timeEd32

Oh good, we've hit the judging-a-transfer-by-the-player's-looks phase. Good omen I guess based on how Gordon has worked out.

This is how I feel about Miggy, but I'm not sure this is true for Trippier. He could easily be our starting RB and captain for the first game next season. It also feels like we're potentially set at fullback for next season if we keep him. Trippier, Tino, Burn, Hall (presumably), and Targett (unless we can sell him, fingers crossed) provides options and cover. But if we sell him then suddenly Tino is the starting RB, the starting LB is one of those others, and we don't have a backup RB. Whereas with Miggy we know we want to upgrade RW anyway and I'm confident it's at or near the top of the club's list. He would be a nice squad option, but there are other ways to go about that (e.g. Gordon as a backup). With Trippier it feels like we're getting less money for a more important player that may also force us to invest more into his position in the summer.

I think it depends on how we want to approach it. We could probably get 5-10 companies to be global partners, "official spirit partner," etc. at some fraction of whatever Man United gets for it. We're then locked into that for X years. If we tried to get their number most companies would laugh at us and if we did get one it would probably get challenged. We seem to be taking the opposite approach, going top down. New shirt sponsor at a top 7 level, new kit manufacturer with a big brand getting the "elite" treatment. By all accounts it sounds like the training ground / kit sponsorship might be next. I can see the logic -- I imagine it'd be hard to ask someone to give you, say, £2m per year to be some vague global partner when only triple that gets you the shirt (fun88). Also, as we're building up the infrastructure within the club there's a far better ROI to be spending time with Adidas and talking to companies about putting their name on shirts, stadiums, and training grounds. My guess is things like airline, hotel, and/or betting partners will be in the foreseeable future, but we're probably a long way from "Official Formal Wear Partner" and "Official Electrical Styling Partner."

I know everyone hates Man Utd, but they are one of the three biggest clubs in the world. Probably one of the 5 or 6 biggest sports teams globally. We're not going to match their list of sponsorships in 24 months.

I was excited about this signing until the last few pages.

Seems like the Haaland comparisons are solely down to looks. More of an attacking midfielder or wide forward? He could be a future option as a left-footer on the RW assuming we stick with a 4-3-3. Serious knee injuries that slowed his progress from age 14-16, but seems to have taken big steps forward since then.

Excellent news

There's some peripheral arguments over things like buying one Rolls Royce (Tonali) vs. 2-3 Fiats (a la Brighton's model) or investing in another LW when we really need a RW, but more than anything we're hamstrung by our previous owner (both low revenue and minimal assets with resale value) and rules that haven't evolved with inflation.

I think we may sell if they go to €18m+.

https://www.bild.de/sport/fussball/bayern-muenchen/fc-bayern-heute-trippier-entscheidung-bei-bayern-86871502.bild.html#fromWall This is the new info:

The City deal is a bad benchmark for a number of reasons: The original 10 year, £400m Eithad shirt and stadium deal from 2011 is probably the most infamous example of an obviously inflated sponsorship It was/is a huge part of charges brought against the club due to allegations it was largely funded by Mansour himself It includes not just the stadium, but the whole "Etihad Campus" so it's also a training ground sponsorship While the stadium wasn't brand new at the time it also didn't carry an historic name. City of Manchester Stadium doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Since that deal was signed to the time it theoretically expired (2020/21) they won four PL titles and became a global club, which allows them to justify it more now I say theoretically because I don't think they've actually announced a new deal / extension, but Etihad is still plastered on everything. It seems to have been done in secret with little fanfare presumably because it's tied to the aforementioned charges

I wrote this in the transfer thread last week:

That’s for the entire Spotify deal, including the shirt. The stadium portion is estimated at €5m.

In the Eddie Howe thread there’s a chorus of complaints about how we need to adapt our play, have a plan B, try new things, etc etc. In this thread there is pushback on MGW because he doesn’t fit our system. Personally I think he’d be an outstanding signing. Just ignore the fact some journalist said he was an Almiron replacement - he wouldn’t be aside from it being one body out, one body in.

I love Miggy and agree with everyone who said we'll miss him more than anyone thinks, but anywhere near £30m and he should be sent on the Crown Prince's personal aircraft.

Going to be really annoyed if we lose this. Would love an FA Cup run and the next draw could be very nice.

Another club offering £100m?

Nope, the most negative version of any event is the default position.

It does seem unlikely, except for them being in FFP bother. Our most consistent transfer strategy in the last 18 months has been to prey on the financially vulnerable.

They deserve it. Everything about their operation is second rate. Perfect bedfellows for a Mike Ashley owned club.

I think you're making a very strong assumption here that it wasn't intentional. It wasn't even a live interview - it was a piece of media released by the club in conjunction with the accounts (plus some related media interviews). I'm not sure whether it was primarily driven by the need to 1) set fan expectations; 2) increase focus/coverage on FFP; or 3) bring as many clubs to the table as possible this month. Maybe all of the above. But whatever the reason I'm quite confident it would have been planned.

That's interesting. I'd been wondering about this given the massive gulf in wealth of our various owners and the need to continue adding capital.

We obviously knew we'd be getting far less than the other English clubs. If any of our plans required us reaching the knockout round (without knowing the groups) then we're run by morons, which I don't think we are. I do think it's possible that a combination of no Europa League + our current position in the table has made it closer than we'd like.

In terms of years remaining as a player he's still pretty young. But in terms of a big transfer fee his age is very relevant. Ronaldo, Kane, and Neymar are the only players ever to go for over £75m past the age of 30. Even at 27/28 you don't have more than a handful - Griezmann, Coutinho, Lukaku, Hazard ... that might be it?

I'm not saying he doesn't know what he's doing, but I'm also skeptical of this borderline business genius type of talk around him (not just you, I've seen it many places). In the four years preceding him stepping into the lead role in Philly the Sixers were one of the worst teams in the history of the sport (largely on purpose). He starts his job and suddenly they are one of the best, in the playoffs every year with an annual MVP candidate. You'd have to be asleep at the wheel to not capitalize on that in one of America's most sports crazed cities. This was also year six of the Josh Harris led ownership group, who everyone considers to be excellent (and is now showing early signs of moving the NFL's Washington Commanders in the right direction). Fortunately for him, he may be landing at Villa at a similarly fortuitous time.