momo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 How come Bent can play official matches for three clubs in one season, when the maximum allowed is two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The dressing room with the likes of him and Bannan, Ireland, mingling around must have been poisonous. Yeah Bannan, what a troublemaker...? I don't understand the question, if there is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heid3ster Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 My theory on Bent being made captain was to stop him from leaving. After seeing all his supply sold and a year under mcleish I imagine Bent might have been looking at leaving. As a new manager I imagine keeping the best goal scorer at the club was a priority for Lambert so he decided to give him the armband. Bent didn't play well, Benteke was superb and Lambert soon realised Bent wasn't going to be the important player for the club. A theory based on nothing at all. Interesting. I also have a theory, based on nothing at all -- just my own supposition. In Lambert's first year, I think he had the remit from Lerner to cull as many high earners from the squad as possible. Despite this remit, he did give chances to pretty much all the existing players (Hutton being the only exception - I'm not even sure Hutton got pre-season time under Lambert until this season). Given started in goal until he was dropped for Guzan. Ireland, Bannan and Bent all played a fair amount in Lambert's first half-season. N'Zogbia played some part throughout the whole season until he was injured -- didn't start much but usually made the bench. By the half season mark, Lambert had seen enough of the existing players (would include Delph and Gabby in there) to know which ones were players he could work with and which ones would be culled. Then came the Bomb Squad, which I think only devalued and made it harder to sell the players -- I'm still not sure if that was Lambert's idea or Faulkner's, and I don't suppose we'll ever know. Anyway, my theory is that Bent, being among the highest earners, our record signing and our "star striker," was challenged by Lambert to earn that salary. He made him captain and challenged him to adapt to a new style, creating more for himself, sharing in defensive responsibilities. Bent did not rise to this challenge, and so he was dropped in favor of Benteke who was willing to put in the work. And it's hard to remember this far back, but early on in Benteke's career here, that didn't look like the wisest choice. I remember one press conference where Lambert was pressed repeatedly about why he was choosing to stick with Benteke over a proven goal-scorer like Bent. Eventually that perserverance paid off and once Benteke started firing, we just plain didn't miss Bent that much. For the amount he earns, he does not contribute anywhere near enough -- for me that's the be-all and end-all. There are rumors also of him being a disruptive presence in the dressing room and at training, etc. I don't put a lot of stock in that because they are only rumors, but his performances on the pitch under Lambert (and under McLeish too really) never really suggested to me that he gave much of a shit about the team. Again, purely supposition on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 How come Bent can play official matches for three clubs in one season, when the maximum allowed is two? May not apply to lower leagues to encourage the loaning out of younger players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 How come Bent can play official matches for three clubs in one season, when the maximum allowed is two? May not apply to lower leagues to encourage the loaning out of younger players Ok, thanks. Find this rule a bit strange anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 IIRC it was introduced to close some loophole or another that I can't actually remember. Someone, somewhere found a way to do something fishy with the lack of limitations and it had to be introduced. I seem to recall it actually made sense too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I remember that, but also remember thinking that the two-club can cause trouble. And it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenko#4 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think it is something along the lines of the Football League and Premier League counting any loans made outside of the transfer window as an 'emergency' loan. With emergency loans no money is supposed to exchange hands so the FL, PL don't count them as an official transfer. Teams are increasingly using emergency loans as they would a normal loan, and UEFA and FIFA were pushing the PL/FL to change it as I think England is the only country that allows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Seems to have lost weight. Maybe he's actually eager to get his career moving again (in the Championship, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I believe it was four years ago today we signed him. The last time I got a major buzz from us signing a player. I remember eating in a pub around lunchtime and it came on SSN Bent had handed in a transfer request and an unnamed prem club was in for him. Then got back around 4 to hear we'd agreed an 18m fee. Exciting and similar to the evening we signed Carew and Young. I do think the Bent signing symbolises the Lerner era more than any other. An exciting costly move which provided great short term impact but little long term legacy. When he moved Houllier was under all sorts of pressure so I did think how he'd do if we sacked Houllier, not so well really. At that point Young only had 18 months left so I expected him to go which he duly did and as soon as that happened Downing couldn't be bothered to say a day longer so our two creative elements disappeared. The reality is we should've signed him at some point under O'Neill. I'm convinced we would've finished top 4 one of those seasons with a deadly finisher in our squad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIVillan Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 ONeil had his chance to sign Bent but preferred the likes of Marlon Harwood instead 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 ONeil had his chance to sign Bent but preferred the likes of Marlon Harwood instead Somehow I doubt it was an either/or situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 ONeil had his chance to sign Bent but preferred the likes of Marlon Harwood instead Wait, O'Neill had 24 mil in his pocket but decided to buy a 4 mil player and keep the other 20? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam3773 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2917219/Darren-Bent-simply-wasn-t-good-says-Aston-Villa-manager-Paul-Lambert.html "Darren Bent simply wasn't good enough, says Aston Villa manager Paul Lambert" Saw this article this morning. I think it's a bit unfair to Bent. If we loaned off all the players that weren't good enough, we would only have Guzan left. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2917219/Darren-Bent-simply-wasn-t-good-says-Aston-Villa-manager-Paul-Lambert.html "Darren Bent simply wasn't good enough, says Aston Villa manager Paul Lambert" Saw this article this morning. I think it's a bit unfair to Bent. If we loaned off all the players that weren't good enough, we would only have Guzan left. To be fair, Bent has taken several shots at Lambert in the press, constantly complaining and moaning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I think Lambert has quite a few good points tbf. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I wish they'd both STFU. They sound like a pair of petty bitches gobbing off at each other through the media. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I think Lambert has quite a few good points tbf. I think Lambert makes himself look a bit of a tit to be honest. Darren Bent has got a great scoring record in the top flight. Lamberts Villa have scored 96 goals in 97 games under Lambert and only 11 all season after 21 games. We can all see there is a personal issue between the two of them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulTheVillan Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Lambert, no premier league club wants you either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam3773 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 My main problem is with the bickering. DB has been a moody child in the press, but was there any need to stoop to that level? And saying he wasn't good enough is a bit rich looking at our current goal tally. Sorry Daz, you just didn't make the cut like our current goal machine outfit. If I were PL, I'd have just left it. Let him finish up his contract so he can go enjoy his football somewhere. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts