The College Dropout

We can go back & forth on this Newcastle forum about this. But in the real world, people will attribute our success to the Saudi state ownership's financial might. It's going to be deserved. So we need to be honest about ourselves and with each other.

I tried to make this point in another thread (or was it this one?). Apart from the Kuol type signings - most of our recent transfers are expensive for what they are. I think long-term, they are less risky. Big fee, youngish player + relatively cheap wages, is expensive for FFP in the short-term but long-term we should have good resale value, easier to shift if they flop and the expense of the fees decreases with contract extensions. But short-term with our thin squad... it's expensive stuff.

They would've gone bust had they not beaten Liverpool on the last day of the season to get into the CL. Qualifying for the CL kept them from going bankrupt this is well documented. Abramovic turned up weeks later but the Liverpool match was the first big moment. https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/article/beating-liverpool-in-2003 Wealthy owners in football have a long history as we both know. While Villa owners are investing money, it's not the same as us. Teams owned by oil-rich countries - is something else entirely. In Europe, there are only 3. Us, City & PSG. No matter how we slice it, we are closer to those 2, than Aston Villa or Brighton. While we have their backing. Villa are not in the same stratosphere of potential as us. Our main shirt sponsor is essentially owned by our Owners, as are another few sponsors. Villa's owners can't do that. We'll have bought our way to success very sheer force. Any parameter to stop us or slow us down, we'll find other ways. The stadium and academy alone will give us better revenues in 7 years. At a high-level - yes all teams buy their way to success. Agreed. That doesn't make our success organic because we can't spend like PSG.

I get what you mean but it's not "organic" IMO. Brighton is organic, Villa is more-so organic than us. We will have leveraged an oil-rich state for success no matter how we look at it. Chelsea was such an interesting one. Aye they were almost bankrupt but finishing in the CL (organically) saved them. They had a pretty successful 10-year period prior to that.

If PSG bid the release clause - he's off.

Yep - we have too.

It won't have been "natural". It's the same driving force as City & Chelsea that is capped by FFP. We'll use some of the same mechanisms they both now use to maintain their advantage - esp. build one of the best academy's in world football, sign the best youngsters in world football, sell them at massive profits. That wouldn't have been natural.

Douglas Luiz plays alongside him deep. Luiz is more of an all-rounder, the progressive passer. In my mind it often ends up something like: Konsa Torres Digne Luiz Kamara Bailey/Cash McGinn Diaby Watkins Torres & Luiz progressing play from deep.

Agreed. Don't Villa essentially play with a double-pivot? They do it well. It's a lot more fluid than the old 4231 though. Often looks like a back 3.

He signed Barnes a LW. So we are going to play 2 left-wingers to accommodate him and Gordon. Tonali isn't even a possession-style player like that. Tonali & Barnes on paper plug & play pretty well with Howe's high-intensity system. 1 midfielder isn't going to turn us into a possession side.

This is a good idea. There's just no evidence for it.

Any transfer for a player over 60m euros is going to be one of the highest-rated players in Europe tbf.

This is true. The cost of the entire transfer is still 1/3 of the cost of the Tonali transfer. Im not saying we are wrong. There’s just multiple ways to go about things. If Bruno flops it’s still hard to get his £80k p/w off the books. He likely doubled his wages himself when he moved. The total cost of the original Bruno transfer is still considerably higher in the short term.

c.£8m in wages. Expensive to carry it and it won't reduce with contract extensions. But in the short-term it's less than the likes of Livramento.

We've arrived at the same destination. Villa have signed more players for less FFP money, and we have signed less players for more FFP money. The difference probably covers the wages and amortisation for Douglas Luiz (not looked up his salary tbf). I didn't ignore wages in my initial post. My point is that they've gone low fee high wages. We've done the opposite (relatively speaking). There's some merit to mixing and matching to get squad depth and quality. It's not random - it's the major signings of the last 2 seasons iirc.

Agreed. Although he would fit in with how we've been playing recently. Especially Bruno off the ball. Watch him for one of the goals against Liverpool trying to track Szob.. that would go viral on Twitter. A similar video went viral some years back about Tielemans - when he made Rice look like Usain Bolt (Rice is rapid tbf).

I would assume most Xg data takes into consideration if it's the player's weaker foot.

How do you reckon that? You think Tonali came for 60m euros to earn half of Youri Tielemans? Tielemans is rumoured to earn £8m p/a. Tonali is rumoured to earn £7m p/a. Isak similar. Tonali costs £18m per year FFP wise. That pays for Tielemans & Kamara (both rumoured to earn around £8m p/a) FFP wise. Isak is roughly £16.5 per year FFP wise. That almost pays for Pau Torres at £11.8m & Alex Moreno at £5.3m. In the short-term FFP wise ours are still much more expensive. Long-term - we are largely signing younger players with better resale value. Moreno, Diego Carlos are 30ish. But we could do a bit more mix and matching - especially with free transfers of young players or loans. Sometimes you need to do short-term things that contribute to long-term goals even if the action is contradictory.

Longstaff does it because he can't play his way out of a press. Not with a pass, not with a dribble, nada. He's not buying fouls because they aren't fouls.

I don't think anyone is above critique though. So far everyone seems competent but competent people also make mistakes.

IMO Bruno is often moving with the ball, the player is often biting at him or holding him for some period before the foul is given. Bruno will also have 2 or 3 other occasions where he just skips past that very same opponent and at least 1 occasion he's being fouled to an obvious degree. Longstaff ends up stationary for a second or so and falls over. Almiron isn't as bad for it as Longstaff IMO. The main issue for both of them is a lack of footballing ability. This is just one symptom.

It's not though. Which is why Bruno gets fouls and Longstaff doesn't.

Yes. They've sold £35m+ of youth products in the last 12 months iirc. And they've sold other players for decent money (eg Matt Targett for £15m), A lot of their investment is in wages rather than astronomical fees. They've only signed 1 player over 40m - Diaby. Then there's a couple 30m defenders. For Tonali & Isak (talking just transfer fees) they've got - Carlos, Torres, Tielemans, Kamara, Moreno, Diaby.

TBF to them - Ashworth has a great reputation in the game. If he interviewed well, you can't blame them too much. Same is true of Ashworth and hiring Danny Murphy potentially. But if you start hiring the wrong people 2-3 times consecutively, there's a problem with your hiring process.

Aye but both Grealish and Bruno have excellent close control, quick feet, balance, agility so they invite actual fouls. Slow down, show a bit of the ball to the oppo, shift their balance and body positions - foul. They buy fouls but they also beat opponents. A player like Longstaff doesn't have any of those abilities to she falls over - straight.