CI Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Milner went for £28m , IMHO with the extra tv money £40m for Benteke is a bargain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Why would he bother with Benteke when he has Lukaku though? They are extremely similar players, and they both fill the Drogba replacement role. The recent international against USA proved they both can play together extremely well. 1-1. Lukaku brought on, game ended 2-4 to Belgium. Benteke scored 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philosopher Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Why would he bother with Benteke when he has Lukaku though? They are extremely similar players, and they both fill the Drogba replacement role. The recent international against USA proved they both can play together extremely well. 1-1. Lukaku brought on, game ended 2-4 to Belgium. Benteke scored 2. I personally think Benteke is better! Anyway Mourinho never deviates from his 4-5-1/4-3-3 so going for both to play in a front two ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphinho123 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 If we were to sell Benteke this summer, selling him to Chelsea for 30m and Lukaku coming the other way for a season on loan, wouldn't be a bad idea...?! Better than 15m to Liverpool...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) If we were to sell Benteke this summer, selling him to Chelsea for 30m and Lukaku coming the other way for a season on loan, wouldn't be a bad idea...?! Better than 15m to Liverpool...lol We wouldn't sell for £15m to Liverpool. Edited June 6, 2013 by AVFCforever1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted June 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6, 2013 If we were to sell Benteke this summer, selling him to Chelsea for 30m and Lukaku coming the other way for a season on loan, wouldn't be a bad idea...?! Better than 15m to Liverpool...lol Really? I never want another loan here without an option to buy (Which wouldnt happen with Lukaku just yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwegianvillain Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 No more loans, its completely against Lamberts philosophy. (Except emergency loans like Dawkins, which i still dont understand at all. Why not use Carruthers og Grealish?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Why would he bother with Benteke when he has Lukaku though? They are extremely similar players, and they both fill the Drogba replacement role. The recent international against USA proved they both can play together extremely well. 1-1. Lukaku brought on, game ended 2-4 to Belgium. Benteke scored 2. One friendly against the USA. One. USA. Friendly. If you're going to quote stats as proof of anything (or everything in your case) try gathering a decent amount of data first. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmytheirishvillain Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I think things are gonna heat up this week at villa and this will be sorted by next friday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 He'll be here next season, no worries. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 No more loans, its completely against Lamberts philosophy. (Except emergency loans like Dawkins, which i still dont understand at all. Why not use Carruthers og Grealish?) think it was a gamble that didnt pay off but didnt really cost us anything either that said i think if carruthers doesnt sign his new deal you could argue it was a bit of a **** up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philosopher Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 No more loans, its completely against Lamberts philosophy. (Except emergency loans like Dawkins, which i still dont understand at all. Why not use Carruthers og Grealish?) think it was a gamble that didnt pay off but didnt really cost us anything either that said i think if carruthers doesnt sign his new deal you could argue it was a bit of a **** up I think Lambert thought he had potential and wanted a closer look at him as well as the fact we desperately needed a decent creative mid at time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Dawkins was a loan with view to a permanent signing and even though he didn't make it I get why it happened. It's quite different to taking someone on loan to give them a years experience before they go back to their parent club like West Brom had with Lukaku or we had with Kyle Walker. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yes I don't think premiere league clubs should be allowed to loan out player to other premiere league clubs just to get experience of first team football. Obviously we know that Lakuku greatly benefited West Brom as Walker did us. I think its got even more ridiculous when West Ham paid a fee to get Carroll on loan lasts season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yes I don't think premiere league clubs should be allowed to loan out player to other premiere league clubs just to get experience of first team football. Obviously we know that Lakuku greatly benefited West Brom as Walker did us. I think its got even more ridiculous when West Ham paid a fee to get Carroll on loan lasts season. Apparently we paid a reported £2m for the loan of Scott Carson for a season a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yes I don't think premiere league clubs should be allowed to loan out player to other premiere league clubs just to get experience of first team football. Obviously we know that Lakuku greatly benefited West Brom as Walker did us. I think its got even more ridiculous when West Ham paid a fee to get Carroll on loan lasts season. I completely agree. It's a murky business and I'm really not a fan. Perhaps in January when we were out on our arse and perceivably desperate for quality I might have gone for it anyway, but I hope we're not in that position again soon. Loan with an option to buy maybe, but it has to be something the player agrees on beforehand too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Being able to loan players to clubs in the same division was just another example of how the Premier League bends over backwards to cater to the whims of the very richest clubs. Seven subs on the bench means the Chelsea's and Manchester United's of the world can hoover up the talent and keep most of them happy by giving everybody a 20 minute run out half a dozen times a season when they are 3-0 up at home to some relegation fodder. If that is still not enough then yeah, loan players out to other Premier League sides. The richest few can still hoover up the talent and again, the problem of keeping them happy isn't an issue. Football was more competitive when you could only have three on the bench because managers really had to think about who they wanted instead of just being able to sign everybody. It's easy to see the effect it has had on the league too, the number of points the team who wins the title has gone up dramatically in the last 15 years or so. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) Yes I don't think premiere league clubs should be allowed to loan out player to other premiere league clubs just to get experience of first team football. Obviously we know that Lakuku greatly benefited West Brom as Walker did us. I think its got even more ridiculous when West Ham paid a fee to get Carroll on loan lasts season. Not allowed? In most cases it's a mutually beneficial arrangement - the smaller club gets a decent, hungry player on the cheap, the loaning club get to have their young players developed. There's no bullying around here - it's not as if Chelsea coerced West Brom into loaning Lukaku, both sides agreed that it would be best for their own interests. If West Brom didn't want Lukaku, they could have just said no. Now I'm not saying that we, as Aston Villa Football Club, should be looking to loan players in at all, from our perspective it's a waste of a year's worth of developing talent. But I don't see any problem at all, from a larger, more macro perspective, in allowing clubs the option of loaning players in from other PL clubs - it is in most cases a voluntary and mutually beneficial arrangement. Edited June 7, 2013 by legov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Being able to loan players to clubs in the same division was just another example of how the Premier League bends over backwards to cater to the whims of the very richest clubs. Seven subs on the bench means the Chelsea's and Manchester United's of the world can hoover up the talent and keep most of them happy by giving everybody a 20 minute run out half a dozen times a season when they are 3-0 up at home to some relegation fodder. If that is still not enough then yeah, loan players out to other Premier League sides. The richest few can still hoover up the talent and again, the problem of keeping them happy isn't an issue. Football was more competitive when you could only have three on the bench because managers really had to think about who they wanted instead of just being able to sign everybody. It's easy to see the effect it has had on the league too, the number of points the team who wins the title has gone up dramatically in the last 15 years or so. Footballers happy with 5 token appearances a season? Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Why would he bother with Benteke when he has Lukaku though? They are extremely similar players, and they both fill the Drogba replacement role. The recent international against USA proved they both can play together extremely well. 1-1. Lukaku brought on, game ended 2-4 to Belgium. Benteke scored 2. I watched that whole match and I have to say they did not combine together at all. I am not saying either played bad, but honestly it seemed like neither cared the other was on the pitch. I was wondering how those two would play together considering they are very similar and it seemed that Lukaku just took the back seat and let Benteke do what he wanted up top while Lukaku just roamed around. Both are meant to be played as the target striker up top so playing both at once would be a waste in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts