .... none of those purchases were in this calender year or financial year. Or the year before that. So .......... it's not really going to effect this years' accounts at all in a negative way. Also, Given was free (0), Ireland was part of the Miler deal so he didn't actually cost us a fee (0), Hutton was 4mil and Bent was 18-24, so that's 28 mil max.

I agree with the point you are trying to make however.

Given was not free. Reported to cost around £3.5m.

[NIVillan]

The Value of the players go down over the period of the contract.  So Bent was £18 Mill - 24 Mill 2.5 years ago he could be considered only worth 8-10 million now.  If we only get 6 million for him the dent in the accounts for the year is only 2 million.

 

Given was 3.5 million 2 seasons ago and at his age getting a million now could be considered good buisness.

 

Ireland and Hutton - Lets forget those two for now.

 

As all of them will not be contributing to next season they can all be seen as a drain and liability on the accounts, so getting any money for them is a bonus.

 

Just depends how you look at it.

 

To me Bent and Given have repaid their fees by being the main players in keeping us up for a couple of seasons.  Shame Bent didnt work out but now is the time to move him on.

[midian]

Newcastle in for Wigan's Kone now so surely that ends all intrest in Bent??

[AVFCforever1991]

Newcastle in for Wigan's Kone now so surely that ends all intrest in Bent??

 

Thought he was going to Everton. 

[Nabby]

Newcastle in for Wigan's Kone now so surely that ends all intrest in Bent??

 

Was going to say the same.

 

Fulham it is then 

[AshVilla]

I cannot see Fulham paying 8 mill for him

 

5 at a stretch 

 

Our best hope is if a bidding war starts between the newly promoted sides

Edited July 4, 2013 by AshVilla

[BOF]

Kone will join Martinez. So in fact a failed Newcastle bid for Kone might strengthen their resolve not to lose out on Bent too

[Nabby]

Kone will join Martinez. So in fact a failed Newcastle bid for Kone might strengthen their resolve not to lose out on Bent too

 

Positive thinking ..I like it 

[El-Reacho]

DB9 on form is better than Kone. Reckon it's Newcastle trying to force our hand to reduce the asking price for Bent.

[deeps]

If kone goes Newcastle I don't see why Everton or Hull won't be his destination.

[Electric Avenue]

Hopefully we'll get a mini bidding war

[brommy]

Agreed 'Electric Avenue' and where ever he does go he will score a bucket load of goals in the right system and probably one or two against us as well.

If Bent went to a team that created bucket loads of chances, he could score 15 to 20 goals for the next season or two. Thing is those teams good enough to create bucket loads of chances want a better player capable of converting 30 chances, not 15 to 20.

I think Bent's prime time has past. A 30 year old Bent could be decent for a middling club willing to play exactly the way Bent needs to get himself 15+ goals/season, but at what compromise to the effectiveness of the rest of their team?

I've seen good players leave us and I've almost dreaded them playing against us, only for them to have a 'mare. I've seen poor players leave us only for them to play well against us. Sod's law shouldn't dictate Bent's possible sale.

Those are all interesting points but where in my post have i said anything about sod's law dictating Bent's possible sale?

I didn't claim that you did.

 

You are also alluding to the same conditions here which might be prevalent in other teams and how that will affect that team if they buy Bent. Any manager purchasing Bent will know exactly what he is good at and will probably have a system in place to get the best out of him and i don't think any manager would be stupid enough to purchase Bent irrespective of that.

I'm sure many a manager would envisage creating a system that enables Bent to score plenty whilst he also contributes well to the rest of the team. For this player past his prime, the reality is likely to be very different.

You implied it and how do you know Bent is past his prime?

 

Are you basing this on his age or his recent performances with us?

 

If it's his age your referring to, players are able to play longer now at the top of their profession when the technology is there to help them extend their careers.

 

If its his recent performances with us then you are judging a player being asked to play in a system that clearly doesn't suit him which is more than a tad unfair.

 

When Bent does leave it will be for a team that will play to his strengths and not expect him to contribute to the team in the way you suggest as he is simply an out and out goal scorer and not a link striker.

I didn't imply that you said anything about sod's law dictating Bent's possible sale; merely added to an open discussion.

I don't know Bent is past his prime, anymore than you know Bent will score bucket loads in the right system or any goals against us. I still stand by my opinion on Bent's future career - possibly 15 goals (decent but not what I'd call bucket loads) in the right system for him, at the partial expense of weakening other aspects of his team. Any team strong enough for 'forward support' to be a negligible issue will be looking to for an even better finisher and more creative player than Bent, imo. I guess it's about getting enough goals out of Bent that it doesn't matter he provides virtually nothing else to the team - a difficult equation for most teams.