Keegans Export

I'm assuming he was going for the old non-celebration, got some stick from the away end then decided to do something else on the fly 🤷🏻‍♂️

When I saw speculation that West Ham may have been one of the teams in pre-July PSR bother I invented a scenario in my head where we buy Kudus for £45m and they buy Wilson for £15m

Depends entirely on how much they all cost though.

https://fbref.com/en/players/259fea27/James-Trafford Some relevant stats there (save %, PSxG-GA)

Well that was just throwing a number out there but let's say its £100k/week - that's +£5.2m/year which is still almost entirely covered by the drop in amortisation @Mag3.14 worked out above

That's right - if you extend the contract you also extend the period of amortisation which decreases the amortisation per year. If we gave him an extra £50k/week, that'd cost us £2.6m/year more but as your sums show we could potentially cover that (and then some) with the reduced amortisation costs. Edit - it's the remaining amortisation that is extended so if he's got (for example) £30m left over three years and we extend by another two years then the annual amortisation drops from £10m/year to £6m/year

"Wife men" say what?

Isn't the badge/crest one of those things they have to consult the fans about? There was that charter thing a while ago but I can't remember what was on it exactly. On the current crest - I like it, mostly because it's actually based on the city crest which I think is quite special and presumably quite uncommon.

That's true, if we take out the non-playing keepers and Lascelles the average age is 26.95. Even just taking the three keepers out is 27.14. If we can bring in a GK, CB and a forward all <25yo then the squad is looking pretty good age-wise.

I'm putting Mbeumo and Huijsen in the same category - quality players who are exactly what we need position/age wise but at a premium. I have no idea what our budget is but we're going to need three starters (GK, CB, RW) and at least two backups (CM, CF). Of course the RW/CF could be the same player but ideally we'd get one of each. If we can afford Mbeumo and still have room in the budget for the rest then great, but I'd rather back Mitchell and our scouting team to identify cheaper alternatives and I'd back Howe to get the absolute best out of them, rather than splash out on one big signing and still leave us short on depth.

They've earned £530m, £550m and £450m and they haven't spent crazy money (compared to the other big earners) so I'd be very surprised. Their problem is more cash on hand isn't it? Rather than falling foul of FFP

That's right, if we beat Brighton and Chelsea we'd be on 68. Chelsea could get a maximum of 67 (draw vs Liverpool, win the last two) and Villa a maximum of 67 with three wins and a draw.

Word 🤙🏻

Anytime anyone shoots rather than pass to him, regardless of whether they score or not tbf

Bring Willock off, Gordon can play a free role from #10. Bruno & Tonali should offer enough cover.

Noted

When we're talking about a "backup" or "rotational" striker, it's worth baring in mind that in our last CL season Wilson made 25 appearances and played the equivalent of 15 games. Whoever that is - Delap, DCL, someone else - they'll need to play a lot of minutes if we plan to be competitive domestically and in Europe.

Hope not Bill, that's a maternity ward! (that might be a bit niche...)

https://www.cityam.com/billionaire-gymshark-boss-ben-francis-quits-firm-he-co-owns/ Didn't someone on here suggest he was a candidate for the CEO job here? Or was it someone else at Gymshark?

🤢

Winning four on the bounce isn't easy. It doesn't really happen much at all - Villa have managed 5x but their next best run was 3x in August/September. Chelsea won 5x in Nov/Dec and their next best is also 3x in September. Villa have already drawn with Bournemouth, lost to Spurs and drawn with Man Utd this season - every chance they drop points.

We don't have to finish above Man City. Or Forest for that matter. As long as Chelsea and Villa keep dropping points it doesn't really matter what the other two do.

100% 3rd, 4th or 5th doesn't matter. What matters is having a cushion over whoever is 6th & 7th and this result means we could be 5pts ahead of Villa with four to play.

I've seen this argument made a lot over the past year or so and in my opinion it makes no sense. So we hold off on a potentially lucrative sponsorship deal in the hope that something changes to allow an even more lucrative one? Let's say we miss out on CL football next season. It'll be at least in part due to lack of squad depth and it'll cost us probably £30-40m+ (someone can probably come up with a more accurate figure). That decision to turn down a £10m/year sponsorship in the hopes of it being a £20m/year deal in the future doesn't seem so smart then does it? As far as waiting for the Man City case - if the PSR stuff gets thrown out then it won't matter what deals are signed at the time, the gloves will be off and (if the owners want to) the money will flow uninhibited.

More than that imo. We need options in the middle and a viable alternative to Isak. Look at Villa's subs today - Ramsey, Onana, Malen and Rashford - versus our own. Our starting XI in my opinion is better than any XI they could put out, but we've had to keep flogging the same 11 plus Gordon three times in a week. One additional attacker doesn't substantially change that.