http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...want-18million-Darren-Bent.html#ixzz2EDpXInla I don't think they have a hope in hells chance of getting it personally bit its the story behind the story I am more interested in. Villa looking to recoup the £18m they paid us? Do you reckon they actually paid us £18m? I was thinking they still owed us a bit of a wedge for him? Maybe I was wrong, although this is the Daily Fail.
I'd take him back for £6-7m. Apparently they owe us 6. Call it quits. Happy days. Still scum like but a very good player.
I'd take him back, but I'd rather see Connor given a run. He looks like he's fading fast anyway, can we not have Benteke instead he looks immense, they can keep what they owe and we'll hoy in Ji & Vaughan..
How come we turn up Ji and pay £1m but they turn up Benteke for £7m; Swansea turn up Michu for £2m and the craas get Ba for nowt?
The idiot had found a club that loved him and he was flying, got to greedy, maybe our board should have recognised a few extra pounds would have made a huge difference. Look where we were in the league when we sold him. I don't know the ins and outs but I'd have him back. That said, he could return and be awful. He would be under a lot of presuure if he returned. He would be booed by some quarters.
I still think it was all about him porking Bruces daughter as much as anything else and if he left for that I'd have accepted him back with open arms. The fact he then went on to completely humiliate us in that hastily arranged press conference with that French twat killed all respect and affection he had gained. That said this is a professional game and we need a striker? You are right though, he would get dogs abuse from a large section of the crowd unless he scored a **** load of goals straight form the off.
I may be going against the grain here but I would have kept Lee Clarke after the t-shirt debacle, he was always professional and he would have had to have redoubled his efforts. If he didn't I'd have done what Reid did to "magic" johnson and let him rot in the reserves - pretty much finished his career. I do think unless we get an absolute bargain on Bent that we have more pressing needs in ther middle of the park. I'm hoping Bally is fit for Saturday lol!
I'd have rather had johnny Wilkinson practice his kicking on my bollocks than see that spotty **** play for us again after that incident. I like the rotting his career away bit mind. Think we missed a trick there. Bent did nothing compared to spotty ****.
I agree with a few of the lads above and would say no, the reason Lambert isnt playing him is because he cant offer what benteke does and thats the ability to hold the ball up and allow others to play off and around him and keep possession, plus he can score too! Having said that Bent puts chances away so I can see both arguements but coming back here would never happen due to wages, the way he left. I do think he would compliment Fletcher very well though as I think Wickham is similar to Fletch but we all know 4-4-2 would never happen! ha
I suppose the news that Liverpool are trying to sign Sturridge has pissed on Bents chips. And there was some paper talk of QPR wanting him , but would 'Arry want him I'd have him back if I thought he'd net 10 or 15 for us between now and May. Then flog him in the summer for megabucks (again)
Agree totally..If Bent apologised for the way he done things I would probably be able to forgive and forget in time, especially if he started to bang the goals in. However, what Clarke done was totally unforgivable, and was a kick in the teeth to fans who had backed him far more than he ever got up the road.
It's a tough one. Personally yes but I don't think he'd be as good ad he was and would never be settled (unless he finished his career with us after a few decent years. I see fletcher as a good finishing player who can also head the ball very well, I also think his link up play is better, this compared to wickham, who I see much more as a target man ( and who impressed me greatly at Norwich) who is someone fletch can feed off of and can let the team move further up the park which we've really been lacking so far this season! Much rather those two upfront than bent. Wouldn't mind having him coming off the bench though, bent wickham and fletch, who do you mark??
No No and No, it very rarely works out and from what I've seen he hasn't been setting the place alight. What a waste as the lad had a great opportunity to go on to great things here.
I'd take him back for 10 mil again.... 18 mil? Bit pricey for most clubs these days. Times have moved on. I always thought that Bent was forced out after Villa made that large bid. The club spun the transfer in such a way as to deflect the fans anger toward the player as opposed to the club. How many clubs come up with massive overly inflated bids for players that are known to be unhappy and want to move? None, because they know they can wrangle a decent fee for themselves. It makes no sense that Bent was known to be wanting to be away and up pop Villa with 24 mil.... Up popped Vila with the 24 mil and the board took the money... Who would have turned that down? In retrospect, it was a mistake IMO. I'd welcome Bent back here but not at the asking price of Villa.
Bent would be a terrible signing IMO. Bent and Fletcher up front are just two poachers waiting for a ball to come to them. They add very little to the side they're playing on, but they score goals. You should probably go for a central playermaker instead.
