Here's a theory: Farke massively over achieved

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

13 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

We chose to sell him. Webber can make out he had no choice, but we chose to.

Spurs didn’t choose to sell Kane as a recent high profile counterpoint.

Yes if we hadn’t we don’t know what could have happened, he may have never played for us again in the same way. We may have lost out on millions because of it. Or he may have stropped and sulked and eventually realised if he wants that move he needs to continue to prove why clubs should be interested in him, didn’t sound like Villa had much competition.

Buendia made his position clear and Norwich acquiesced, that’s a choice whether you like it or not. 

We then completely squandered the decent money we made out of the situation.

 

Technically, there's always a choice. Risks of forcing him to stay would be: 

-Resentment on his part affecting performance (Buendia had shown himself to be a bit temperamental)

-Running down contract would be a huge financial cost. 

-Hanging on to an in-demand player could potentially deter other players from signing, concerned that they may be prevented from taking opportunities if they do well. 

When you factor in that we'd been relegated with both Pukki and Buendia in the squad, I'm not convinced that the upsides of hanging onto him for another season outweighed the potential costs of not respecting his wishes. 

[Monty13 2,254]

33 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Technically, there's always a choice. Risks of forcing him to stay would be: 

-Resentment on his part affecting performance (Buendia had shown himself to be a bit temperamental)

-Running down contract would be a huge financial cost. 

-Hanging on to an in-demand player could potentially deter other players from signing, concerned that they may be prevented from taking opportunities if they do well. 

When you factor in that we'd been relegated with both Pukki and Buendia in the squad, I'm not convinced that the upsides of hanging onto him for another season outweighed the potential costs of not respecting his wishes. 

Maybe but like you said, still a choice, we know what the outcome of selling our best player on promotion was.

[dsr-burnley 25]

20 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

This is such an interesting, civilised discussion: this board at its best.

Two things to add to recent posts by @ricardo, @chickenet. al. 

1) I think there's a moral dimension to this too. Forest are paying Lingard £200k per week in their attempt to compete. At what point do you say, enough is enough, we're not playing this game?

2) It would be interesting to ask a Burnley fan to list their five best moments of the last five seasons and compare them with ours. Given financial constraints, they're what we're aspiring to in terms of a club that managed a good stint in the PL. But I doubt they had as much fun as us under DF. The marketing machine of the PL is so pervasive it's hard not to be swept up in it. But it isn't the be-all and end-all. The Farke era is right up there for me with the Stringer/Walker era in terms of sheer enjoyment, even though it only really contained two great moments at the top level (the Man City win and the penalties at Spurs). 

 

 

 

Since you ask ...

The best "moment" isn't really a moment, it's the season we finished 7th.  That was fun even though we didn't score many goals - but the midfield was so good for half a season (Stephen Defour, before he got injured) that it was good to watch -- not least because we kept winning.

And the European campaign that followed, that was a great "moment" too.  Even though it only went to 6 matches.

Othe rmoments would be the 2-0 win at Old Trafford, the 3-2 win at Stamford Bridge, the 1-0 win at Anfield probably.  Beating the moneybags on their own grounds is always fun.

But I certainly get your point about the fun in the Championship.  Promotion seasons are more fun that just-avoiding-relegation seasons in the PL, and (especially with an eye to the game v Huddersfield last Friday!) there is a lot to be said for not being in the PL.  (No VAR! ),  

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

39 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Maybe but like you said, still a choice, we know what the outcome of selling our best player on promotion was.

Yeah, and we also know what the outcome of hanging onto him on promotion two seasons before was: we still finished up relegated by a comfortable margin. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Robert N. LiM 4,545]

49 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Since you ask ...

The best "moment" isn't really a moment, it's the season we finished 7th.  That was fun even though we didn't score many goals - but the midfield was so good for half a season (Stephen Defour, before he got injured) that it was good to watch -- not least because we kept winning.

And the European campaign that followed, that was a great "moment" too.  Even though it only went to 6 matches.

Othe rmoments would be the 2-0 win at Old Trafford, the 3-2 win at Stamford Bridge, the 1-0 win at Anfield probably.  Beating the moneybags on their own grounds is always fun.

But I certainly get your point about the fun in the Championship.  Promotion seasons are more fun that just-avoiding-relegation seasons in the PL, and (especially with an eye to the game v Huddersfield last Friday!) there is a lot to be said for not being in the PL.  (No VAR! ),  

Brilliant: thanks for the response. Wishing you all the best for this season (with the obvious exceptions!).

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

2 hours ago, Matt Morriss said:

Errrrr, no....they were all Webbers signings.

The point is, that you are missing, is that Farke got the team promoted with misfits and Bundesliga 2 players, that had no right to win the Championship in the manner that they did. Then he was given players to bolster the squad in an attempt to stay in the Prem of the quality of Patrick Roberts. And people lambaste Farke for not keeping us up first time.

Your suggesting that crop of players was weaker than Farkes team in the first season.

I think that fact that they managed to stay in the Premier League for 3 seasons under 2 managers that were hardly Pep Guardiola and are now nowhere to be seen says it all about the quality of the player we had.

All of this is looking for scapegoats again and again as if there aren't any real world limitations we have to contend with that make progress the less probable scenario than simply treading water. 

Making a scapegoat out of Webber when he has done so much to make us an efficient, productive, and sustainable operation leaves me tearing my hair out at the idiotic short-sightedness of it. 

This is exactly what happened with McNally as well. 

I completely agree with Webber's sentiment that the club would be better off with those who can't accept our limits just start following a top-level Premier League club, because their input to the club is negative, disrupting, and doubtless demoralising for those actually involved in trying to move the club forward with the odds stacked against them; if you want to judge the club as a consumer rather than a supporter, be a consumer and take your business elsewhere if you're not happy. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 2,654]

2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

We chose to sell him. Webber can make out he had no choice, but we chose to.

Spurs didn’t choose to sell Kane as a recent high profile counterpoint.

Yes if we hadn’t we don’t know what could have happened, he may have never played for us again in the same way. We may have lost out on millions because of it. Or he may have stropped and sulked and eventually realised if he wants that move he needs to continue to prove why clubs should be interested in him, didn’t sound like Villa had much competition.

Buendia made his position clear and Norwich acquiesced, that’s a choice whether you like it or not. 

We then completely squandered the decent money we made out of the situation.

 

As in a choice of whether to keep a player that doesn't want to be here and try to make him play his best football knowing he'd never sign a new contract Vs the choice of selling him... 

I mean, yeah, sure. The point I was making though, wasn't that we chose to sell him as we wanted to rebuild the squad. It was 100% down to him wanting to leave and us deciding the above was an added extra hindrance that perhaps we couldn't manage in the premier league. Either way, the motivation was not about rebuilding the squad.

Plus, to suggest that any club has any real power over players is rubbish these days sadly. 

As for Kane - a really, really, really bad comparison. Kane hadn't thrown his toys out of his pram, demanded a move. Also Man City opted for Grealish. Not only that but it's not like Kane isn't already at a top 6 club. He's not unhappy to play for Spurs, he's said that all along really. Buendia had not been with us as long as Kane either. There are just so many things that don't make it a like for like comparison no matter which way you try to paint it.

[chicken 2,654]

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

Maybe but like you said, still a choice, we know what the outcome of selling our best player on promotion was.

We also know what the outcome of not selling our best player on promotion was too. One point less... 

Like I said, it's a debate that needs to be put to sleep. The  player wanted to leave the summer before, we pushed to keep him then, which is one of the reasons we started slowly, because he was in the team less than Cantwell - who seems to be the one that get's ALL the flack despite both being including in that conversation with Farke where he said they had both lost their focus etc.

I find it utterly daft. "No one sells their best player on promotion" - it's pathetic. We kept him on our first promotion, we went down. Are people actually advocating that we should have sold him then? After being relegated? In preference to keeping him and him being a major part of returning to the top flight at the first time of asking? Because that was that choice back then. Probably less in transfer fee too.
 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

3 minutes ago, chicken said:

We also know what the outcome of not selling our best player on promotion was too. One point less... 

Like I said, it's a debate that needs to be put to sleep. The  player wanted to leave the summer before, we pushed to keep him then, which is one of the reasons we started slowly, because he was in the team less than Cantwell - who seems to be the one that get's ALL the flack despite both being including in that conversation with Farke where he said they had both lost their focus etc.

I find it utterly daft. "No one sells their best player on promotion" - it's pathetic. We kept him on our first promotion, we went down. Are people actually advocating that we should have sold him then? After being relegated? In preference to keeping him and him being a major part of returning to the top flight at the first time of asking? Because that was that choice back then. Probably less in transfer fee too.
 

The only point of these debates is second-guessing the competence of those making the decisions to be in post to make the decisions. 

Literally, in all my time following the club, no matter how much success a manager has, as soon as results turn bad, then those in charge are 'clueless' and a myriad 'what if' scenarios are offered to illustrate how everybody in charge is not fit to do the job and why we should just get rid of them. 

The debate to sack the coach/sack the board/sack the DoF is eactly akin to Brexit; it's a debate that comes down to an emotional instinct that someone isn't happy with the status quo so a scapegoat must be found and they must be dispatched to satisfy that discontent instead of a rational consideration of whether there's any chance that jettisoning the status quo is likely to finish up with a situation that's more likely to deliver success. 

[Monty13 2,254]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yeah, and we also know what the outcome of hanging onto him on promotion two seasons before was: we still finished up relegated by a comfortable margin. 

But he was the best player still, you can’t expect to do better if you let them go.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

5 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

But he was the best player still, you can’t expect to do better if you let them go.

Sure, still a waste of a huge amount of money into the club if he's not enough on his own to ensure survival, and as chicken pointed out, he's not the sort of player that commits maximum effort regardless of whether he's unhappy. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Monty13 2,254]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

As in a choice of whether to keep a player that doesn't want to be here and try to make him play his best football knowing he'd never sign a new contract Vs the choice of selling him... 

I mean, yeah, sure. The point I was making though, wasn't that we chose to sell him as we wanted to rebuild the squad. It was 100% down to him wanting to leave and us deciding the above was an added extra hindrance that perhaps we couldn't manage in the premier league. Either way, the motivation was not about rebuilding the squad.

Plus, to suggest that any club has any real power over players is rubbish these days sadly. 

As for Kane - a really, really, really bad comparison. Kane hadn't thrown his toys out of his pram, demanded a move. Also Man City opted for Grealish. Not only that but it's not like Kane isn't already at a top 6 club. He's not unhappy to play for Spurs, he's said that all along really. Buendia had not been with us as long as Kane either. There are just so many things that don't make it a like for like comparison no matter which way you try to paint it.

My point was you were making a lot of assumptions and making out they’re facts. The assumption Buendia would have definitely downed tools and not play, the assumption if offered a much improved contract (again a choice) he wouldn’t have signed it. We sold him very early, if Villa had moved on who else was coming in?

We know exactly the same about both players. They both intimated they wanted to leave and one did and the other didn’t. The rest is supposition as we don’t know what would have happened if Norwich had held firm.

Also how do you know Webber wasn’t at least partly motivated to sell Buendia? Where else was money for a squad build coming from?

Edited August 1, 2022 by Monty13

[The Great Mass Debater 1,092]

15 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

It's not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It's the hope.

 

Wait, Parma's a girl? I didnt know that!

[The Great Mass Debater 1,092]

15 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I wonder if Pep watches us anymore?

Parma 

 

I need a link regarding that comment

[BigFish 1,988]

7 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

But he was the best player still, you can’t expect to do better if you let them go.

All players leave in the end, it is just a question of timing. Buendia really really wanted to leave the season before but instead we go a marvellous season out of him. Perhaps we should be grateful for what we had rather than playing counter factuals on what we didn't. FWIW I think Maddison is a better player, or at least a more effective player and we replaced him.

[Monty13 2,254]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sure, still a waste of a huge amount of money into the club if he's not enough on his own to ensure survival, and as chicken pointed out, he's not the sort of player that commits maximum effort regardless of whether he's unhappy. 

We would have sold him this summer regardless, he’d either have shined again and be worth a fortune or he’d need to be moved on when relegated. I don’t see how we would have lost money personally, maybe a small amount on his fee if relegated but not the bulk.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,092]

3 hours ago, Monty13 said:

We chose to sell him. Webber can make out he had no choice, but we chose to.

Spurs didn’t choose to sell Kane as a recent high profile counterpoint.

Yes if we hadn’t we don’t know what could have happened, he may have never played for us again in the same way. We may have lost out on millions because of it. Or he may have stropped and sulked and eventually realised if he wants that move he needs to continue to prove why clubs should be interested in him, didn’t sound like Villa had much competition.

Buendia made his position clear and Norwich acquiesced, that’s a choice whether you like it or not. 

We then completely squandered the decent money we made out of the situation.

 

Cantwell is what could have happened with Buendia. Though that said thought Todd did ok on Saturday

[Monty13 2,254]

Just now, BigFish said:

All players leave in the end, it is just a question of timing. Buendia really really wanted to leave the season before but instead we go a marvellous season out of him. Perhaps we should be grateful for what we had rather than playing counter factuals on what we didn't. FWIW I think Maddison is a better player, or at least a more effective player and we replaced him.

I agree it’s a question of timing. On promotion to the PL is about as poor a timing to let your best player go as can be.

I hate rehashing old arguments but it really annoys me people making out that something almost unprecedented in football was a certainty of inevitability.

[Monty13 2,254]

2 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Cantwell is what could have happened with Buendia. Though that said thought Todd did ok on Saturday

I don’t think so personally, both hard to manage characters but Buendia’s by far the better player and he seems extremely motivated to play high level football and break into the international team. 

Cantwell situation is much harder to gauge what his motivation and decision making is based on given what’s happened or what other factors have influenced it given suggestions of personal issues.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,092]

Live footage of Stuart Webber from the board room last season...

 

 

[chicken 2,654]

18 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

My point was you were making a lot of assumptions and making out they’re facts. The assumption Buendia would have definitely downed tools and not play, the assumption if offered a much improved contract (again a choice) he wouldn’t have signed it. We sold him very early, if Villa had moved on who else was coming in?

We know exactly the same about both players. They both intimated they wanted to leave and one did and the other didn’t. The rest is supposition as we don’t know what would have happened if Norwich had held firm.

Also how do you know Webber wasn’t at least partly motivated to sell Buendia? Where else was money for a squad build coming from?

Deduction rather than pure assumption. The fact that various sources have said things that join up and paint a picture that is largely complete.

Yes, we can ignore that he "lost focus" as Farke put it. Yes, we might have been able to offer him a new contract that he would have signed - but then, that is an assumption too, how do you know that wasn't part of those initial discussions when Buendia made it clear he wanted to go?

Webber said the player wanted to leave - now, we can accuse him of lying, but then we would be assuming there is an alternative story. I'm purely going on information that is in the public domain. I'm fairly confident someone like Michael Bailey did an article for the Athletic that said something along the lines of the deal for Buendia that Villa had accepted was organised during the season. As was the deal for Rashica. I seemed to remember they both happened very quickly.

Again, you assume that we hadn't already sounded out other interested parties and that if we had waited longer we had got a better deal.

What do we know? That the club - reflected by Webber and various local reporters, wanted to act quickly to ensure we had the most amount of time to work on our own targets. Now that's a matter for another debate. 

What I would ask though, is that rather than dismiss reasoned logic that you accuse of being "assumption" with nothing but pure assumptions of your own. There is a fair amount of information out there, including with Buendia during that season, where he was interviewed and quoted as saying that he would like to play at a higher level.

None of it is particularly rocket science, but to fit an agenda that is contrary, you have to ignore all of the information that is out there. And I haven't included the rumours about how much he is on either. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by chicken

[chicken 2,654]

8 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I don’t think so personally, both hard to manage characters but Buendia’s by far the better player and he seems extremely motivated to play high level football and break into the international team. 

Cantwell situation is much harder to gauge what his motivation and decision making is based on given what’s happened or what other factors have influenced it given suggestions of personal issues.

That's a different argument though - you get that right? Their ability levels have nothing to do with what was being said there - the comparison was two players that were both said to have "lost focuse" by Farke. One was sold after a season, the other not. Now, as with most of these things we'll never entirely know what happened last summer with Cantwell as it would appear there was interest, whether it was never firmed up or whether the club rejected it, who knows?

The point is their situation was being compared, not their motivation or actual ability. Just the fact that both had interested parties and both potentially could have been sold. 

[Monty13 2,254]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

We also know what the outcome of not selling our best player on promotion was too. One point less... 

Like I said, it's a debate that needs to be put to sleep. The  player wanted to leave the summer before, we pushed to keep him then, which is one of the reasons we started slowly, because he was in the team less than Cantwell - who seems to be the one that get's ALL the flack despite both being including in that conversation with Farke where he said they had both lost their focus etc.

I find it utterly daft. "No one sells their best player on promotion" - it's pathetic. We kept him on our first promotion, we went down. Are people actually advocating that we should have sold him then? After being relegated? In preference to keeping him and him being a major part of returning to the top flight at the first time of asking? Because that was that choice back then. Probably less in transfer fee too.
 

I don’t get this point. We wanted to come back stronger, arguably we did until we lost our best player.

You tell me you honestly believe we wouldn’t have got more points with him last year?

It’s an old debate, it’s not a settled one. If you didn’t want to debate it why did you highlight the point Parma made?

[chicken 2,654]

16 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I agree it’s a question of timing. On promotion to the PL is about as poor a timing to let your best player go as can be.

I hate rehashing old arguments but it really annoys me people making out that something almost unprecedented in football was a certainty of inevitability.

No one is or has. Just "unprecedented" doesn't mean anything in this instance. The motivation for selling wasn't related to promotion. The two are joined in an argument only to suit the agenda of ridiculing the club.

As I pointed out before. If you ignore the previous two seasons, sure. But in reality there aren't many clubs that have that sort of comparison, they usually sell on relegation - but that is often ignored or dismissed in this argument. That we fought to keep him to ensure a swift return to the premier league is glossed over to suit the "no one sells on promotion".

The only "inevitability" that is remotely suggested by anyone is that at the end of the day, for clubs in our position, the players will typically have the last say. 

Others have mentioned Cantwell. We don't know that he is at this minute, refusing new contracts and is intending to walk for free next summer, for example. The same with Pukki. Both will do their best this season as they will both know that if they intend to leave, much like Buendia, their performances this season will be the basis on which they make their next contractual demands.

If you honestly think football works like slavery where players can be forced to play well if they want to leave, then this really is no longer a discussion between two reasoned arguments. It hasn't worked like that for nigh on two decades.
 

[Monty13 2,254]

5 minutes ago, chicken said:

Deduction rather than pure assumption. The fact that various sources have said things that join up and paint a picture that is largely complete.

Yes, we can ignore that he "lost focus" as Farke put it. Yes, we might have been able to offer him a new contract that he would have signed - but then, that is an assumption too, how do you know that wasn't part of those initial discussions when Buendia made it clear he wanted to go?

Webber said the player wanted to leave - now, we can accuse him of lying, but then we would be assuming there is an alternative story. I'm purely going on information that is in the public domain. I'm fairly confident someone like Michael Bailey did an article for the Athletic that said something along the lines of the deal for Buendia that Villa had accepted was organised during the season. As was the deal for Rashica. I seemed to remember they both happened very quickly.

Again, you assume that we hadn't already sounded out other interested parties and that if we had waited longer we had got a better deal.

What do we know? That the club - reflected by Webber and various local reporters, wanted to act quickly to ensure we had the most amount of time to work on our own targets. Now that's a matter for another debate. 

What I would ask though, is that rather than dismiss reasoned logic that you accuse of being "assumption" with nothing but pure assumptions of your own. There is a fair amount of information out there, including with Buendia during that season, where he was interviewed and quoted as saying that he would like to play at a higher level.

None of it is particularly rocket science, but to fit an agenda that is contrary, you have to ignore all of the information that is out there. And I haven't included the rumours about how much he is on either. 

What I know is we chose to sell a contracted player. I’m not saying it was an easy choice.

But at no point has a prior agreement to do so been confirmed by the club, so what we know is we made a decision to. We don’t know if he was offered a new contract because no one’s given that answer.

I’m not doubting he wanted to leave.

I’m also not arguing we should have held out for more, the opposite in fact. I’m suggesting if it wasn’t Villa who else was really interested? No club we know of.

Its not logic. It’s defence of a position. You are more than welcome to your position, all I’m suggesting is with so much supposition you can’t claim it as fact.

We also don’t know what would have happened if Villa had been rebuffed and we never will.

[chicken 2,654]

7 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I don’t get this point. We wanted to come back stronger, arguably we did until we lost our best player.

You tell me you honestly believe we wouldn’t have got more points with him last year?

It’s an old debate, it’s not a settled one. If you didn’t want to debate it why did you highlight the point Parma made?

I didn't say I didn't want to debate it, I said there isn't really a debate because what Parma said was wrong - as played out by the information we have to hand, unless you paint a completely different narrative that ignores good journalism amongst other things.

I didn't say we wouldn't have got more points with him, but we will never know. You criticised my view for being "assumptions" yet yours are nothing but that too. As I have noted mine are based upon reports and interviews with the people involved, at this point I will just dismiss yours until you can come up with anything that isn't criticising supposed assumption and then using assumption to try and argue against it. 

[chicken 2,654]

2 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

What I know is we chose to sell a contracted player. I’m not saying it was an easy choice.

But at no point has a prior agreement to do so been confirmed by the club, so what we know is we made a decision to. We don’t know if he was offered a new contract because no one’s given that answer.

I’m not doubting he wanted to leave.

I’m also not arguing we should have held out for more, the opposite in fact. I’m suggesting if it wasn’t Villa who else was really interested? No club we know of.

Its not logic. It’s defence of a position. You are more than welcome to your position, all I’m suggesting is with so much supposition you can’t claim it as fact.

We also don’t know what would have happened if Villa had been rebuffed and we never will.

I'm not. If you actually read my responses all I am claiming is that there is ZERO substance in the position you hold but unanswered questions, where I am using the information that is freely out there.

We cannot go on "what if's" no one can. It's a pointless discussion at that point. Would we have done better with him in the team? If he had been fit all season, focused and wanting to play for us, yes, no doubt. How much better? Who knows? The same could be said of Cantwell, to a lesser degree. If the Cantwell of the previous two seasons had turned up last season we would have been better off? How much better off? Who knows? One has more quality than the other so you would expect to have more of an impact. 10pts more? 15pts more? But you see you couldn't get further from the point here. It's waaaay of tangent.

As you said, why did I challenge Parma's post?

Because going by the reports it simply doesn't add up.

[Monty13 2,254]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

I didn't say I didn't want to debate it, I said there isn't really a debate because what Parma said was wrong - as played out by the information we have to hand, unless you paint a completely different narrative that ignores good journalism amongst other things.

I didn't say we wouldn't have got more points with him, but we will never know. You criticised my view for being "assumptions" yet yours are nothing but that too. As I have noted mine are based upon reports and interviews with the people involved, at this point I will just dismiss yours until you can come up with anything that isn't criticising supposed assumption and then using assumption to try and argue against it. 

I’m well aware I’m making assumptions, but I’m not claiming there isn’t a debate, you are.

I don’t agree, I think there is an argument that’s why we sold him. You just happen to buy into the clubs narrative he had to go and there was no alternative. I don’t and agree with Parma.

I don’t think debating one of the key decisions of the last however many years and suggesting it was wrong is ridiculing the club personally.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Monty13

[chicken 2,654]

6 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

What I know is we chose to sell a contracted player. I’m not saying it was an easy choice.

But at no point has a prior agreement to do so been confirmed by the club(1), so what we know is we made a decision to(2). We don’t know if he was offered a new contract because no one’s given that answer(3).

I’m not doubting he wanted to leave.

I’m also not arguing we should have held out for more, the opposite in fact. I’m suggesting if it wasn’t Villa who else was really interested? No club we know of.(4)

Its not logic. It’s defence of a position.(5) You are more than welcome to your position, all I’m suggesting is with so much supposition you can’t claim it as fact.

We also don’t know what would have happened if Villa had been rebuffed and we never will.

1) I believe it has been at least alluded to. Michael Bailey has written about it in pieces for the Athletic I believe. I also believe that Webber said the deal had been something in the works for at least a couple of months. The interview with Buendia, I believe with a foreign media outlet was around January I think.
2) Again, how much of a choice if a player and their agent are demanding it? You argue that we don't know that, but you accept that the player wanted to leave, and wanted to leave the previous summer also.
3) Right, so you therefore cannot argue that we could have offered him a new contract either. If I can't say we did (which I haven't), you can't say we should have and we'll never know what would have happened if we did. Using your own logic here.
4) Plenty of talk about Arsenal and Athletico being interested, including bids from one turned down.
5) Defense of position that requires denial of the only information we have on this situation.

At the end of the day, what you are arguing here is that Parma is correct, that for an entire season, the club had "wanted" to sell Buendia to fund signings to strengthen the team.

The evidence is to the contrary, that it was Buendia that initiated this and pushed for it and who's behaviour was even questioned over it by our head coach. Unless you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, there is only one position here that is based upon assumption. 

 

[chicken 2,654]

10 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I’m well aware I’m making assumptions, but I’m not claiming there isn’t a debate, you are.

I don’t agree, I think there is an argument that’s why we sold him. You just happen to buy into the clubs narrative he had to go and there was no alternative. I don’t and agree with Parma.

I don’t think debating one of the key decisions of the last however many years and suggesting it was wrong is ridiculing the club personally.

I'm not claiming there isn't a debate, I'm claiming the position you are trying to hold in said debate is based purely on assumption and requires information out there from journalists and interviews with people involved to all be incorrect. I would argue that it cannot all be incorrect, that the head coach would not lie about the reasons for leaving out "our best player".

I'm also not arguing that "he had to go", I just know that when push comes to shove, players tend to have the power. I just disagree that it's as simple as "make him stay and play". I don't think the club had as much choice as these frankly powder puff arguments would want them to have. The motivation, which is the point here, certainly wasn't originally that of the club to sell him for their benefit, it was his own desire to leave that motivated the end result. And that was the point I was making in response to Parma.

So unless anyone can shed any new light on this, whilst there is room for a debate, that argument is seriously lacking in evidence.

An opinion based upon assumption is just dismissed. It has to be. There are not even any anchoring points.

Edited August 1, 2022 by chicken