CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 You're once, twice, three times a Sorensen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayarcee Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Man City are Shaysters if they think they can get 5 mill for him There are two problems in dealing with them: 1) Garry Cook is a cock of the highest order. 2) They don't have to operate on the same "scale" or timeframe as everyone else in the premier league. Look at what happened when Manchester United purchased Phil Jones and Ashley Young- Ferguson immediately went to finance those buys- both on the wage bill and in his transfer pool- by selling Wes Brown, John O'Shea and (soon) Darron Gibson. Manchester City don't have to worry about any sort of balancing for right now. They can hold onto Given, Wright-Phillips, Bellamy, Milner, Barry, Lescott, Kolarov, and anyone else that will be surplus to their requirements until August 31 if they want- and if they have to loan those players to make their 25-man senior squad, so be it; they don't "need" transfer fees coming in to finance their high-ticket purchases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaAlex Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Unless they find a way to get around Financial Fair Play I'd disagree, they need to get rid of the likes of SWP, Given and Bellamy else it could impact any signings they want to make in the future. I think the problem is they know we're desperate for a keeper, and we need one in fast so they've set the price high hoping we give in first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaretMahoney Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Anyone else a tad bothered that we didn't try and sign O'Shea or Brown from Utd? Both decent players, and would do better than what we currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBGB Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 No. Meanwhile, Shay Given would be OK. I'm not convinced by Foster either, Zatman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I will be disappointed if it is Given. Given was a quality keeper 4 years ago, but times change. four years ago Carlo Cudiccini was the best goalkeeper in England, now he is 3rd choice at Spurs. Yet again, this will be what villa have been ever since I can remember(bar about 4 seasons in 30yrs) - buying yesterdays men at inflated prices. There is a reason Given has not played for Man City, there is a reason he hardly played for Newcastle in his last season there - injuries and loss of form. Do people really think if he was still a great keeper Man City would play a 21 yr old ahead of him ?. I said for 4 yrs Darren Bent , I said the day he was sold - Gary Cahill will end up winning the league (and I believe he will) , I also said some ttime ago "There is a guy at Walsall who looks a bit tasty - his name is Dann". I also said Emile Heskey would cost the club five years progress - I was wrong on that one, it now turns out it will be a hell of a lot longer. We should be doing one of two things. 1. Buy for now and short term - and that is Foster , simple 2. Buy for the future and give him time and let him make mistakes and show confidence (like Man city did with Hart). Now the perfect guy has just gone to Sunderland for a bloody pittance - Kieran Westwood. Local to our area, I cannot fathom it. Seems Bruce clocked him when he was at Blues, shame his replacement didn't. Given - sorry, if it is - what the hell was the point in getting rid of Sorenson - we might as well have kept him for the past 4 years - i thought the whole point of Freidal was an experienced guy to see us through the short term so we can blood a young replacement. Bleeding waste - but then again, the whole last four years have turned into that havent they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Why would the 26 year old Ben Foster be short term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I will be disappointed if it is Given. Given was a quality keeper 4 years ago, but times change. four years ago Carlo Cudiccini was the best goalkeeper in England, now he is 3rd choice at Spurs. Four years ago Petr Cech was the best goalkeeper in England, Carlo Cudicini wasn't even playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I said for 4 yrs Darren Bent , I said the day he was sold - Gary Cahill will end up winning the league (and I believe he will) , I also said some ttime ago "There is a guy at Walsall who looks a bit tasty - his name is Dann". I also said Emile Heskey would cost the club five years progress - I was wrong on that one, it now turns out it will be a hell of a lot longer. We should be doing one of two things. 1. Buy for now and short term - and that is Foster , simple 2. Buy for the future and give him time and let him make mistakes and show confidence (like Man city did with Hart). Now the perfect guy has just gone to Sunderland for a bloody pittance - Kieran Westwood. Local to our area, I cannot fathom it. Seems Bruce clocked him when he was at Blues, shame his replacement didn't. I'm sending you an application form regarding the vacant head scout position at Aston Villa FC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Why would the 26 year old Ben Foster be short term? Short term not probably correct words. What I mean is you either get someone ready for now, or someone for the future. Given is the same as many others we have bought - Ginola, Schmeichal, Fashanu and many more - we are hoping they can reproduce what they did 3 yrs ago, when the truth is, they cant. Freidal was different , he was the best keeper in the league when we bought him and was coming up to the all time consecutive record - he was STILL at his best - given isnt, and thats why he hasnt played for nearly 3 yrs Aboe - I am no expert on Chelsea - I cannot remember when Cuddicini played. The point is, just coz he was great once, doesn't mean he will be now - i thought we'd learnt that lesson with Schmeical. Seriously, Given in his current condition and lack of games would be a bigger gamble than getting Sorenson back. At least he is still (or was until about Xmas,) still performing to a standard in the PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I will be disappointed if it is Given. Given was a quality keeper 4 years ago, but times change. four years ago Carlo Cudiccini was the best goalkeeper in England, now he is 3rd choice at Spurs. Cudicini was never best keeper in ENgland as just like Foster he has too many mistakes in his locker. Its very rare you will find many Shay Given mistakes. only major mistake was that Dion Dublin goal about 15 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 2. Buy for the future and give him time and let him make mistakes and show confidence (like Man city did with Hart). Now the perfect guy has just gone to Sunderland for a bloody pittance - Kieran Westwood. Local to our area, I cannot fathom it. Seems Bruce clocked him when he was at Blues, shame his replacement didn't. we tried that before with Enckelman and to a lesser extent Guzan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastBaron Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Why would the 26 year old Ben Foster be short term? Short term not probably correct words. What I mean is you either get someone ready for now, or someone for the future. Given is the same as many others we have bought - Ginola, Schmeichal, Fashanu and many more - we are hoping they can reproduce what they did 3 yrs ago, when the truth is, they cant. Freidal was different , he was the best keeper in the league when we bought him and was coming up to the all time consecutive record - he was STILL at his best - given isnt, and thats why he hasnt played for nearly 3 yrs from what i was aware last season was the first season in a while when he hasn't been first choice? Given would be the one for me, I've just never really rated Foster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 2. Buy for the future and give him time and let him make mistakes and show confidence (like Man city did with Hart). Now the perfect guy has just gone to Sunderland for a bloody pittance - Kieran Westwood. Local to our area, I cannot fathom it. Seems Bruce clocked him when he was at Blues, shame his replacement didn't. we tried that before with Enckelman and to a lesser extent Guzan Correct with Enklemann, Guzan is different, you can only improve by playing games, the guy has never been given a chance. However, the fact hull dont want him, probably speaks volumes. And, for the two you name, I could also name Bozzie and Spink !. I remember Bozzie making some real howlers when he first started (I remember one game when he charged out his area and totally missed the ball) Anyway, going off track. Buying a 35yr old keeper who hasnt been able to get into two sides over three years, no sorry, I will be very disapoointed. I'd rather go for bloody Gomez !! Seriously, you answer this, why on earth did we buy freidal, coz from what heard, it was so we could blood a young keeper to take his place. WTF hsa beeen going on ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Anyway, going off track. Buying a 35yr old keeper who hasnt been able to get into two sides over three years, no sorry, I will be very disapoointed. I'd rather go for bloody Gomez !! 2 sides? he was Newcastle no.1 when he left and was 1st choice at City the season before last. last season is his first ever season as a No.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 He probably was first choice if he was fit , but thats the trouble. I've just checked. Since 2006 he has played 22, 19 , 22, 15, 35 , 0 That means, apart from the 2010 season (which is when Joe Hart was on loan at Small Heath being groomed as his successor) he has missed, at the very least - 16 games every season, and more in most of them. And that is when he was at his peak ! - nah sorry, yesterdays man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 22, 19 , 22, 15, 35 , 0 those are quite worrying (if true) would suggest that Guzan could end up playing 20+ matches and he really isn't cut out for the Prem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I think people are being harsh on Given's ability, he's still very much got it. It's his dodgy shoulder that I'd be concerned about but so long as the price is reasonable then I'd be in favour of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 well the first of his injuries was when he nearly died when Harewood went studs first into him. i believe the numbers 22 + 15 are combined for 2008/09 season when he switched halfway through the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu_The_Villan Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I think people are being harsh on Given's ability, he's still very much got it. It's his dodgy shoulder that I'd be concerned about but so long as the price is reasonable then I'd be in favour of it. Never mind the potential timebomb of the shoulder injury or the 5m fee and extortionate wages, but how do you know hes still got it? My nans played more footie than Given in the last 12 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts