Ghost of Pongo Waring

This has been rubbished by the Birmingham Mails Matt Kendrick and also denied by Sunderland."Sunderland have denied one rumour that there is a clause in Bent''s contract requiring Villa to pay the remaining £3m if he plays three more matches, taking him to 50 appearances."  http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/aston-villa-column-why-selling-darren-1463569

[quote user="canarycol"]The name of the pub in question is THE CAP & GOWN having lived around the area for some years the place really is the pits[/quote]It''s changed it''s name to the Witton Arms but it was the Cap & Gown. Some info here that Norwich fans travelling  might find useful.http://www.wittonarms.com/

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Do we have a smaller allocation or is the interest just lower this season? Or have Villa re-configured the away seating - unlikely I suspect? Last year on the ballot form we had an option of Upper or Lower tier. I''ve just received my tickets - group 2 - in the lower tier and note that tickets are on general sale but only in theist tier. Does this indicate both a lower location with significantly reduced demand from City fans or is there an alternative explanation?[/quote]Away fans seats are the same as last season. Sometimes the away club only takes up the minimum allocation and has only one tier but that doesn''t look the case, or seem likely, for this game.  Both upper and lower tier are marked as unavailable for purchase on the Villa website.

[quote user="pete_norw"][quote user="BroadstairsR"] [quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"] pete_norw, what hospital does your Nephew work at and how would he know what Faulkner looks like?[/quote]   You can''t get out of it that easily Pongo.   The more obscure the hospital, the fishier it gets.   Also: our ear-wigging technician would have surely heard the two being introduced to each other as well.   One million will do Randy (+  costs.) [/quote] Sorry folks this is a bit of a cat and mouse now, I wish I had kept my trap shut, I''m not going to reveal any Hospital Juat ask any Villa fan they were pouring in every day ao the week, My Nephew would go to any one of the five Hospitals in Birmingham or surrounding area, If a Technician had been needed elsewhere they move about if needed, have a look at the NHS web   [/quote]So your Nephew works at "any one of the five Hospitals in Birmingham or surrounding area". Then he didn''t work at the hospital which Petrov is being treated at, as that''s in London.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2123857/Stiliyan-Petrov-begin-leukaemia-treatment.html" Stiliyan Petrov will begin treatment at a London hospital on Monday after being diagnosed with acute leukaemia. ..................   ''I don''t think he''s down there (in London) long term, only for a couple of days at a time,'' McLeish told Sky Sports.''But we believe he''s got the best possible chance of help at the moment, with the specialists he''s got now. "

 pete_norw, what hospital does your Nephew work at and how would he know what Faulkner looks like?

[quote user="norfolkchance1"]To be fair it shouldn''t matter where the tickets are in relation to ours, just on a safety issue it seems flawed to me. Considering visiting fans are having to find the money to travel to the game as well in these tough economic times this sort of deal must be surely open to temptation of abuse. I doubt they would do this against Birmingham or Wolves.[/quote]I presume that anyone taking up the offer would need to have a previous booking history, especially if the application came from Norfolk.Most, if not all clubs, have various offers during the season at the less high profile games. Obviously this wouldn''t be done at games against Blues, Wolves or Albion but then Norwich wouldn''t introduce ticket offers at a game against Ipswich.[quote user="kick it off"]They''re all equally as $hit from the looks of them. Although to be fair, their level of dereliction is probably accentuated from never being more than half full.[/quote]Is that the best you can do? Why make an attempt at trolling anyway to a post that was not in anyway insulting to your club or fans but just a reasoned reply to the thread?

Villa fans sitting in the same stand are paying the same prices. £39 for the lower tier and £42 for the upper tier. The offer is for the North Stand upper which is part of the oldest stand in the ground and not comparable to the Witton Lane Stand.

There''s a couple of things about this that just don''t add up.Theatre Technicians wouldn''t be hanging around Private rooms for a couple of hours. So how did he see Faulkner arrive and leave, it''d be rather a coincidence if he "just happened to be passing" both times.How on Earth would your Nephew know what Faulkner looks like anyway?Just wondering, what hospital does your Nephew work at?

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"] hence the reason why you need your best players on the pitch?. There''s making apoint and then there''s cutting off your nose to spite your face whilst dropping points in the process during what is , as previously stated, your worst start to a Premiership season. [/quote]I doubt very much whether it was done just to prove a point. Bent has not been playing at his best so far this season. Benteke and Gabby had played very well in the win against Man City and didn''t deserved to be dropped. Bents response is what we''d want.Of course he was disappointed to be dropped, I''d be more worried if he wasn''t, but he knows what to do to make sure that he''s not disappointed like that in the future.

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"] [quote user="paul moy"]I like firm management. The manager is boss and players with big egos sometimes have to be taught that essential fact.[/quote] Lets see if the Villa fans see it that way if Lambert continues to play that £7m "Heskey Mk II" up front instead of their top scorer?!? [/quote] Lambert is showing that nobody is an automatic choice. That''s good for squad morale, team spirit and individual effort, things that he is a master at achieving.  [/quote] i think Villa fans can accept this of the likes of underachievers such as Hutton,Warnock and to an extent Given but Bent is an different matter, you can get away with making calls like that if you''re winning but as I''ve said this is Villa''s worst ever start to a Premiership campaign and if they''re scraping 1-1 draws at home to the likes of WBA whilst their best striker sits on the bench, I can see one or two becoming restless?? [/quote]It was just what was needed. Bent looked a lot more focused when he came on at the weekend. Nobody is too good to be dropped and it''s great that all our players are finally realising that. Bent will now know that to guarantee his place he needs to play at the top of his game.Benteke is nowhere near being a ''Hesky Mk II. He''s scored for a start and has been unlucky not to score more. His decision making against Albion could have been better but he''s still settling in and the signs are very positive.As for drawing with "the likes of Albion", this is Albions best start in the top flight for thirty odd years and a win at the weekend would have seen them go third. They''ve got a squad built over a few seasons and have brought in someone to continue the building not to start from scratch, which is what Lambert is doing at Villa.

In case any of you don''t know Sky Sports are showing an episode of Times of our lives with john Bond starting now on SS2

[quote user="Matt Juler"]   I''d rarely have a go at City fans, even though there are many on here who are quite frankly rather daft, I was just very surprised that an internet savvy Villa fan wasn''t aware of the plans for the match.  Maybe it''s because I spend so much of my free time organising away travel for the Capital Canaries that I''m more up to speed on the intricacies of the fixtures than most. [/quote]To be honest I don''t take a great deal of notice of fixture changes generally. I can''t get to away games any more and I live in Birmingham so it makes little difference to me what time or day the home games are. With so many changes now due to TV or European participants playing Sundays I usually just keep an eye on the next few matches.However I heard that this had been moved and thought I''d post just in case there were any Norwich fans that weren''t aware of the change. Of course the chances were that most of you would probably know already but it might just have saved somebody a bit of inconvenience and expense.

Your game away to us has been moved to a 12.45 kick off. Still on the same date Sat 27th Oct. Hopefully none of you have already bought train tickets etc for the original time.

He''s not actually a football fan but keeps an eye on Villa as his uncle, Sir William Dugdale, was Villa Chairman in the early eighties when we won the League, European Cup and European Super Cup. I''m not sure he''s ever been to a game.

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Webbo118"]Why this continuing obsession? Who cares?[/quote]If it had been Rogers instead of PL getting the Villa job, I''d have still found the situation hilarious and like to hear about it.The idea that the owner can make 700m or so on a business deal and not increase funding for players is extremely funny, especially when the manager claimed they were a ''bigger'' club when leaving his old one, the fact that it''s PL is just the cherry on top...[/quote]Thing is it''s just media speculation and BS.Firstly if we were going to increase the transfer budget it''d make no sense saying so, as clubs would immediately hike up any price for their players, and most importantly the deal is expected to be concluded in Sept after the transfer window is closed anyway.

[quote user="Dave"]What did amuse me with that game was Andy Marshall started in goal!! I cant believe hes still playing and for a premier league side too, surely even Lambert cant get the best out of him!!!   [/quote]Marshall only played because Given, and Dunne, were allowed a few extra days off. They''re due to meet up with the squad today to fly to the U.S.Guzan, who would have replaced Given, was released by McLeish but after talking to Lambert is set to re-sign in the next couple of days.It was great to see Villa actually attacking again after the ''tactics'' employed by McLeish.

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"]To be fair I think, as another poster said,it''s all like a game of Poker. Eventually a compromise will be agreed between the two clubs before it reaches tribunal.[/quote]Change of tack duly noted.Mind you Villa do have serious recent  form in bottling such matters before they reach tribunal don''t they and unlike your cousins down by Morrisons we haven''t made any allegations of tapping up  (yet) have we?Do you think the undisclosed fee you paid the bluenoses for McLeish was worth it, how much is it costing you to get rid of  McLeish on top???? LOL!!And Villa fans still think they''ve some kind of genius at work in the boardroom.......[/quote]I haven''t changed tack at all. Nowhere have I said that Villa wouldn''t pay, or end up paying, any compensation. Simply that IF, and I did put IF, the situation regarding the clause is correct Lambert was arguably a free agent. Yes we paid an undisclosed fee to Blues but whether thats ''bottling'' it or not is subjective. Without knowing all the details it''s hard to really make a judgement on that.Was it worth it?  If Blues had paid us 10 million to take him off their hands we''d have still been the losers. The appointment was a disaster that everyone, apart from the board, saw coming.I think you''ll find it very hard to find any Villa fans claiming Faulkner and Lerner are geniuses in the boardroom. Lerner has got many things right at the club since he took over but has certainly lost his way in the last two years. Culminating in the appointment of McLeish which I can''t honestly find any good reason for.

[quote user="Supermarket Prodigy"]My gut feeling is there''s ambiguity in what this ''clause'' was about, a difference in opinion between board and Lambert - hence the debate.[/quote]This would make most sense and is why I think there will eventually be a compromise worked out.Neither club would want to spend/lose more than necessary and the more ''official'' it gets the more expensive it''ll be. I don''t know who sits on these tribunals but I doubt they do it for free.

[quote user="Jacko"]Well I am not sure about that to be honest Pongo. Ultimately Norwich and Colchester was a completely different scenario. There was big difference in opinion over the actual value of Lambert which caused the debate. Colchester valued Lambert at £500,000 while Norwich valued him at £165,000, which our board believe represented the fact that he was a largely unproven manager with a fairly modest record in League 1 and League 2 up until that moment. The tribunal came to an agreement of £425,000 with an additional fine on top. Who knows whether the decision over compo would have been completely different had we finished 16th rather than running away with the League and finishing 1st.   Here the situation is completely different. Its effectively not about how much people believe Lambert is worth but whether he was actually under contract or not. If Norwich are right they are owed around £1 million and if Villa are correct the amount owed is £0. I don''t really see how you can come to compromise really. Its either got to be one or the other. You cant really budge from either position. [/quote]I don''t know much about the situation when Lambert left Colchester to Norwich, apart from what I''ve read on here, but yes it seems a different scenario.However there is always room for compromise. Both clubs could agree a compromise figure while stating that though their respective positions is correct it''s in the best interests of all parties to come to agreement.Whatever the outcome we''ll probably never hear the full story anyway.

[quote user="Jacko"][quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]*But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyone who claims to know more is almost certainly talking crap.[/quote]Hopefully it''ll be sorted out as quick as possible and both clubs can move on.Anyone have an idea how long it takes these tribunals to set up?[/quote] When this last happened to Lambert. We took him off Colchester in August 2009. A settlement at tribunal was finally reached in June 2010. [/quote]So not the fastest process in the world, although I suppose the complexity of the claims will have a bearing on it.To be fair I think, as another poster said,it''s all like a game of Poker. Eventually a compromise will be agreed between the two clubs before it reaches tribunal.

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]*But at the end of it all, it is conjecture, we''ll find out what''s what in due course and anyone who claims to know more is almost certainly talking crap.[/quote]Hopefully it''ll be sorted out as quick as possible and both clubs can move on.Anyone have an idea how long it takes these tribunals to set up?

[quote user="Grantham Canary"][quote user="Ghost of Pongo Waring"][quote user="Mahogany"] In a wider context a few years ago Wigan paid Brum £3m for Steve Bruce so I think 2 for Hughton is a steal![/quote]When you consider the amounts average players sell for, and the vital importance of the managers in a clubs success, 2mil for Hughton is the bargain of the century.[/quote] Also PONGO fu*k off back to your own board u pest KNOW IT ALL CNUT[/quote]Thanks for that insightful response. Why the mixture of lower and upper case letters? It looks like a dyslexic ransom note.

[quote user="gorlestongirl"]Ghost: What it is more likely to mean is that, while Norwich are happy to give factual info, ie that Culverhouse and Karsa are staying at NCFC, thereby linking Cully up with his old fullback colleague at Spurs, the Club is not willing to make its legal case in public; it is a matter, rightly, for the Premier League to decide, and it is they who need details of Norwich''s case.[/quote]Fair point Gorlestongirl.

[quote user="Mahogany"] In a wider context a few years ago Wigan paid Brum £3m for Steve Bruce so I think 2 for Hughton is a steal![/quote]When you consider the amounts average players sell for, and the vital importance of the managers in a clubs success, 2mil for Hughton is the bargain of the century.

Apparently Lambert had a clause in his contract that allowed him to talk to any Prem club if an approach was made. Norwich refused Villa permission to talk to Lambert which broke his contract and meant he was a free agent and no longer contracted to Norwich. Therefore Villa owed no compensation to Norwich.Hughton was given permission to talk to Norwich, so even if he had the same clause it was not breached. He remained contracted to Birmingham and Norwich had to pay compensation to terminate that contract. Of course this all centers on the issue of the clause in Lamberts contract, which is all speculative, but as there have been no denials from Norwich regarding it, it seems likely that it is the situation.