Daily Mal - £25m David Villa ?

[TheChosenOne]

Not sure if this has popped up in any other thread..

Here goes ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...all.html?in_article_id=501229&in_page_id=1779

 

[TaoistMonkey]

just what we need :-|

 

[dontcallme]

If a genuine top quality player in any position becomes available then we have to pursuit it. I know everyone is going to respond with the whole we need a central midfielder/ experienced central defender argument (comes up in every single thread somehow) but this isn't FM. You can't just bring up a list of available interested Midfielders and choose which ones you want.

If we sold Bent and Defoe and bring in Villa then i believe we will have a truly deadly strikeforce without being financially worse off. Not going to happen but you never know

 

[yanno]

I'll be amazed if it happens, but to dream for a nanosecond:

Villa is small, fast, plays on the shoulder of the last defender, and is a goalscorer. So, he would be an upgrade on Bent and Defoe. But he wouldn't be a replacement for Berba. He'd be a partner - and a fantastic one.

If this is true, I'd expect Defoe to be sold in January. Keano could rotate with both Villa and Berba, and Bent would be fourth choice.

But if David Villa is really available, I would expect the likes of Chelski, Arsescum, Milan, Barca etc to be interested, so this is probably the agent talking up his client to get the best possible deal.

 

[yanno]

Crazy thought - pure speculation, probably 2+2 = 27.

But, a fortnight ago, Rafa Benitez had a pretty ridiculous hissy fit with Liverpool's owners over the fact no money would be made available to him for transfers in January. And there didn't seem to be any particular reason for him to go so hog wild.

However, as an ex-Valencia coach, Benitez must still know what's going on there, and if Valencia are now prepared to allow Villa to leave, I suspect Benitez would have heard on his grapevine. I'm sure Benitez would love to partner Torres with Villa, and he will be genuinely gnashing his teeth if a lack of money prevented him from signing one of his top targets.

If my speculation has any basis in reality whatsoever, that would put Liverpool out of the bidding for Villa....

But it's probably rubbish.

 

[General Levy]

He said: "Many clubs have contacted me to ask about the chances of a player who is guaranteed to score goals in England. But I am convinced if Spurs present an offer Valencia will study the subject."

^ Villa's agent. No interest, no bid, but if we were to make a £26 million bid, Valencia would consider it?:rofl:

 

[rez9000]

I have an idea! Let's go and sign Villa, Rooney, Henry, Eto'o, Drogba, Torres, and Tevez. Then we can play 0-0-11.

Yes, I can see it now!

Dave Don't-Need-A-Goalie


Steve Don't-Need-Any-Defenders


Carlos Don't-Need-Any-Midfielders


Keane Berbatov Rooney Tevez
Eto'o Henry Defoe Bent
Torres Villa Drogba

I like this plan!!!

:roll:
​

 

[tooey]

I have an idea! Let's go and sign Villa, Rooney, Henry, Eto'o, Drogba, Torres, and Tevez. Then we can play 0-0-11.

Yes, I can see it now!

Dave Don't-Need-A-Goalie


Steve Don't-Need-Any-Defenders


Carlos Don't-Need-Any-Midfielders


Keane Berbatov Rooney Tevez
Eto'o Henry Defoe Bent
Torres Villa Drogba

I like this plan!!!

:roll:
​

Dont be silly we definately will need a keeper.... swap tevez for crouchy, put him in between the sticks and then were sorted...

 

[yanno]

I have an idea! Let's go and sign Villa, Rooney, Henry, Eto'o, Drogba, Torres, and Tevez. Then we can play 0-0-11.

Point taken. But I'm with dontcallme - if a genuine top quality player is available in any position, we need to try to sign him. And Villa is top class. In the summer, when all the top clubs have loadsofmoney, we would probably have no chance of getting him.

Also, if we signed Villa, Defoe and possibly Bent would also be sold in January. So, we would have seriously upgraded our squad at not that much net cost.

Such plans (buy one, sell one etc) can obviously go wrong. I remain convinced that Bent was signed because the club believed either Berba or Defoe would leave the club in August. If this had happened, we would have had only three strikers fighting for two spots, and our striker situation would not look nearly so silly.

 

[DC_Boy]

bent was signed because we needed 4 strikers and Mido lwas leaving -

without Bent if Berbs was unavailable we were left with the JD/RK partnership which is ineffectual

I will happily bet all the virtual cash i have that villa will not sign for us in Jan - it's a pure 2+2=7 story

 

[yanno]

bent was signed because we needed 4 strikers and Mido lwas leaving -

without Bent if Berbs was unavailable we were left with the JD/RK partnership which is ineffectual

Maybe - but Mido was a target man, and Bent most certainly isn't. And BMJ was so keen on his target men that after Kanoute left, we ended up with the panic buy of Spurs legend Rasiak.

My suspicion is, more specifically, that they thought Defoe would go (Pompey, Hammers, wherever), and Bent would have been an ideal replacement as he could partner either Berba or Keano. Plus, Bent was English, young enough to keep his transfer value, and the best available decent quality striker - so he fitted Levy's criteria.

You are of course correct that BMJ wanted to avoid the Defoe/Keane combo at all costs...

 

[llamafarmer]

The very definition of "silly season".

 

[DC_Boy]

Maybe - but Mido was a target man, and Bent most certainly isn't. And BMJ was so keen on his target men that after Kanoute left, we ended up with the panic buy of Spurs legend Rasiak.

My suspicion is, more specifically, that they thought Defoe would go (Pompey, Hammers, wherever), and Bent would have been an ideal replacement as he could partner either Berba or Keano. Plus, Bent was English, young enough to keep his transfer value, and the best available decent quality striker - so he fitted Levy's criteria.

You are of course correct that BMJ wanted to avoid the Defoe/Keane combo at all costs...

Hi Yanno fair enough - but I don't go for unnecessary complications - I'm happy with the accepted version we replaced Mido with Bent - yes they're differenttypes of strikers but that's what happened - Bent in Mido out

 

[yanno]

Hi Yanno fair enough - but I don't go for unnecessary complications - I'm happy with the accepted version we replaced Mido with Bent - yes they're differenttypes of strikers but that's what happened - Bent in Mido out

Hi DC Boy. Yup - I entirely accept I may be making 2+2 = um, something ridiculous, and over-complicating things! :wink:

I was going to add "football is a game of opinions", but that's the kind of inanity that Alan Shearer gets paid megabucks to utter on MOTD, and I think we should all leave the cutting-edge analysis to him.

 

[Zammo]

Can't see this being remotely true. Villa = Spainish = Ramos.

 

[justfookinhitit]

The transfer of Bent was based on £5.5m a year plus add-ons. So if we sell him before the 1st anniversary for anything over £5.5m are we in profit (forgetting salary, of course) ?????????????

 

[SpurSince57]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

No, stop it, please…

 

[rez9000]

Point taken. But I'm with dontcallme - if a genuine top quality player is available in any position, we need to try to sign him. And Villa is top class. In the summer, when all the top clubs have loadsofmoney, we would probably have no chance of getting him.

In an ideal situation, yanno, I'd be screaming for his signature too. But this is not an ideal situation. In any transfer situation there are three types of players:

Players we don't need
Players we need
Players we would like to have

At the moment, we are so much in need of the second type that any speculation around type three should fall by the wayside. £26 million is a lot of money. That cash, shrewdly invested, could plug a lot of holes in a squad that is desperately in need of strength in defence and grit in midfield.

I think that that's the wisest course of action - spend it on weak areas, rather than on more forwards, an area that, quite frankly, has no real need of improvement.

I think there's a difference between a good player and a good signing. The two don't always go together. Rebrov was a good player, but for us was an absolutely abysmal signing. Villa may be a good player for us, but still end up being a bad signing because the money spent on him would not have been used to strengthen the squad. It's the old expression, "one player does not make a team".

 

[yanno]

£26 million is a lot of money. That cash, shrewdly invested, could plug a lot of holes in a squad that is desperately in need of strength in defence and grit in midfield.

I agree with your three categories in general, but if we sold Defoe and Bent for a combined £20 million, Villa would only cost us £6 million, leaving plenty for other positions.

Of course, SS57's reaction to the Daily Nonsense story was entirely appropriate.

Rebrov was a good player, but for us was an absolutely abysmal signing

Interesting - please expand.

My view is that Rebrov was a good player in a very specific system - an incredibly drilled and disciplined Dinamo Kiev team, which at that time was effectively the Ukrainian national team. Kiev's pass-and-move style of football, with two small not very strong guys up front - Shevchenko & Rebrov - worked in Europe, but would have been less effective in an aggressive, physical league like the EPL.

Anyway, Graham & Pleat signed Rebrov, but even Graham didn't really seem to be able to get consistent performances out of him. Hoddle came in, took a look at Rebrov in training, and decided he wasn't going to cut it in the EPL. Rebrov's career post-Spurs has been unimpressive, and he's now back at Dinamo Kiev, often playing in midfield.

So, I would say that Rebrov was simply not cut out for the EPL, rather than being a good signing at the wrong time (if that's your view). But I'm interested in your opinion.

 

[The Apprentice]

Wouldn't even make our bench.