I need some help with the maths, please...

[Walsh.i.am]

It's being reported (by the Mail, admittedly, but also other sources) that despite Hughton saying recently, he's 'happy' with the fire power in the squad, that Vaughan may be departing for around £1m.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2188645/James-Vaughan-cost-1m-Birmingham-told.html

Well, as we only got about 6 games out of him due to injury, and paid Everton circa £2.5m and are normally quite a "cautious" club where money is involved, that equates to seriously bad business!

Plus it leaves us with Holt, Morison and Jackson up front, as it is (rightly or wrongly) assumed that Chris Martin won't feature much.

The other odd thing is that Vaughan looked sharper in pre-season than he has in his time as a Norwich player, making this decision - if that's what it is, even harder to comprehend.

I can only assume that Vaughan has either fallen out with the management or we need the £1m to put towards a replacement striker, as the list above I can't see being sufficient for a very difficult season.

Interested to hear other views on this, unless it is all unfounded speculation and rumour mill hypothesis.

 

[royalbarclayfan]

Cromer - I´m afraid I´m the worst sort of sceptic as regards these sort of things, and don´t believe a word of it, until/if it ever happens. Being the mail certainly doesn´t make it any more probable!

 

[redruthyella]

There has been very little transfer and movement in the close season but I'm sure the inquiries phone has been used as much as at any other time. It would be perfectly feasible for Birmingham, now managed by an ex City employee, to contact the current employee and make an inquiry about our players.
I'm sure CH has contacted Birmingham about players in the last few weeks.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

it is a strange one!

for the record, the fee we paid for vaughan was £1m up front with it rising to £2.5m on appearances (it doesn't look like we need worry about that!)

personally, not only would i keep james vaughan, but i'd be starting the season with the boy up front ahead of holt. i think he's looked sharp, a real menace in each game he's played in. he definitely has quality and pace and for me is our best natural striker at the club. there must be something we don't know because hughton has been impressed with him yet still wants to offload him. by the way, i think it's true he does want to offload him. i suspect hughton has concerns that vaughan can play more than half the games and feels he'd be better off cashing in on him now to give him extra funds to put towards a better long term option because if things don't work out this year, vaughan will go on a free next summer as he'll be 24.

as i say, slightly strange, but the more i think about it, the more logic i can see behind hughton's thoughts, even if i don't actually agree with it

 

[goldeneadie]

CH is hardly going to say that we are short of firepower up front. firstly, this would send a negative vibe to the players, and secondly if he then contacts a club regarding their striker, the price asked by them would soar as we would appear desperate for more firepower. plus it is the fail it is reported in. not a pinch of salt required to believe it, more like a full salt mine.

 

[Goldeneye175]

Here is a sensible idea: let`s play to our strengths, namely our midfield.

1) Our wingers/widemen (Snodgrass, Surman and Pilkington) all offer a serious goal threat (proven) so take the pressure off the strikers unlike in some of our rival`s teams.

2) Our creative players (Hoolahan, Howson, E. Bennett) all provide plenty of chances to the strikers/wingers, as was evidenced to anybody watching last season

3) Our defensively-minded players (Fox, Johnson) do a resonably good job of distribution and getting back, both have good work rates and never stop running, especially BJ.

If you agree with this analysis, then it would be a good choice to play 5 in the midfield, especially when this is the key area of combat that decides football matches in the PL.

We scored plenty of goals last season, without Vaughan or Martin, we will do the same again, especially as this time, we have an even bigger goal threat in Snodgrass than in 11/12.

---

Add to this that Tierney will be back. One of the problem areas of last season was his injury, which deprived us of the bombing linking runs between the LB and the LM, just like Naughton and Pilkington on the RHS. I got the impression that we had bags of pace down the right but the left was definitely slower (Drury and Surman).

Remember how deadly our attacking play was with the two pairs: Naughton/Bennett and Tierney/Pilkington?

---

Honestly this goal scoring thing has me very confused? It`s not like Holt has left! Vaughan was absent for virtually the entirety of last season and everyone is rioting about the fact he might be sold, wise up he has an appaulling injury record, we should never have purchased him, and to even get £1m when zero is a possibility is certainly an avenue that should be looked into!

 

[Goldeneye175]

I firmly believe that should it be that in the interests of providing funds (if that is the reason) for a defender, Vaughan needs be sold, then I would accept that.

I am far more concerned with us conceeding goals as opposed to scoring them, that was our Achilles heel last season, improved definitely with Turner and Tierney returning, but RB remains a concern especially as Martin will be deployed in the CB if R.Bennett gets injured.

 

[JM Fan]

Remember how deadly our attacking play was with the two pairs: Naughton/Bennett and Tierney/Pilkington?

Exactly the same as I've said on other threads and I hope that E Bennett and Pilks having now played a season in the PL, their crossing and general play may well improve and so create chances for whoever may play up front. I would like us to have kept Vaughan (and Ayala), but have faith in CH knowing what's best for the club!!

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

the 'two up front vs one up front' debate is often a fiery one but i've always preferred the variety that one up front produces. i feel we play better football with one up front but its also more flexible. of course, there are different formations and ways of playing one up top and at the moment we've been too rigid with the flat four across the middle of the park and one in the hole. this has helped us defensively but meant we've created less chances. sorry to keep repeating myself but a holding player will change all this debate. we'll become more flexible and could play two attacking midfielders who can effectively play up front and in midfield, as well as deploy two wingers higher up the pitch. the 4-5-1 played in that way ends up being a 4-3-3 when going forward and its not a coincidence that the more successful teams at the moment play this way. by switching the players it also gives the option, should need be, to go two up top by replacing one of the attacking midfielders. i'd also like to see elliott bennett deployed as a right back and snodgrass come in on the right wing, his best position. with current players, i'd go with:

ruddy
bennett bennett turner tierney
fox
snodgrass howson surman pilkington
vaughan

now its likely vaughan will be off so holt will probably come in and if garrido arrives then he may well take over from tierney depending on form but although i'm a big fox fan, he doesn't really play the holding role, even though he plays the deepest of the midfielders. the above formation is far more flexible than just playing 4-4-1-1 and you could easily bring in hoolahan or butterfield for any of the four midfielders and keep a nice balance. that's what i'd do and i'd pay every penny i have for a top holding player. i really do think they'd make such a massive difference.

 

[Goldeneye175]

the 'two up front vs one up front' debate is often a fiery one but i've always preferred the variety that one up front produces. i feel we play better football with one up front but its also more flexible. of course, there are different formations and ways of playing one up top and at the moment we've been too rigid with the flat four across the middle of the park and one in the hole. this has helped us defensively but meant we've created less chances. sorry to keep repeating myself but a holding player will change all this debate. we'll become more flexible and could play two attacking midfielders who can effectively play up front and in midfield, as well as deploy two wingers higher up the pitch. the 4-5-1 played in that way ends up being a 4-3-3 when going forward and its not a coincidence that the more successful teams at the moment play this way. by switching the players it also gives the option, should need be, to go two up top by replacing one of the attacking midfielders. i'd also like to see elliott bennett deployed as a right back and snodgrass come in on the right wing, his best position. with current players, i'd go with:

ruddy
bennett bennett turner tierney
fox
snodgrass howson surman pilkington
vaughan

now its likely vaughan will be off so holt will probably come in and if garrido arrives then he may well take over from tierney depending on form but although i'm a big fox fan, he doesn't really play the holding role, even though he plays the deepest of the midfielders. the above formation is far more flexible than just playing 4-4-1-1 and you could easily bring in hoolahan or butterfield for any of the four midfielders and keep a nice balance. that's what i'd do and i'd pay every penny i have for a top holding player. i really do think they'd make such a massive difference.

We should splash out for Bridcutt as our DM, it would solve so many of our defensive issues. Loan a LB. Keep the rest of the transfer funds for January when we know what we need. As you say RB is covered by Whittaker, Martin and E.Bennett. CB is covered by R.Bennett, Turner, Ward, R.Martin and Ayala (recalled if absolutely necessary), LB is covered by Tierney, Lappin and the Loanee. Easy.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

as you may be aware i've been banging on about bridcutt the past 12 months - i agree he'd be perfect for our team. i'm not fussy - it doesn't have to be him, but i really feel this is such a key position to get right and we still don't have a player capable of playing this role effectively. fox and even johnson can do a job there but we need more than that. the important thing is that they are good at reading the game and good on the ball as well as being an uncompromising tackler. oh, and hard as nails... i'm not asking for much!

 

[I_Clean_holtys_boots]

I gave him a slating earlier in the summer, but James Nursery is positive that once zigic goes from brum, vaughan will be off to to them and the CH will be bringing in a new striker!

As formation goes, when everybody is fit i would go with this (with players we have)

Ruddy
Whittaker Turner Bennett Tierney
Snodgrass Howson Surman Pilkington
Butterfield
Holt/Morison

As CH seems to be going with the one up top, Morison seems to play this role better than anyone currently in the squad. Holt didnt perform well enough last season or this pre season on his own but no doubt he will start with holt to begin with. I'm certainly not warming to snoddy behind the striker either, and i even have a feeling that CH isnt either. Hes best out wide! The only problem with the starting line up that i put is we have no steel what so ever! Anyways, We only have a few days to find out who plays where and who will be in that line up

 

[THURNBY CANARY]

I have always thought that there is a deal on the back burner that will come good prior to the start of the season, but as I have said before I feel uneasy about Vaughan going and feel he can certainly do a job for us if he stays fit. I would rather that jackson was the make-weight if that is the structure of the deal.

 

[Beefforhire-NCFC]

I said earlier on this season, may even have been before lambert left, tht I thought Vaughan was going, I don't know why I thought so, something just didn't add with him for me.

Fact is, Vaughan is a bit of a risk, he's never played a full season of football (and that's not his fault) and thats counting against him. You have to weigh the risk of he looks pretty nifty right now against that risk of injury.

You could do a loan, that's the most sensible thing for us because he gets a shot to prove himself and it doesn't risk our season directly, but he's been loaned out before in his youth. Maybe he doesn't want to go out on loan again. Maybe he wants assurance he'll play football or he'd like to move on to get that football. There's a lot of factors here.

At the end of the day, I don't rate or hate him because I haven't seen enough of him competitively to make a judgement, if he goes, he goes with my blessing and best wishes, but we absolutely must replace him of he does go, and this is a perfect time to up the quality level. I'd have no idea who to bring in though, Rhodes is my "holy **** he's a young grant holt" at the moment but he's not going anywhere so put him on the backburner.

Maybe we're in for a last day nailbiter?

 

[stilljaroldcanary]

Maybe it will be Vaughan plus cash for Curtis Davis we would then have a very solid back row and midfield

I am totally happy that Morrison Holt and Jacko can score

Do the deals lets get started!

 

[Walsh.i.am]

Maybe it will be Vaughan plus cash for Curtis Davis we would then have a very solid back row and midfield

I am totally happy that Morrison Holt and Jacko can score

Do the deals lets get started!

That would make sense and as pointed out above in the thread, we ought to have plenty of "back-uo" goals from midfield, if last season is a pointer