Been told by a couple of folks that we have a tentative interest in Connor Goldson at Rangers. Out of contract next summer so I imagine he’d be quite cheap if a new deal isn’t signed. A CB mainstay under Gerrard though so Villa may also be keen.
I'd say definitely an improvement on what we have but that isn't exactly hard. He's under 30 which is a good start.
Hmmmm, we are talking about someone who turns 29 in a month, and who has played a tiny shade under 200 minutes in a top division ever. If this would be the centre back investment/improvement they possibly maybe hinted at or didn't the other week, I'm not sure I'd be particularly impressed. On the face of things, having admittedly never heard of him before now, it just seems like another classic Pozzo bargain-bin duck and dive.
CB is one area that Villa are pretty well stocked in already, so can't see a player of his profile being much of a priority for them. I can't see I know much about him, but in line with most posters above I'm a bit sceptical - turns 29 in a month with hardly any top level pedigree.
Bargain bucket tat in the Ken Sema mould. Will be of use next year in championship. Pozzo incapable of any serious investment in defence while he splashes £15m on Louza and a keeper who can't join until next season. Player trading comes above all first team squad considerations.
The true Pozzo model in the 21st century seems in fact to be 'endlessly buy players of a level that is demonstrably lower than the one your team is playing at for no, or a nominal, fee, and then cross every finger and toe you have that they will miraculously morph into a player of far higher pedigree and quality once they get there, despite there being nothing in their career to date to suggest that is likely to happen'.
Rangers must be licking their lips, we all know Gino loves to break the bank for players from the SPL.
I think you have to take into account that he is an outstanding player in a pretty much unbeatable (in their league) defence. He has also the requirements we would want of dominance and power. His appearance stats are only down through late developing and health issues. He may not be quite up to it, but certainly has earned a tilt. Why not with us? I would be 100% for this.
Talk of 'earning' opportunities at Watford sends me into cold sweats at this point. I think in serious answer to your question 'why not us', it would be because we are about as far as you can be from having a pre-existing defence in place capable of absorbing the risk and possible difficulties of giving 'a tilt' to a completely unproven player at this level (who is also not a youth prospect/young talent with a suspected higher ceiling). We desperately need to improve it, not make another gamble at best, and even if we ended up back in the Championship and he did fine, how likely would he then be to make the step up if we managed promotion again, and for how long, given he'd then basically be 30?
A good friend of mine is a Brighton fan and is notoriously hard to please - yet he always raved about Goldson and was gutted Brighton let him go, insisting he had the ability to go far in English football. Think his heart issues played into their decision to sell him but it doesn’t seem to have affected him further. I think we’d all love genuine recognised quality at CB to come in - but if we can’t afford that, Goldson wouldn’t be a bad shout. I think he’s certainly better than 2-3 of our current bunch.
I think on this basis we’d have passed on Van Dijk when Southampton got him. My guess is it’s likely Goldson will have lots of offers and we may not be high enough on his list.
Van Dijk was 24 and part of a much better and more dominant team than this current Rangers side when he signed, though, and I did specifically include the (who is also not a youth prospect/young talent with a suspected higher ceiling) part.
If you want to donate Gino et al £15m I'm sure they can go shopping for a proven prem CB, though it may still be a challenge convincing such proven quality to come to a small promoted club who are 2nd favourites for relegation ?
Why give the money to Gino when we could give it directly to Mogi Bayat for some more tat? Cut out the middle man (Gino)….
As ever, though, having any higher hope for the centre back improvement we've genuinely needed for about 5 years is not automatically directly analogous to demanding a 'proven Prem CB' for a high figure, and frankly the idea that they couldn't spend £15m on that player if they did have the opportunity is pretty laughable. As Burnsy has already pointed out, just ask Mogi.
I don't really see how that follows, honestly, but either way I've already explained in several posts why I don't think he is a good suggestion. That doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to be right, obviously, but that's literally the point I've made in almost every post in this thread.
If we don’t give our agent mate £9m on a non playing midfielder and don’t spend £5m on a keeper who can’t join till next year we might be about there? As always the first team defence is not the priority for our meagre budget.
We've covered the Louza deal before. Not a chance we have spent £9m on a non-playing midfielder. The keeper looks a good signing.
Yep. As I've suggested before I imagine it included other bits and pieces that were owed that looked better wrapped up in a capitalised fee for a players rather than say £3m for the player and £6m expensed retainer fee which gets us first dibs on the likes of Dennis etc. It doubt very much that they would spend such a large % of their budget on a player who doesn't look ready for the first team.
Fair enough - but surely it’s quite a leap between your opinion which includes lots of stuff not reported anywhere - and it being £9m for a player that’s reported everywhere else. I think saying ‘not a chance’ is quite a big assumption in reality! And the fee is reported to be £9m paid to Nantes. Surely there’s a percentage for Bayat in there as there is with any deal with an agent - but not sure why Nantes would be happy with the reported figure if over 50% was wrapped up in deals for players who have nothing to do with them. Seems a big leap to me.
I guess you are right. I just don't really understand why they would spend so much on one work-in-progress player. There's got to be something we aren't aware of. They get some deals wrong but they aren't idiots and I don't believe this guy's track record suggested he was a £9m player. Most of the summer deals, ins and outs, otherwise look quite logical for the sums paid, though of course they won't all work out.
Discuss. Your answer should make particular reference to defensive recruitment in the period 2014 to date.
Over that 7 year period they have achieved only one season where we haven't been a premier league club. That's an outstanding achievement given we haven't bought our way into the prem with deep pockets. Their transfer policy has clearly been based on the theory that it's more effective to spend the limited £££s on impact forwards and midfielders and less on the defence where it's arguably less about individuals and more about teamwork, organisation and working as a unit. That means individually our defenders have been poorer than midfielders and forwards but 6 years in the prem would suggest that they have got more right than wrong with a limited budget. Last year of course we had by 6 clear goals the best defence in the champ and with TD & AG leaving and NC and WH leaving, clearly the focus had to be on forwards and midfield again. Over 7 years of course there have been mistakes, many the result of operating at the bargain basement end of the transfer market. Femenia/Ngakia/Masina/Rose...are a risk. Maybe TE should have been replaced despite last season's record. Hindsight is easy of course but at the time I thought securing TD on a 5 year deal amid foxes interest, signing proven prem scorer Gray, signing cheap proven defensive rock Dawson, were all sensible deals. I still think 6 years in the prem means they have got more right than wrong and so I don't think they are "idiots". THE END .
B + Well argued. Marked down for failure to capitalise and apostrophise Foxes' and use of 'it's' rather than 'it is'.
