Thetownend.com

Signed for tottenham i see. I think it may be a good move for him, but we'll see.

Arshavins agent is also claiming personal terms are agreed, fuck me theyre spending some money this pre season.

Still finish out the top 6 though...

i think Bentley is a great signing for Spurs. £15mil is a snip too.

But hasn't that now taken there spending to nearlly £50m with this Russian guy possibly coming too.
be interesting to see where they finish next season. Hopefully it'll come together for them so they can compete in the top 6 at least

As they have sold keane for £20m Robinson for £3.5m and half of their squad to Sunderland for £xx m if they sell Berbatov for £25-30m I reckon they could end up with a better team for virtually nil net spend. 

not thought of it that way CT.
they'll definitely be a team to watch out for this year

They got just under £20m for the Sunderland 3 by all accounts.  Good business done by Ramos this summer.  I expect Spurs will be as entertaining as ever but flatter to deceive (which is what Match said in their 92/93 season predictions we would do, and we finished 5th).

Bents been on fire with 7 in 2 games could be a better season for him.

Jesus what kind of insane world are we living in when a jumped up England B international winger is "a snip" at £15m.

Price is high, but he'll provide more chances to score than Lennon ever did. With Dos Santos on the left and Modric in the centre, they've gove from having shitloads of average mid-table midfielders, to maybe having a few ace ones. If Jenas can play to his potential all season, that'd be one pretty handy fouresome (albeit not very defensive)

I think they'll end up playing 4-2-3-1

Maybe MM's famous 4-3.5-2.5 will catch on?

DB's, actually.

Can I get this straight. Is everybody on here actually saying that they think Bentley is real quality? I'm sorry I just don't see it.

Really?  Stand corrected.

As for Bentley I think he's a pretty decent player to be fair.

dos santos....arshavin...modric.....bentley.


geez louise that is some midfield.

Yep, I'm sure he made a big thing about it for one of the Trust podcasts.

What trying to take the flak for it, as it wasn't that popular, or was he thinking it was a great innovative idea?

I hope they play that 4 v Pompey. Papa bouba diop will eat them

cynic!

theres so much expectation of young players. the lad has had only one full season at prem level and looks pretty damn good so far. he scored some blinders and made plenty of assists.

Ashley Young is close to justifying the ridiculous fee Villa paid for him - I'm sure Bentley will do the same but I still think these fees are unbelievable.

Spurs also trying to sign Pavluchenko for 15 million.

With so many free transfer and plays sold on the cheap when they are in their last year on contract means that a players value is very rarely dicatated by his worth, more so the amount of time he has left on his contract.

Bentley signed a new 4 year (I think) deal last yeah, so has at least 3 years left to run. Thats what Spurs are paying for a player of Bentley talent and the remaining 3 years of his contract.

If Bentley only had one year left he would have been sold for half the price if that.

Contract length is irrelevant. Spurs still paid stupid money for someone whose 'talent' is not yet proven.

You'd have to have someone sitting behind, but if done right then it's an awesome midfield

I think you've made my point for me. The blokes had one decent season, looking good in a pretty mediocre side, and people think £15m is some kind of bargain. Remind me, how much did Torres cost Liverpool last season?

If Bentley is "a snip" then that deal was fucking robbery.

Good point RP, Everyone thought young was over valued turns out hes not bad. I would of paid no more than 10 mill for bentley.

i dont think he is much better than pennant to be honest. Bare in mind though arsenal get 505 sell on fee so that obviously had a big part

I don't know just over 500 quid doesn't seem a huge amount out of £15m. ;)

not at all. £15m is a wack load of money. but transfer fees are pretty irrelevant. if you can afford it, and theres potential for him to prove his worth in the future, feck it. the market (and to an extent the contract as DV points out) dictates the price not the player.

whatever the fee it is a good aquisition.

"he's not worth fifteen million - that's just  silly! I'd have been happy paying nine million pounds for him" sounds ludicrous to me.

polar to your cynical evaluation of his season you could also say he looked a bright spark in a distinctly average side. contributed some key goals and many more assists. has age on his side. a great prospect with a decent chance of establishing himself as a key fixture in the national side over the next couple of years.

It clearly is relevant because players with more years left on their contract go for more money.

Michael Owen (injuries) as side is class player and about a thousand times the player Bentley will ever be and Liverpool sold him for 8million because he only had one year left on his contract.

A year later he is sold for 16million, double what Madrid paid for him because he had a couple of years left on his contract. Owens talent didnt double at Madrid he didnt get any better. His value just went up because he was under contract for longer.

Bentley signed a new 4 year contract within the last year. So in effect Spurs are probably buying David Bentley for 8-10million and buying out his existing contract for the remaining 7-5million.

Astonishingly I'm finding myelf agreeing with DV. Having a 4 year contract in place definately inflates your transfer value.

However I still don't think the fellah's that great. If you can't get into the England midfield, which is pretty bloody woeful for an international team of England's standing, and is so chronically short of width that SWP, who barely gets a kick at Chelsea, gets a regular place, then you might not be that great.

For me he's just the latest in a long line of players that the media get all excited about that don't strike me as being that good.

This was supposed to be Englands golden generation, but is Bentley better than Waddle? Any of the forward combinations available (and I include the scouse doughboy in the equation) any better than Beardsley and Lineker? Gerrard better than Gazza? Hargreaves better than Robson? Would you rather John Terry than Tony Adams? Ashley Cole or Pearce?

If I was picking a side from England's players from the early 90's and those of today I think I'd only have 2 current players in the starting line up:

Gerrard because I think he'd offer more than Platt would alongside Gazza

Ferdinand because I think he's a better fit than Mark Wright in a back three that would include Walker and Adams

Shrek would have to settle for a place on the bench because I'd rather have the pug ugly geordie up front with Lineker, and Waddle and Gascoigne in midfield.

I don't think anyone else would get a sniff.

It may be that I'm looking back with the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia on but i can't help but think that England teams used to have loads more exciting, creative, attacking talent to call on.

In Italia 90 they fielded a team that included Beardsley, Gazza and Waddle with John Barnes on the bench, and didn't even bother to take Hoddle with them.

I'm sorry if that means I can't get too excited about the little cockernee with the daft haircuts and the attitude problem but there it is.

Not once did I claim Bentley was great!

I dont know where you drawn the line between England new generation and England old generation but since I've been watching football I'd say England have only produced a handful of top quality players.

David Beckham, Paul Scholes and Alan Shearer all were top class players and still a hell of alot better than what we have today and probably will have for a fair few years to come.

Yeah, sorry the latter part of that was really aimed at others who seem to think that the guy's some sort of bargain at £15m.

Of your three I'd say Shearer for definate was a player of quality, and just the sort of alternative that the England side had lacked in the period before he emerged.

The other two I'm afraid for me fall into the boring mass of recent midfielders produced in this country. There was a time when midfields were basically made up of three different types of player:

ball winners - who could tackle really well
playmakers - who could pass really well
runners - who either dribbled really well or who had incredible pace (generally played out wide)

If you were really lucky you'd find a player, like Gazza, that could a couple of these things brilliantly.
In the last 10 years coaches seem to have been intent on ensuring that all midfielders contribute something in each of these three areas. So you end up with a mass of identikit central midfielders who aren't really brilliant at any of them. When someone like Joe Cole emerges who looks like they might be a bit different the coaches go to work on them and within a season they look as fucking dull as everyone else.

The complete dearth of effective wide players that England has been going through for decades is an symptom of this coaching and one of the things that's made England a bit dull to watch sometimes. That Beckham, who hits a great deadball, and is an accurate passer when sitting deep, but has no pace and not a hint of a trick to allow him to get past an opposing fullback played on England's right wing for the best part of 100 games, sums it up.

Combined with there being NOBODY AT ALL to play on the left of midfield, a situation that reached it's nadir under Hoddle when he picked Jamie Redknapp to play out there, meaning that the England midfield consisted of four central midfield players, this has meant they've gone entire games without a single decent cross arriving in the box.

And before people start on about Beckham being the best crosser of the ball since blah blah blah........ STOP! I've seen Beckham deliver an actual cross for England about four times, usually when Nevilles overlapped and they've played an incredibly predictable one-two and some berk of a left back has fallen on his arse.

The things Beckham usually delivers, that idiot commentators insist on calling crosses, are no such bloody thing. A cross is a pass that is played from a position either square of you or in front of you that you get to run onto. Crosses into the box are pulled back from the deadball line or played square from the corner area. If you're a striker then balls played into the box diagonally, over your shoulder from an area 10 yards inside the halfway line ARE NOT FUCKING CROSSES!

Yes Beckham delivered good, accurate long passes from that position, but he fucking had to because he could never get around the fiull back that was a few yards in front of him preventing him from getting into the REALLY dangerous areas of the pitch.

Anyway. Rant over. In summary:

British midfielders are a bit dull.
The game's not as good as it was in my day.
You lot don't know you're born.
I'm turning into a moaning old git.

Who'd have thought it eh?

Trying to make playmakers tackle, or ball winners pass the ball more than 10 yards sideways.  Trying to improve players seems like a stupid idea to me.

Good use of the word berk though.

I guess my point is that it hasn't bloody worked has it. We've just ended up with a load of players that are really athletic and strong, get through a load of work, run all day, track back, and aren't actually very good at anything.

Would Waddle have been a better player if instead of being given the freedom to concentrate on what he was good at his coach had forced him to get his head down and track back with his opposing fullback?

Beckham and Scholes are both playmakers, and both have been coached to make tackles. Both are shit at it and get themselves booked as often as they win a ball.

Its not just England Lumps. You dont see many teams these days who's flair players just stand still and look disinterested when they dont have the ball.

It annoys the piss out of me when the likes of Zaaboub did it for Town, or Fatboy Howard got caught out as the furthest man forward and waddled back.

Personally I think you are looking back with rose tinted glasses. Waddle was enigmatic in the extreme. Barnes was shit for England. Robson was quailty but was injured half the time. Platt wasnt really a very good footballer but was fantastic at making late runs into the box.

I note you dont include the mighty right back from Italia 90  - Paul parker

I think I disgaree with everything you said about David Beckham.

Like Beckham or not (it's a debate that will sadly never die) - you do make him sound like some bloke who has fraudulently waltzed into football and somehow conned the world that his 100+ caps and copius amount of team and individual honours are a mere overachievement.

Meh, he should've joined Preston North End and become an honest grafting footballer - debate over.

I'm not saying he wasn't a decent footballer. He just wasn't a winger.

So you think:
He doesn't deliver a good dead ball
He isn't a neat passer both short and long in open play
He's not one paced
He's a Christiano Ronaldo like bag of tricks
He regularly gets to the byeline and centres the ball into the six yard box.

Sorry my mistake I was thinking about the Beckham that used to captain England not the one you're thinking off, whoever that might be.

I make it Gary Neville (if he's ever fit again)or Micah Richards. 

I still maintain our current batch are half decent. Only McLarens idiocy stopped us getting to Euro 2008, where we would probablly have done alright without setting the world on fire, going out in the 1/4 finals to the 1st good team we played. You know, like 2002, 2004, 2006. Thats our level.

I consider qualification for the WC and EC the minimum for an England team. Anything less should result in heads rolling.

Yes, we don't have the god given right to qualify but, lets face it, we really should... Until we go 10 or 12 years without qualifying for anything I'll change that requirement! I didn't live through the dark ages of 1971-79 without know summer tournamants.

I'm not arguing that clubs need to pay more to buy out a longer contract than a shorter contract. They do. But it doesn't have an effect on evaluating whether a player is a bargain.

If he had 1 year left and cost £15 million would you say that was less of a bargain then if he had 4 years left and cost £15 million.  It would still cost £15 million to make him your player.

of course it would be less of a bargin.

If a player had one year left on his contract the club would have less say over the transfer fee because he could walk away for free in a years time. Therefore the upper hand would be with the buying club.

They know that if the player isnt going to sign a new contract the club will want to sell at a cut price in order to get a transfer fee and not lose the player on a free.

If the player has 4 years left on his contract then the selling club has more say. They can easily turn around and 'no deal' because they know full well the player has another 3 years left at club.

We'll have to disagree on that.  It doesn't matter if that £15 million was £8million for the player and £7M for the contract, or whether it was £15M for the player. I's also irrelevant that in 3 years time they'd only have paid £7M, because they didn't.

Anyway, the main point:

Is he worth £15 million. In my opinion no he isn't.

Spurs will make the CL this season and show Liverpool that they have to step it up and not settle for 4th for the 15th time in a row. Bentley is a good player, maybe not the best attitude but still England's 2nd choice right mid. Add that to Arshavin, Dos Santos and Modric, and you have one of the best midfield four in the Prem.

I'll say it again  - if Spurs played Arshavin, Dos Santos, Modric, Bently arcross the midfield they would get murdered.

Just a shame they have a dog shit defence.

And when did Arshavin sign?

Eh? Murdered? Sure, its all attacking, but aren't goals the whole point of football?

And Arshavin hasn't signed, but he is expected to.

Is he? Last I heard the deal was going to be called off

I don't know, I heard a few days ago he was expected to sign, but things change every day with transfers so you never know what's going to happen.

theres no balance or physicality to those 4 at all. Putting 4 excellent but lightweight players together would be easy on the eye, but otherwise total madness.  Doe the words holding midfielder mean anything to you?

Yes, they do. They mean good, solid player. Spurs need one. The midfield would look like this:

?(DM)

Dos Santos(LM)
Modric(CM)
Bentley(RM)

Arshavin(AM) (if he signs)

When Spurs play in Europe, will that be a Bentley Continental ?

I largely agree with Lumps on the England issue.  We've been over hyping a bunch of basically average (world class level) all rounders for a fair few years now.  Granted we had a real barren spell under Taylor where it seemed little or no talent was coming through, but along with the over hyping of the Prem, the Sky generation simply lack any real flair and increasingly any good old fashioned guts.  Ince is probably the last ball winner.  There does seem to be some desire to bread identikit players right now.

Bentley is ok, but just because he can occasionaly look good on the ball he is hyped up beyond his real worth, and so £15m is way too much for a player who couldn't hold a candle to many foreign players supposedly of a similar ilk.

Dos Santos is more likely to play up front, judging by the pre-season games.

Bent is the one to watch this year for spurs.Probably the most natural british goalscorer since fowler just a shame he was in the middle of the berba/keane/defoe love in for most of last season.

If he plays a whole season he will get 20 goals simple

I dropped a bollock with the opening sentence here at the start of the thread didnt i? 8)

Anyhow i read that the Blue Mancs are interested