Ads Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I am not saying we won’t sell, but the ludicrous reasons of why we’d sell at a loss take the hyperbole stakes in further into fantasy land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 a work mate (liverpool fan) but on facebook yesderday that liverpool have open talks with villa about bent why cant this club just say 'no, hes not for sale', 5 simple words Because the bloke who owns villa is interested in money - not the best interests of Aston Villa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 If Lerner was interested in generating wealth, he’d have bought something other than a football club, which is the monetary equivalent of opening up a drain and pouring your cash down it. There is plenty to criticise about the club without the need to have everything as “the very worst thing ever!” with incessant hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I often hear this. Lerner isn't a bad bloke - he just doesn't want to throw millions at Aston Villa.However:- 1.He has loaned Aston Villa the money for players. and we are now repaying him with interest. 2.If you can't pump money into the club - at least run it to the best of its potentail. By employing Mcleish and Faulkner - well lets just say these arent the best available to us. 3.He is hardly ever at Villa Park for games. He has very little interest in the club and its progress. So whilst you can say there are worst chairman\owners out there - I don't disagree. But Aston Villa can and should do better than a chairman who doesn't invest, doesn't attend, and appoints a manager that no other premier club would employ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 1. Oh how dare he provide credit for Aton Villa to spend £100 million on players at a lower rate of interest than could be found anywhere else? He should be gifting all his wealth to us! 2. The biggest criticism of Lerner is that he’s far too naive and should have brought in a Stride type character in the early days. 3. Plenty of people on this forum don’t attend games. What’s your point? As I said, there are plenty of ready to hand criticisms, so why leap to the nonsensical? Not everything is the best ever or the worst ever. Sometimes it’s just entirely mediocre; and before you ask no, that is of course not where I want the Villa to be, but it’s the current reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 this is the bent thread and should stay related to bent selling bent at a loss will do nothing positive for the club, so ye sure, he sells bent at a loss and plows that money towards the loan (himself) there will then be no money to reinvest or replace, and the squad gets weaker, the team suffers and we finish lower as we have no goal scorer great business randy!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 this is the bent thread and should stay related to bent selling bent at a loss will do nothing positive for the club, so ye sure, he sells bent at a loss and plows that money towards the loan (himself) there will then be no money to reinvest or replace, and the squad gets weaker, the team suffers and we finish lower as we have no goal scorer great business randy!... What are you babbling about? God bless the internet; it allows people to post nonsense and then criticise others about events which have not happened and are very unlikely to happen and for others to say things such as “spot on there mate”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummybloke Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 this is the bent thread and should stay related to bent selling bent at a loss will do nothing positive for the club, so ye sure, he sells bent at a loss and plows that money towards the loan (himself) there will then be no money to reinvest or replace, and the squad gets weaker, the team suffers and we finish lower as we have no goal scorer great business randy!... What are you babbling about? God bless the internet; it allows people to post nonsense and then criticise others about events which have not happened and are very unlikely to happen and for others to say things such as “spot on there mate”. ? people are speculating about darren bents future. you have speculated in some of your posts yet you seem confused that others are doing it? wierd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I'd like to see the Club come out and either state he's NOT FOR SALE or put a massive price tag on him ie. £50M There Silence is deafening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 a work mate (liverpool fan) but on facebook yesderday that liverpool have open talks with villa about bent why cant this club just say 'no, hes not for sale', 5 simple words Because the bloke who owns villa is interested in money - not the best interests of Aston Villa. Madness considering hes running a business. However, for those who think balncing the books and not operating beyond our means isnt in the best interests of AVFC - it is. If anyone comes in with a silly bid for a player on 70k a week, whos not playing well and clearly is half arsed about the cause - then we should bite their hands off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I think we have to be a little pragmatic. whether you like McLeish or not (and i dont particularly) I think we need to accept that Lerner has already shown that he sint really the type of owner to sack managers lightly. Indeed, i would say the opposite is true, when things get tough he has shown his willingness to back his manager. Whether we like or hate the manager concerned I also think thats a good thing (mostly) - the owner needs to back his decision to appoint McLeish, its important from a stability point of view. mcLiesh needs to be given the chance to build his team So, acceptimg that McLiesh is here for the forseeable future, the question to ask is whether Bent is the right kind of striker for the style of football we are currently employing? If McLeish doesnt think so, if he thinks he can get more out of someone else, then the right decision is to sell for as much money as we can get. I'd rather things were different, but the situation is what it isBacking the manager even during tough times isn't always a good thing. If the manager is terrible and the club is on a downward slope then something clearly needs to be done. Sometimes a new manager is needed to help turn the fortunes of a club around. This is clearly the case here. McLeish isn't some young unknown manager. He's experienced and has proven in the past that when he builds his own teams to play his own way they end up doing terribly anyway. Why would you want to see him do that at Villa? I don't understand the argument that we should sell Bent just because the manager can't get the best out of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOne Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 This question is to the people who think selling Bent is a good idea. If we sell Bent where are the goals gonna come from? Would you trust McLeish to spend the money wisely? Or are you happy we're balancing the books to cater for Hutton and the injured Jenas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 This question is to the people who think selling Bent is a good idea. If we sell Bent where are the goals gonna come from? Would you trust McLeish to spend the money wisely? Or are you happy we're balancing the books to cater for Hutton and the injured Jenas? The goals arent coming with Bent, is the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOne Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 He's our highest joint goal scorer and this is a combination of bad form, missing games and lack of service. Not bad eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanky Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Nothing will surprise me with the club anymore. Can certainly see us selling at a cut price as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 He's our highest joint goal scorer and this is a combination of bad form, missing games and lack of service. Not bad eh? Id add missed chances to that. No ones doubting his goalscoring ability. But its worthless in this team almost, because we dont use it. As a result, he becomes worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 This question is to the people who think selling Bent is a good idea. If we sell Bent where are the goals gonna come from? Would you trust McLeish to spend the money wisely? Or are you happy we're balancing the books to cater for Hutton and the injured Jenas? The goals arent coming with Bent, is the point.The goals aren't coming at all. Surely that points to where the problem lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 bent might not be scoring as many goals as we would like, but hes still scoring more than any striker we potentially buy after him, we just cant seem to buy natural goal scorers, bent is the best weve had since yorke, we would be crazy to sell him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOne Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 He's our highest joint goal scorer and this is a combination of bad form, missing games and lack of service. Not bad eh? Id add missed chances to that. No ones doubting his goalscoring ability. But its worthless in this team almost, because we dont use it. As a result, he becomes worthless. What exactly have we done in the last 3 games without him? We've managed to score 1 goal in 3 games without really even testing the goalkeeper. We still look hopeless at defending setpieces and clueless in the final third. We would be worse off without Bent. Who exactly would you want as his replacement anyway? Don't forget we'll have to trust McLeish with the money and I doubt he'll have alot to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 This question is to the people who think selling Bent is a good idea. If we sell Bent where are the goals gonna come from? Would you trust McLeish to spend the money wisely? Or are you happy we're balancing the books to cater for Hutton and the injured Jenas? The goals arent coming with Bent, is the point.The goals aren't coming at all. Surely that points to where the problem lies? Yep, but weve discussed what I believe. Mcliesh wont be sacked and tbh, it would be unfair to sack him after 6 months. League position hasnt been that bad until recently weve dropped down, but we all knew this run of fixtures were tough. Some even predicted wed be in relegation by Jan. Things arent going to change anytime soon. Might as well Get Gabby up top and stick another in midfield to try and keep the ball a bit better. Or take a decent punt with Delfouneso and Weimann. Much cheaper option of not scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts