Darren Bent hands in transfer request

racso1975

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

History won't save Villa but buying a new striker will, yet you still think it's a bad move?

i dont think it's a bad move for villa at all! I think it's great if they land him.
Point i was making was that i thought it was a bad move for bent!

invinciblePRSTV

racso1975 wrote: »

i dont think it's a bad move for villa at all! I think it's great if they land him.
Point i was making was that i thought it was a bad move for bent!

Oh my bad i re-read your last post and see your point. But even then i still disagree that it's a bad move for Bent - more money, better England chances and closer to family, and in all likelihood, if Villa save themselves this season from relegation then there'll be a better chance of challenging for honours long-term. But then Bent will probably have moved on by then:pac:.

Doodee

Kiwi_knock

Transfer confirmed, 4 and a half year deal.

ShamoBuc

a good bit of business by Villa I think

MrStuffins

News Flash:

After his agent told him that chelsea are willing to pay him more a few more thousand, Darren Bent has handed in a written Transfer Request at Villa!

daithijjj

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I have to say Daithijjj your opinion of MON is quite funny when you compare it to your stance on Rafa. On one hand in the Liverpool thread you constantly bash Rafa for spending lots of money on crap players and giving them massive contracts yet here you are placing the blame on the Villa owner for givng MON all that money to waste on crap players with high contracts.

Id love to entertain you in this debate but its not the place. Your post would hold weight if i couldnt produce several quotes from my previous posts saying i was happy for rafa to stay for another year, but hey, dont let intertwined debates on different subjects get in the way of anything.

Chucky the tree

daithijjj wrote: »

Id love to entertain you in this debate but its not the place. Your post would hold weight if i couldnt produce several quotes from my previous posts saying i was happy for rafa to stay for another year, but hey, dont let intertwined debates on different subjects get in the way of anything.

Wanting to give Rafa another year bear no relevance. The point is I don't see how you can defend MON's poor record in the transfer market by blaming the owner yet use it as a negative for Rafa.

daithijjj

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Wanting to give Rafa another year bear no relevance. The point is I don't see how you can defend MON's poor record in the transfer market by blaming the owner yet use it as a negative for Rafa.

You are so far off the mark here its actually funny chucky. It does bare relevance.

Firstly, i have said both men have bought badly. Secondly, the jist of the discussion was that MON had overspent everywhere he was and left clubs in the sh1t. Its total nonsense, managers dont overspend and leave clubs fked, owners do, they authorise and sign the cheques. I never claimed for one second that the owner is to blame for bad signings, the two are completely separate entities.

At no point, is this going to sink in?, im not sure, but il give it a shot, at no time did i ever say or refer to benitez in the same light as what was suggested with MON ruining clubs. I blame benitez for buying some rubbish, as i do MON, the owners dont come into that. Where the owners do come in is exposing the clubs financial future, this has zero to do with a manager.

To cut to the chase, i think benitez deserved another year and i think MON deserved more time. The fact is both mens situations were completely different.

And do not think either that i missed your post in the liverpool forum about this. You said benitez was taking "blame" but if that was the case then o'neill should take "huge blame" for villa being in the relegation spots. You could try to hide your 'tinged with bitterness' posts a bit better chucky.

Chucky the tree

daithijjj wrote: »

You are so far off the mark here its actually funny chucky. It does bare relevance.

Firstly, i have said both men have bought badly. Secondly, the jist of the discussion was that MON had overspent everywhere he was and left clubs in the sh1t. Its total nonsense, managers dont overspend and leave clubs fked, owners do, they authorise and sign the cheques. I never claimed for one second that the owner is to blame for bad signings, the two are completely separate entities.

At no point, is this going to sink in?, im not sure, but il give it a shot, at no time did i ever say or refer to benitez in the same light as what was suggested with MON ruining clubs. I blame benitez for buying some rubbish, as i do MON, the owners dont come into that. Where the owners do come in is exposing the clubs financial future, this has zero to do with a manager.

To cut to the chase, i think benitez deserved another year and i think MON deserved more time. The fact is both mens situations were completely different.

And do not think either that i missed your post in the liverpool forum about this. You said benitez was taking "blame" but if that was the case then o'neill should take "huge blame" for villa being in the relegation spots. You could try to hide your 'tinged with bitterness' posts a bit better chucky.

Coming from you that's golden. Nearly every post chance you get you make some reference to Rafa/how crap his buys how been and how poor our squad is. My feelings are clear on Rafa as are yours. I just find it laughable how you can defend one manager and slag another for doing the same thing.

daithijjj

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Coming from you that's golden. Nearly every post chance you get you make some reference to Rafa/how crap his buys how been and how poor our squad is. My feelings are clear on Rafa as are yours. I just find it laughable how you can defend one manager and slag another for doing the same thing.

You would find it laughable, thats the voices in your head chucky, dont worry about it. As much as i know you kiss the ground rafa walks on, this is a thread for darren bent so cheerio my good man.

Chucky the tree

daithijjj wrote: »

You would find it laughable, thats the voices in your head chucky, dont worry about it. As much as i know you kiss the ground rafa walks on, this is a thread for darren bent so cheerio my good man.

Bye now. I'll finish off with my post, here's a post about MON's poor buys and one about Rafa's. Maybe it is just me, but I see noticable contrast in both. But no, it's clear I'm the bitter one. :pac:

daithijjj wrote: »

MON did buy some rubbish (what manager hasnt, even wenger bought jeffers)

daithijjj wrote: »

I just brought rafa up because when people defend him they invariably bring up net spend, im not necessarily replying to you in my post, just a general observation. For the amount invested we have a very poor squad left here.

daithijjj

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Bye now. I'll finish off with my post, here's a post about MON's poor buys and one about Rafa's. Maybe it is just me, but I see noticable contrast in both. But no, it's clear I'm the bitter one. :pac:

lol, thats fabulous.............if it was even remotely in context of the same discussion

Ah, sure we will just ignore that rafa invested double what oneill invested.

Chucky the tree

daithijjj wrote: »

lol, thats fabulous.............if it was even remotely in context of the same discussion

Ah, sure we will just ignore that rafa invested double what oneill invested.

It wasn't, but I was just surprised when mentioning Rafa's poor buys or poor squad you never followed it up by stating every manager has made bad buys. We can also ignore how Liverpool highest finish was 2nd while Villa was 6th.

invinciblePRSTV

A Rafa/Mon debate you say?



Btw Bent has signed :rolleyes:

daithijjj

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It wasn't, but I was just surprised when mentioning Rafa's poor buys or poor squad you never followed it up by stating every manager has made bad buys. We can also ignore how Liverpool highest finish was 2nd while Villa was 6th.

Your trying to 'act the goat' chucky. One quote was from yesterday and the other is old, at minimum a week old, therefore completely out of context, dont be going all 'tabloid'.

And yes, i suppose even out of context im still right , benitez squad finished behind oneills last season. Remind me again who is supposed to be the genius manager?

th3 s1aught3r

IvySlayer wrote: »

:O mad!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/s/sunderland/9364092.stm

He was doing great at Sunderland!

Complete lack of ambition. He going from a club who are doing great and may get into Europe, to a club battling relegation
Has to be all about the money

Chucky the tree

daithijjj wrote: »

Your trying to 'act the goat' chucky. One quote was from yesterday and the other is old, at minimum a week old, therefore completely out of context, dont be going all 'tabloid'.

And yes, i suppose even out of context im still right , benitez squad finished behind oneills last season. Remind me again who is supposed to be the genius manager?

I don't really see how it matters how old the quote was unless your opinion has changed on it. As I said, it's strange you've no problem jumping to the defence of one manager, yet give another one a free pass for being a near carbon copy. Your still right because Villa finished ahead of Villa once? Yep clearly on that criteria MON is the genius.

daithijjj

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I don't really see how it matters how old the quote was unless your opinion has changed on it. As I said, it's strange you've no problem jumping to the defence of one manager, yet give another one a free pass for being a near carbon copy. Your still right because Villa finished ahead of Villa once? Yep clearly on that criteria MON is the genius.

That doesnt surprise me chucky. Its about context, you dont seem to appreciate the concept here. Neither man gets a free pass, anyway, listen, this is tedious nonsense and spoiling the thread, lets just agree to disagree and we can have this argument again in the liverpool thread every week for years to come if you wish

CSF

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Complete lack of ambition. He going from a club who are doing great and may get into Europe, to a club battling relegation
Has to be all about the money

Stupid post. He can presumably see the bigger picture. If you think Sunderland's average league position over the term of his contract is going to be higher than Villa's you should have a rethink.

Mister men

Oh my fecking god. 24m for Darren Bent :eek:

OPENROAD

Mister men wrote: »

Oh my fecking god. 24m for Darren Bent :eek:

Thought it was £18m

Warper

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Complete lack of ambition. He going from a club who are doing great and may get into Europe, to a club battling relegation
Has to be all about the money[/QUOTE]

It always is

Warper

Btw it is a good signing for Villa. He is a proven goal-scorer in the EPL and was almost top-scorer last season. Much better than Agbonlahor

flahavaj

OPENROAD wrote: »

Thought it was £18m

18 rising to 24.

BERBA

flahavaj wrote: »

18 rising to 24.

rising by 6m because sunderland owe us 6m having bought him from us for 10m up front with 6m add ons , time to collect:D

we get our money back for bent yyyyyyyyyyiiiiiiiiipppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeee

flahavaj

BERBA wrote: »

rising by 6m because sunderland owe us 6m having bought him from us for 10m up front with 6m add ons , time to collect:D

we get our money back for bent yyyyyyyyyyiiiiiiiiipppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeee

Surely that just means ye don't get the add ons at all?

shano_88

flahavaj wrote: »

Surely that just means ye don't get the add ons at all?

They might get some but I doubt they'll get the full 6.

BERBA

flahavaj wrote: »

Surely that just means ye don't get the add ons at all?

think the clause is triggered , Levy a shrewd operator

ctrl-alt-delete

BERBA wrote: »

rising by 6m because sunderland owe us 6m having bought him from us for 10m up front with 6m add ons , time to collect:D

we get our money back for bent yyyyyyyyyyiiiiiiiiipppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeee

Only if the add on was if you sell him give us 6 million,
I'm not doubting Spurs will get some money, but not 6 million, he was not there long enough at Sunderland to rack up the usual add on clauses.

flahavaj

BERBA wrote: »

think the clause is triggered , Levy a shrewd operator

You think, you know, or you hope?

CSF

I do enjoy how this transfer gets quoted as 24 million instead of 18 million, whereas every other transfer gets to be quoted as the initial fee. People do enjoy exaggerating when it suits them.

Helix

question for everyone saying he's a waste of money, or that villa couldve gotten much better for their £18m...

who could they have gotten? who was available, or could have been signed for that money who:

has the second most goals in the premiership in the last 5 years
has a proven track record in the english game
has a wage of under £100k per week
doesnt need a settling in period
doesnt need to learn a new language
doesnt need to adapt to a new lifestyle
doesnt carry the risk involved in the three things above
has a goals to game ratio as high as bent's

if his name was bentolini and he came from serie a people would be wetting themselves, but he's not. what he is, undoubtedly, is the best homegrown goalscorer in the english game since shearer

who would have been a better alternative that ticked the same boxes as bent?

invinciblePRSTV

Helix wrote: »

question for everyone saying he's a waste of money, or that villa couldve gotten much better for their £18m...

who could they have gotten? who was available, or could have been signed for that money who:

has the second most goals in the premiership in the last 5 years
has a proven track record in the english game
has a wage of under £100k per week
doesnt need a settling in period
doesnt need to learn a new language
doesnt need to adapt to a new lifestyle
doesnt carry the risk involved in the three things above
has a goals to game ratio as high as bent's

if his name was bentolini and he came from serie a people would be wetting themselves, but he's not. what he is, undoubtedly, is the best homegrown goalscorer in the english game since shearer

who would have been a better alternative that ticked the same boxes as bent?

I agree with the substance of your post bar the highlighted bit! surely there's been better.

Helix

there are none who have scored as many, as consistently, otherwise they'd be up there with him in the list

you could say rooney, but rooneys not what you'd call a traditional goalscorer, nor would he be available for the price bent was

th3 s1aught3r

CSF wrote: »

Stupid post. He can presumably see the bigger picture. If you think Sunderland's average league position over the term of his contract is going to be higher than Villa's you should have a rethink.

What do you base that on, Villa are in a relegation battle
You clearly know nothing about football :rolleyes:

Helix

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

What do you base that on, Villa are in a relegation battle
You clearly know nothing about football :rolleyes:

who said villa werent in a relegation battle? we are, but we wont be next season. its not so long ago spurs were in one too. theyre call blips, they happen when clubs have to adjust to changes in management

just wait til you see what happens when fergie leaves united

Paully D

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Only if the add on was if you sell him give us 6 million,
I'm not doubting Spurs will get some money, but not 6 million, he was not there long enough at Sunderland to rack up the usual add on clauses.

The clauses were:

£1m for every year of his contract which equates to £4m.

£1.5m based on England apperances which I'm guessing he didn't meet.

£1m based on Sunderland reaching Europe which obviously didn't happen.

The £6.5m won't all have to be paid to Spurs.

They've definitely got £1m already as he was here for a year and don't be surprised if we've negotiated for Villa to stump up the cash for the remaining clause which would need to be paid and that's the remaining £3m for the 'each year of his contract' clause.

The rest won't have to be paid, but Spurs will definitely see £4m of the £6.5m.

event

kryogen wrote: »

I am not a fan of players who hand in transfer requests, much less someone who does it twice in a couple of years, Bruce and Sunderland were good to Bent, took him on when he was wallowing on the subs bench at Spurs and when his confidence was rock bottom, they made him the focal point of their attack, he regained his confidence and he earned himself an England recall, should have been at the WC in fairness to him....

i could argue that he repaid them very well by scoring 24 goals last season.
dont make out like Sunderland went out on a limb for him. when they signed him from spurs, he was their top scorer that season, his confidence wasnt that bad

Then because he gets offered an extra few grand a week (which he should know nothing about) he slaps in a transfer request? the same guy who was kissing the badge and talking of his love for the club last season? Villa are an undoubtably bigger club then Sunderland, but Sunderland are going in the right direction and there is no reason to think he can achieve more in footballing terms at Villa then at Sunderland

its a 35% pay increase. are you saying you wouldn't move jobs for a 35% pay increase?

and he didn't just had it in when he found out about Villa. He handed in a transfer request in the summer but it was rejected. he didn't sulk, he played away and afaik, is their top scorer at the minute. when he heard about villas interest, he again re-iterated his desire to leave.

he isnt happy in sunderland, mainly due the fact that his car was vandalised when out shopping in newcastle.

fair enough, you have your opinion on him, i have mine. but i don't think he's that bad for looking out for himself

ctrl-alt-delete

Helix wrote: »

who said villa werent in a relegation battle? we are, but we wont be next season.

Top of the league next year! The Championship

Seriously though he is a fantastic signing.

ctrl-alt-delete

Paully D wrote: »

The clauses were:

£1m for every year of his contract which equates to £4m.

Surely if that was a clause it would be paid up front? Would it not be 1 million for every year of his contract he sees out?

Anyways I agree that it will be just passed on to Villa anyways as you say.

Paully D

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Surely if that was a clause it would be paid up front? Would it not be 1 million for every year of his contract he sees out?

Anyways I agree that it will be just passed on to Villa anyways as you say.

Yes, exactly mate. I thought that was obvious but reading back I didn't make it clear enough. Sorry.

Sgt Pepper 64

Helix wrote: »

question for everyone saying he's a waste of money, or that villa couldve gotten much better for their £18m...

who could they have gotten? who was available, or could have been signed for that money who:

has the second most goals in the premiership in the last 5 years
has a proven track record in the english game
has a wage of under £100k per week
doesnt need a settling in period
doesnt need to learn a new language
doesnt need to adapt to a new lifestyle
doesnt carry the risk involved in the three things above
has a goals to game ratio as high as bent's

if his name was bentolini and he came from serie a people would be wetting themselves, but he's not. what he is, undoubtedly, is the best homegrown goalscorer in the english game since shearer

who would have been a better alternative that ticked the same boxes as bent?

Simple answer - Heskey! The England manager likes him more than Bent, and he knows Villa well!

pickarooney

BERBA wrote: »

think the clause is triggered , Levy a shrewd operator

If Levy is a shrewd operator why didn't he just hang onto Bent and sell him for a profit or, you know, play him, seeing as how they need a striker. And why did he piss away 15 million quid and 65 grand a week on Robbie Keane? Or sell Jermaine Defoe for 6 million and buy him back for 15? On what planet is that considered good business?

ctrl-alt-delete

Paully D wrote: »

Yes, exactly mate. I thought that was obvious but reading back I didn't make it clear enough. Sorry.

I took the first line as that they were getting 4 million now from the transfer fee to Sunderland sorry

Xavi6

“Its hugely disappointing that Darren has decided that his future lies away from Sunderland and the players, our supporters and the club as a whole have every right to feel massively let down,” said Bruce.

Pity he wasn't so understanding of fans' feelings when he jumped ship at Palace.

Doodee

Xavi6 wrote: »

Pity he wasn't so understanding of fans' feelings when he jumped ship at Palace.

Bazinga!

steelcityblues

Good forward, but he simply won't justify that price tag.

yahoo_moe

He will if he guarantees survival. That's easily worth what they're paying out.

Helix

steelcityblues wrote: »

Good forward, but he simply won't justify that price tag.

again, why not? 2nd most goals in english football in 5 years. scores for fun. if he had a foreign name people wouldnt be saying £18m was too much

whos available for £18m who could consistently score premier league goals without needing time to settle in?