briggaman Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 This is like getting AM all over again. People will try to say that the only reason for not wanting Craig is because he is (or may be) a bluenose. Just like AM though, that isn't the reason. The simple fact is that they are both shit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 This is like getting AM all over again. People will try to say that the only reason for not wanting Craig is because he is (or may be) a bluenose. Just like AM though, that isn't the reason. The simple fact is that they are both shit... This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killeen30 Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Shit players don't score ten goals from midfield while playing in a shit team in the Premiership. We don't get enough goals from midfield with the players we currently have at the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Why on earth does it matter if a guy supports the Blues. Some of the posts on this site are bizarre. I wouldn't have thought a 10 yr old Charlie Aitken, Peter Withe, Gordon Cowans etc... were playing on the park wearing Villa shirts. Didnt Gabby say a fwe years ago, he didnt watch football or support a club when he was young as he was always playing on Saturdays. There are probably about 10 players in the whole leage that play for a club they support. Its makes no sodding difference !. People really should grow up. As for Craig, I'd take him back, couldnt understand us selling him. I think he is as good as Petrov at least (and I like Petrov) and as others said, can see it working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Who gives a shit who he supports, wind your neck in. He's not the type of player to go into games half arsed. He's a battler who'll give his best anytime he pulls on the shirt. He did the first time round and he's doing it now for Sunderland even though he is home sick. If we have any money get him in Eck. I couldn't care less who he supports to be honest. All I care about is the fact that he's shite and we did well to get rid of him in the first place. Average player at best and I see no benefit in signing him. If the argument is to use him as a squad player then it's a waste of space and money. We already have better midfielders than him (including his brother) and some promising midfielders coming through the ranks (like Johnson etc). I really don't see the point in taking two steps back and signing Craig. I can't see any logic from those who actually want him back either. It would be a pathetic and pointless piece of business for us... The only half-reason to want him back, would be if you had his name on a shirt before he left or if you didn't want him to go and are too stubborn to admit bringing him back would be a waste of money. Firstly, we sold him for £3.5 million, he went to Sunderland for more than that and we'd need to spend a bit to get him back. Secondly, and more importantly, we should not be buying squad players!! It'd be as good as signing Harewood, Sidwell or Beye. The next midfielder we buy should be combative, experienced, and should push Stan to the subs bench. The way to build a squad is to buy better than you have. Not waste your money on players that you'll imagine replacing in the next transfer window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Who we support matters, who they support don't. you have to separate the difference between work and play. Andrew whing used to drink with us in the Aston social, he was a Villa season ticket Holder, playing for Coventry. They are professional football players.....its their work. What they do for recreation is their business, they might not like football as a hobby or conversely they may support your fiercest rivals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Who gives a shit who he supports, wind your neck in. He's not the type of player to go into games half arsed. He's a battler who'll give his best anytime he pulls on the shirt. He did the first time round and he's doing it now for Sunderland even though he is home sick. If we have any money get him in Eck. I couldn't care less who he supports to be honest. All I care about is the fact that he's shite and we did well to get rid of him in the first place. Average player at best and I see no benefit in signing him. If the argument is to use him as a squad player then it's a waste of space and money. We already have better midfielders than him (including his brother) and some promising midfielders coming through the ranks (like Johnson etc). I really don't see the point in taking two steps back and signing Craig. I can't see any logic from those who actually want him back either. It would be a pathetic and pointless piece of business for us... The only half-reason to want him back, would be if you had his name on a shirt before he left or if you didn't want him to go and are too stubborn to admit bringing him back would be a waste of money. Firstly, we sold him for £3.5 million, he went to Sunderland for more than that and we'd need to spend a bit to get him back. Secondly, and more importantly, we should not be buying squad players!! It'd be as good as signing Harewood, Sidwell or Beye. The next midfielder we buy should be combative, experienced, and should push Stan to the subs bench. The way to build a squad is to buy better than you have. Not waste your money on players that you'll imagine replacing in the next transfer window. spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 29, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2012 He's signed up until 2014 Not long enough, he clearly has the potential to be a great player, thats only 2 years, i would sign him up till 2016 at least, im tired of villa players waiting till the last couple of years of their contracts, saying they want to move, and we don't get nearly as much as we should e.g. Ashley young ( He wanted to leave, ok i get that but we could have got alot more than 16mill if his contract didnt run out that summer... we tried to get Ashley to sign with two years to go, he didnt want to and left with a year left. Not sure what else we could have done. We cant offer players longer contracts, on more money and talk about cutting the wage bill. It takes a balance. Gardener needs to be kept within a couple of years, until he has proved he is ready to make the grade and play a bigger part. The his contract should be altered accordingly but we cant afford to go throwing big money and long contracts after every kid with promise. I'd disagree to a large extent, I think different situations merit different treatment and you have to take the balance between the sporting and financial benefit in each case separately. In Ashley Young's case, the sporting benefit of giving him the kind of contract that might have kept him here longer or at least bumped up his selling price was clear, but financially we couldn't really afford to keep him on even if he'd wanted to stay. If we'd given him £90k a week for four years, his resale value would have gone too and we'd have ended up with a thirty odd year old player with limited value. Writing £10-15m off his transfer value through age and paying him £18m over four years means you've got to be very sure you'd get value on the pitch. Gardner is in a different situation, the sporting benefit still rests a little bit in hope, but we could tie him to a five year deal tomorrow and he'd still know he could go in his early twenties if wanted to. It'd suit him because he can get games here, it'd suit us because we could secure a big fee if he's successful, and if things go bad, we're looking at a contract of what, £1m a year maybe a little more and a minimum resale value even if he's unsuccessful of £2-3m - it's a low risk-high gain situation for the club and I think we have to try to sign as many of our youngsters onto long deals as we can - financially it'll make sense. Sadly I think once those youngsters hit their mid-twenties we have to sell those that are a success in order to continue to develop, but I think securing the potential that we have, just in case, is vital to the future health of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 He's signed up until 2014 Not long enough, he clearly has the potential to be a great player, thats only 2 years, i would sign him up till 2016 at least, im tired of villa players waiting till the last couple of years of their contracts, saying they want to move, and we don't get nearly as much as we should e.g. Ashley young ( He wanted to leave, ok i get that but we could have got alot more than 16mill if his contract didnt run out that summer... we tried to get Ashley to sign with two years to go, he didnt want to and left with a year left. Not sure what else we could have done. We cant offer players longer contracts, on more money and talk about cutting the wage bill. It takes a balance. Gardener needs to be kept within a couple of years, until he has proved he is ready to make the grade and play a bigger part. The his contract should be altered accordingly but we cant afford to go throwing big money and long contracts after every kid with promise. I'd disagree to a large extent, I think different situations merit different treatment and you have to take the balance between the sporting and financial benefit in each case separately. In Ashley Young's case, the sporting benefit of giving him the kind of contract that might have kept him here longer or at least bumped up his selling price was clear, but financially we couldn't really afford to keep him on even if he'd wanted to stay. If we'd given him £90k a week for four years, his resale value would have gone too and we'd have ended up with a thirty odd year old player with limited value. Writing £10-15m off his transfer value through age and paying him £18m over four years means you've got to be very sure you'd get value on the pitch. Gardner is in a different situation, the sporting benefit still rests a little bit in hope, but we could tie him to a five year deal tomorrow and he'd still know he could go in his early twenties if wanted to. It'd suit him because he can get games here, it'd suit us because we could secure a big fee if he's successful, and if things go bad, we're looking at a contract of what, £1m a year maybe a little more and a minimum resale value even if he's unsuccessful of £2-3m - it's a low risk-high gain situation for the club and I think we have to try to sign as many of our youngsters onto long deals as we can - financially it'll make sense. Sadly I think once those youngsters hit their mid-twenties we have to sell those that are a success in order to continue to develop, but I think securing the potential that we have, just in case, is vital to the future health of the club. you talk about it as low risk, but if you apply the same policy to all young players with a bit of promise, its easy to add 5 millions a year to the wage bill. Personally id rather see that money go on one or two game changing players that could make a difference to the here and now. In Gardeners case, he looks good but has made a handful of appearances. Look at the likes of Isiah Osbourne who showed a lot of promise early on, a few rave reviews. Before you know it weve stuck him on the sort of contract your talking about offering Gardener. All because in truth he was probably ahead of his peers in terms of physical development and so foun youth and reserve team football easy. I dont recall us losing many kids for small money because we let their contacts run down, in short im happy with our current policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 My own opinion is we should be signing him to a long term deal. For me he's showing more potential at this early stage than any of the players to break through in the past 5 or 6 years....big call I know but I just have a feeling.......although I prob would have said the same about Delfouneso so perhaps not the best track record in getting it right.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killeen30 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 My own opinion is we should be signing him to a long term deal. For me he's showing more potential at this early stage than any of the players to break through in the past 5 or 6 years....big call I know but I just have a feeling.......although I prob would have said the same about Delfouneso so perhaps not the best track record in getting it right.... I bet you still have a better track record than Sir Gary Cahill though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Gutted he didnt score but its as clear as day he's twice the player Clark is. Has Clarks attributes ie touch and passing but is also positive, mobile and strong. Has to start alongside Petrov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Gardner is going on the back of my shirt and I hope my curse does not continue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Looked lively today and probably could have scored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The fact he is getting into those positions means he should be starting now. Clark has no place starting against teams we have a chance of winning against, he's a stop gap that provides a bit more bite/aerial prowess. Time for Gardner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 5, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 5, 2012 Looked great when he came on and was unlucky not to score. Looking forward to seeing him in the team more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacemanscott Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The fact he is getting into those positions means he should be starting now. Clark has no place starting against teams we have a chance of winning against, he's a stop gap that provides a bit more bite/aerial prowess. Time for Gardner. Agree with that. Although his end products were a little disappointing, the way he managed to ghost in and read the play showed a natural attacking ability that is hard to come by. He just needs more game time. I mentioned in the reactions thread that Clark has really disappointed me and I'm afraid I don't rate him very highly. Never passes forward, touch doesn't look great and his positional awareness is questionable, at least in midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaRoy Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The fact he is getting into those positions means he should be starting now. Clark has no place starting against teams we have a chance of winning against, he's a stop gap that provides a bit more bite/aerial prowess. Time for Gardner. Agree with this, though I'd keep Clark in the team and give him a CB position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I'd put him in ahead of Bannan and Clark. He's a more natural, dynamic footballer than both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Dont start him against Man City, no point. Put him in against Wigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts