Aston Villa: The Pros and Cons of Loaning Darren Bent

Darren Bent finally found an escape route from a year of misery at Aston Villa when a loan deal to Fulham was finalized.

After arriving for £18 million in January 2011, the striker was a critical player under Gerard Houllier and Alex McLeish, but the installment of Paul Lambert as manager last summer was the beginning of the end for Bent at Villa Park.

Despite a respectable six goals in 23 appearances under Lambert, there has been little doubt that Bent was on the fringes of the squad.

Entering the 2013-14 campaign, Bent was exiled from the first team and forced to train separately, signaling the official conclusion of his time at the Birmingham club.

Courtships with both Newcastle and Fulham followed, with the London club finally securing his signature on loan. With the striker’s exit finalized, his departure brings both positive and negative consequences.

Although there were frequent rumblings to the contrary, Lambert denied a rift between himself and Bent. Neil Moxley of the Daily Mail reported that upon the completion of the striker’s loan deal, Lambert said:

"

There's not been one crossed word between us. I don't know where people have got that from…I brought in Benteke. If anyone can tell me that was the wrong decision, then the boys in white coats would take you away.

"

On the pitch, Bent’s loss comes with various possibilities.

Bent’s exclusion from the Villa team last season was not solely down to the success of Benteke, as Lambert alluded to. Lambert experimented with playing both strikers together as late as the end of January, starting the pair together in Villa’s home defeat to Newcastle.

In that game, after a toothless Villa performance in the first half, Bent was hauled off at half-time and would start just one more game for the club, the virtually-meaningless final-day fixture against relegated Wigan.

Even Jordan Bowery was preferred to Bent, being started or substituted ahead of the disgruntled striker on several occasions.

As Lambert settled into his preferred 4-3-3 formation towards the end of the season, he found that playing Benteke centrally, flanked by the speedy Agbonlahor and industrious Weimann, was Villa’s most potent form of attack.

Bent is a classic poacher, adept at finishing in the box and getting in the right place at the right time. His skill-set is not conducive to occupying one of the wide forward roles. Had Lambert settled on a dual striker formation, then Bent’s future may have been different.

In addition, the combination of Benteke’s goalscoring and his physical capabilities to win aerial battles and hold up play make him a much more attractive spearhead for Lambert’s offensive trident. Bent does not carry the same multi-dimensional influence on the offence that Benteke does.

Finally, although often deployed wide, both Agbonlahor and Weimann are capable of playing centrally should the Belgian get injured or Lambert decide to alter his tactics. The pair, along with the aforementioned Bowery and newcomer Nicklas Helenius, will offer suitable cover that Bent had previously provided.

Despite this, Bent’s departure does raise certain questions for Paul Lambert.

By letting Bent go, Lambert is putting great faith in his reserve forwards Bowery and Helenius. With very little and no top-flight experience respectively, both players are unproven commodities.

Lambert no longer has the proven quality and experience of Bent to rely upon when he needs to deviate from his first-choice attackers.

Bent’s career goal tally of 103 Premier League goals, at a rate of .42 per game, is among the best track records of any striker in Premier League history. Although Bent has failed to fit into Lambert’s plans in the past, losing a player as prolific as Bent is still a significant departure for a mid-table team.

Perhaps the greatest benefit Aston Villa will receive from the loan deal is purely fiscal. It is reported that Fulham will pay the entirety of Bent’s wages of £65,000 a week, as well as a loan fee of £2 million.

For a financially-conscious club such as Villa, saving more than £3 million over the year in wages—as well as receiving a loan fee—is tremendously helpful. They can use the cash influx to sign a new player or they can reinvest it in other areas of the club. Either option is very attractive.

Furthermore, there are potential advantages to loaning Bent rather than selling him.

First, Villa have acquired an additional £2 million through a loan fee that they would not have gained had they sold him outright. Second, should Bent impress during his loan spell, it could raise his future price next summer. This creates the possibility that, in the long run, loaning Bent to Fulham will be more profitable than had they sold him outright.

Conversely, there are downsides to the loan deal. Should Bent fail to succeed at Fulham, it could negatively affect his future price.

Rather than receive a guaranteed £5 million now, Villa must wait and see if they can find a buyer for close to that price next season.

More worrisome is the fact that Bent, currently in the penultimate year of his deal, will return to Villa in the summer of 2014 as a 30-year-old, unwanted at his club and in the final year of his contract.

This gives interested purchasers great leverage in acquiring the striker for less than Villa would like to get for him.

Overall, loaning Bent is a solution that is beneficial for all of the concerned parties. While not without its potential downsides, Aston Villa must be pleased with the conclusion of Bent’s loan and have one less distraction as they continue to build upon the growing optimism at Villa Park.

As the season opening 3-1 win against Arsenal showed, there is tremendous potential in Lambert’s squad, even without the man who was once their star player.