My Villa housemate and all Villa fans he/I know want Bent out of the club and are glad that he's likely to be off in January, so they are all delighted with his exclusion..
Says at the games everyone is against him in the stands, I'm not surprised, hasn't exactly done fantastic for 'em.
Doesn't say much, he joined as Villa went to utter turd, but fans see a 24mil signing and expect the team to improve and him to score more goals.
The question is, how would an even worse striker have done as Villa got significantly worse as Villa ran out of money, players and a string of managers who didn't work out at all. It doesn't matter its Bent, if Utd sign a (comparitively priced in terms of their usual spending) a 50mil player as Fergie leaves, they get in a crap manager, and Utd drop into the bottom 8 for a few seasons... it doesn't matter who that player is, the fans will decide he's massively underperformed..
Hell Utd fans turned on Berbatov for entirely no reason what so ever. One bad performance and a team loss and the fans opinion can turn like that with no merit at all. Messi only scores 1 in 5 shots, but fans want Bent because he was 24mil, to score every time and when the team fell apart and started struggling to create, he wasn't scoring.
If they can get good money for Bent though, and I'm talking about 10mil or more, they could if spent right get a few decent players in and improve as a team.
If Villa had bought him 2-3 years earlier he'd have done better and the fans would love him. Financially with Villa struggling it was a stupid move to spend 24mil on a single player when they were struggling all over the pitch.
remember he got 9 goals in 16 appearances when Downing/Young were they, they sold the supply of chances, the goals dried up, still got 9 goals in 21 games, which isn't remotely bad. Fans saw the price and expected 20 + goals, which may have happened had they kept the rest of the team.