Dan Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Mentioned on MOTD 2 that Sanchez has played 30 games since the FA cup final (3 were as a sub and he was subbed off a few times too), and not had a break, well boo hoo! Morgan had less of a pre-season played 2 international tournaments and has played every minute of every game for Leicester and he's not injured. I think Morgan has played 27 games since the FA cup final, 14 for us, 13 for Jamaica, but I could be wrong. Morgan's been an unsung hero this season for me. Slowly but surely improving. He's like this year's Wasilewski. He's hardly been at fault. I think he looks better on the ball than last year as well, not to mention how many he's played without a break. There are a lot better out there but he deserves more respect than he gets.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Yeah, Morgan's definitely been the better out of him and Huth. Seems we only hear about him when he's struggling which is a shame
Fox92 Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Morgan seems to have got better with the ball at his feet, too.
filbertway Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 I did notice that Morgan doesn't look like a 2 year old playing football for the first time anymore. Nice to see him looking competent with the ball at his feet now. He just generally looks a lot more confident in himself this year, the experience last season has obviously done him the world of good.
Footballwipe Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 RE: Villa on the previous page, it's yet another team who have received massive money for a player and not spent it properly. Have they not learnt the lessons of Tottenham and Liverpool? Seriously If we sold Mahrez for £40m in the summer, I'd be expecting one top quality replacement to come in an fill his shoes, now spend it on four/five players at £9 million each. Unless we're 100% sure we've got a gem like RM to bring in for a good fee like for like is needed to compete. Teams should surely know this now?
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Exactly. Say you have a Porsche and someone offers you very good money for it and you sell it but need to replace it, do you a) buy a Ferrari? b) buy 15 Vauxhall Corsas?
The Horse's Mouth Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 It's easier said than done, and Benteke isn't all they need to replace. Their squad was disgusting and the owner refuses to pump money into it.
Footballwipe Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 It's easier said than done, and Benteke isn't all they need to replace. Their squad was disgusting and the owner refuses to pump money into it. Their squad was disgusting, but we've seen, and they proved, that one player can be enough to drag you to a safe league position. The Benteke money, and the size of the fee, should be a clear indication he was a huge asset, the bulk should have been spent on a replacement and his wages, we can see they money they've spent has gone on crap anyway! They'd have been better off getting another invaluable asset to be their lynchpin and add to the squad as and when they could. Not that I'm complaining of course, Villa bottom of the table with five points is a lovely sight.
filbertstreet Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Exactly. Say you have a Porsche and someone offers you very good money for it and you sell it but need to replace it, do you a) buy a Ferrari? b) buy 15 Vauxhall Corsas? c) buy 10 Vauxhall Corsas and 10 body kits, crash them in a ditch
Guest Col city fan Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Exactly. Say you have a Porsche and someone offers you very good money for it and you sell it but need to replace it, do you a) buy a Ferrari? b) buy 15 Vauxhall Corsas? Or selling a Fireblade to replace it with 15 CB 500's?
Captain... Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Exactly. Say you have a Porsche and someone offers you very good money for it and you sell it but need to replace it, do you a) buy a Ferrari? b) buy 15 Vauxhall Corsas? Option b and have a 14 car destruction derby and one left to pop to the shops in.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Their squad was disgusting, but we've seen, and they proved, that one player can be enough to drag you to a safe league position. The Benteke money, and the size of the fee, should be a clear indication he was a huge asset, the bulk should have been spent on a replacement and his wages, we can see they money they've spent has gone on crap anyway! They'd have been better off getting another invaluable asset to be their lynchpin and add to the squad as and when they could. Not that I'm complaining of course, Villa bottom of the table with five points is a lovely sight. They're not going to get anyone close to Benteke's ability again though, the only reason they got him in the first place was because he wasn't the finished article.
Guest Col city fan Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 At least they could have bought Corsa VXR'S!
Captain... Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 They're not going to get anyone close to Benteke's ability again though, the only reason they got him in the first place was because he wasn't the finished article. I agree, I think it is a different situation to Spurs and Liverpool who could attract a world class player to fill the gap left by a big money departure. Villa needed to strengthen in a number of departments, they lost their best striker, 2 best midfielders (Cleverly and Delph) and best defender (Vlaar), and had a whole load of shit left. There problem was not quantity, they needed a lot of new players, it wasn't quality either, they made some decent signings, it is that they failed to buy enough ready made prem players, Richards should have been a good signing but he has been strolling around in Italy, Lescott could have been a good signing but looks past it, Veretout, Amavi, Ayew, Traore could all have been good signings going into an established side, but throwing them into the rudderless mess that was Villa under Sherwood was just too much for them. Look at the players we brought in from other leagues, Okazaki went straight in, but he had a full pre-season and has arguably struggled, but we could cope with him finding his feet as we are an established side, likewise Kante and Fuchs, eased in and we all benefitted. Inler and Benny look like they may never make the step up, but it hasn't cost us on the pitch as we have an established side that knows how to play. You can't just throw a bunch of good players together and expect them to play well, unless you are Watford apparently.
Footballwipe Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 They're not going to get anyone close to Benteke's ability again though, the only reason they got him in the first place was because he wasn't the finished article. Obviously not now, they've wasted the money. It's the fact they didn't try. I'm gonna play captain hindsight here but it was surely better to attempt to replace like for like than go and spunk all of the money on average dross. They didn't necessarily need a "finished article," even buying someone who is on the way to being a game-changer can cost a significant sum these days. Better to spend £15-20m on someone for long term success than £8-9m here and there on fillers and players who aren't cutting it.
My Nads Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Exactly. Say you have a Porsche and someone offers you very good money for it and you sell it but need to replace it, do you a) buy a Ferrari? b) buy 15 Vauxhall Corsas? ...but when you look in the glove boxes of the 15 Corsa's there are several winning Euro Millions tickets! This is our scouting team we're talking about here!
The Horse's Mouth Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 I agree, I think it is a different situation to Spurs and Liverpool who could attract a world class player to fill the gap left by a big money departure. Villa needed to strengthen in a number of departments, they lost their best striker, 2 best midfielders (Cleverly and Delph) and best defender (Vlaar), and had a whole load of shit left. There problem was not quantity, they needed a lot of new players, it wasn't quality either, they made some decent signings, it is that they failed to buy enough ready made prem players, Richards should have been a good signing but he has been strolling around in Italy, Lescott could have been a good signing but looks past it, Veretout, Amavi, Ayew, Traore could all have been good signings going into an established side, but throwing them into the rudderless mess that was Villa under Sherwood was just too much for them. Look at the players we brought in from other leagues, Okazaki went straight in, but he had a full pre-season and has arguably struggled, but we could cope with him finding his feet as we are an established side, likewise Kante and Fuchs, eased in and we all benefitted. Inler and Benny look like they may never make the step up, but it hasn't cost us on the pitch as we have an established side that knows how to play. You can't just throw a bunch of good players together and expect them to play well, unless you are Watford apparently. Yeah I do agree, they didn't lack of trying to get those established names though. They seemed deadset in trying to poach Cambiasso for example, they just don't have the pull that they once did or ever probably will again. I think the major flaw in the business was the man who was supposed to gel these young stars together, Lambert had a very similar job a couple of years ago and managed to integrate a lot of youth into the team taking the likes of Westwood who were playing at League One level before moving and achieved the job he needed to with them securing safety. Sherwood just wasn't at all qualified to do anything like that. The reason we've had success is we ended with a winning formula, we only needed to tweak it abit and the same applies for Watford. Villa were essentially going into the summer broken and needed a drastic turn around and they basically needed to take the strategy they did in the summer.
ScouseFox Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 nobody worth 32 million pounds would ever join aston villa, they were obviously never going to spend it all at once. what a crazy suggestion. we are the same. if we sell mahrez or vardy for 30-40m we will buy three or four good players and hope one turns out to be amazing. who the hell would we buy, like for like, for 35 million quid?! it's easy saying they should've just bought one replacement but they'd need a "world class" replacement at that price. who the f uck would be worth that much and be that good and think yeah I'll sign for Aston villa.
Dan Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 RE: Villa on the previous page, it's yet another team who have received massive money for a player and not spent it properly. Have they not learnt the lessons of Tottenham and Liverpool? Seriously If we sold Mahrez for £40m in the summer, I'd be expecting one top quality replacement to come in an fill his shoes, now spend it on four/five players at £9 million each. Unless we're 100% sure we've got a gem like RM to bring in for a good fee like for like is needed to compete. Teams should surely know this now? Do consider that we would be paying four/five players' wages rather than just Mahrez', although I do agree with the sentiment. It's pathetic some of the money that gets squandered by clubs in this country. There is so much better out there if you bother to look for it. We're the perfect example of this. The funny thing is both Villa and Newcastle both brought in some alright players in the summer. No-one amazing (bar Adama Traore who is being criminally wasted at that shipwreck) but players you'd fancy to have some kind of sell on value in future, yet they're both still awful teams. No-one seriously believed Rudy Gestede would fill Benteke's void did they? Funnily enough Villa getting Benteke for £7mil is exactly the kind of signing I'm alluding to. Quality signing. Swansea signing Bony for £12mil too then selling him on for £30mil (no idea why they'd not bothered replacing him), pay a bit and get someone who might fetch you loads in future. If we sold Vardy/Mahrez now I would be disappointed if we took in less than £50mil. nobody worth 32 million pounds would ever join aston villa, they were obviously never going to spend it all at once. what a crazy suggestion. we are the same. if we sell mahrez or vardy for 30-40m we will buy three or four good players and hope one turns out to be amazing. who the hell would we buy, like for like, for 35 million quid?! it's easy saying they should've just bought one replacement but they'd need a "world class" replacement at that price. who the f uck would be worth that much and be that good and think yeah I'll sign for Aston villa. Unearth gems. I bet Atletico paid peanuts for Aguero.
ScouseFox Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Do consider that we would be paying four/five players' wages rather than just Mahrez', although I do agree with the sentiment. It's pathetic some of the money that gets squandered by clubs in this country. There is so much better out there if you bother to look for it. We're the perfect example of this. The funny thing is both Villa and Newcastle both brought in some alright players in the summer. No-one amazing (bar Adama Traore who is being criminally wasted at that shipwreck) but players you'd fancy to have some kind of sell on value in future, yet they're both still awful teams. No-one seriously believed Rudy Gestede would fill Benteke's void did they? Funnily enough Villa getting Benteke for £7mil is exactly the kind of signing I'm alluding to. Quality signing. Swansea signing Bony for £12mil too then selling him on for £30mil (no idea why they'd not bothered replacing him), pay a bit and get someone who might fetch you loads in future. If we sold Vardy/Mahrez now I would be disappointed if we took in less than £50mil. Unearth gems. I bet Atletico paid peanuts for Aguero. yeah exactly that's the point. presumably villa thought they were getting a couple of good deals in their summer, hell I hate to point it out in case I get banned but *some* people on here thought they'd done good business too. my point is if a smaller club sells a star player for a big fee they can't buy another star player for a similar fee, because the reason original star player left is because they're a level above the club they're leaving. if you get me. even people like charles aranguiz and steven nzonzi laughed at the fact that we'd bid for them, who the hell would we buy for 30 mill that wouldn't just tell us to **** off if he'd ever even heard of us.
AKCJ Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Do consider that we would be paying four/five players' wages rather than just Mahrez', although I do agree with the sentiment. It's pathetic some of the money that gets squandered by clubs in this country. There is so much better out there if you bother to look for it. We're the perfect example of this. The funny thing is both Villa and Newcastle both brought in some alright players in the summer. No-one amazing (bar Adama Traore who is being criminally wasted at that shipwreck) but players you'd fancy to have some kind of sell on value in future, yet they're both still awful teams. No-one seriously believed Rudy Gestede would fill Benteke's void did they? Funnily enough Villa getting Benteke for £7mil is exactly the kind of signing I'm alluding to. Quality signing. Swansea signing Bony for £12mil too then selling him on for £30mil (no idea why they'd not bothered replacing him), pay a bit and get someone who might fetch you loads in future. If we sold Vardy/Mahrez now I would be disappointed if we took in less than £50mil. Unearth gems. I bet Atletico paid peanuts for Aguero. Aguero cost Athletico 23m Euros.
Dan Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 Aguero cost Athletico 23m Euros. Not 'peanuts' then but to be honest that's still a good value buy.
lgfualol Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 We'll probably somehow spend £30m on Andros Townsend
Dan Posted 1 December 2015 Posted 1 December 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/manchester-city-vs-sevilla-who-needs-moneyball-if-you-have-monchi-a6701616.html
davieG Posted 1 December 2015 Author Posted 1 December 2015 1 December 2015Last updated at 11:46 3.4K Share Facebook Twitter print Chelsea submit new 60,000-seat stadium plans Chelsea have submitted a planning application to build a new 60,000-seat stadium at Stamford Bridge. The application, which involves the demolition of the 41,600-seat stadium and other buildings currently on the site, will be examined by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The council have set a deadline for comments on the application of Friday, 8 January 2016. The club say that the planning process will last beyond the end of the season. In a statement on their official club website, Chelsea said that the new stadium would see "facilities improved for every area" and offer an "outstanding view" from every seat in an arena "designed to create an exciting atmosphere". A view of Stamford Bridge as it was prior to redevelopment in the 1990s The new stadium involves both excavation works and the construction of new external concourse areas, including the formation of decking platforms over part of the District Line and part of the Southern mainline railway. Chelsea have played at Stamford Bridge since 1905, and the ground was last redeveloped in the 1990s. However, its current capacity of about 42,000 is significantly smaller than the stadia of Premier League rivals Manchester United, Arsenal and Manchester City, whose grounds hold 76,000, 60,000 and 55,000 respectively. Blues owner Roman Abramovich had initially considered seeking a permanent new home, with the club describing the option of expanding Stamford Bridge as "not feasible or viable" in 2012. But the club decided to redevelop its current ground because of a lack of suitable sites available in London - having had a bid to build an "iconic" new stadium in Battersea Power Station rejected.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.