Other clubs' transfers

[joeyt]

We were also in the Champions League with an unprecedented injury crisis and one of our most valuable players out with a gambling ban.

 

To get 70mil for two players who haven't done much for us turned out to be excellent deals on paper

[The College Dropout]

11 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

But you're conveniently forgetting that we're now in a much stronger position to buy players we want while still having Joelinton. The window hasn't closed yet. 

 

Joelinton is a proven Premier league player,  Minteh and Anderson aren't. Villa have signed unproven players from Juventus or their former youngsters. 

 

I imagine the plan was to sell Almiron and Wilson but no ones biting 

The fact we did all our deals for 1st July makes me think we needed that money to be compliant. Not that it gives us tremendous headroom for new transfers.  
 

And the rumours seem to suggest we aren’t looking at the top of our wish lists either (Thiaw).  And we are still actively trying to sell a few more.  IMO it’s those transfers that will give us the real wriggle room to invest. 
 

Why did we not know Almiron had no desire to go Saudi? If not Saudi, it would be silly to expect decent money for Almiron.  I had this discussion loads last season - always maintained the European market for Almiron wouldn’t pay a good fee for him. TCD being right again. I’m sure the club knew that too.  Never getting £50m for Almiron and Wilson in Europe.  I’m sure the club knew that. 

[joeyt]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

The fact we did all our deals for 1st July makes me think we needed that money to be compliant. 

 

You reckon? I thought we just did it for the hell of it

[The College Dropout]

6 minutes ago, gdm said:

But that’s just your opinion. I’d say you are in the minority. So can you see if we sold Joelinton and kept minteh you would be happy yet many would criticise the club for selling a first team player  

To add - I also think the plan was to buy the Atalanta Ederson.  From what I could tell - a similar profile. Younger. 
 

And at least it’s a coherent plan with forethought. That’s what I’m commending Villa for. Having a plan to reconcile their spending spree for FFP that they could execute comfortably. 

 

I can accept our plan A was selling Bruno - and I hate that. I love Bruno. Think he’s hard to replace. I hate that plan.  But it’s clear and coherent. We didn’t have a plan B, so Minteh saved the day by doing so well at Feyenoord and we did the SHADIEST FFP deals out of all the clubs. Because we had no other decent plans. That’s poor leadership and management. 
 

I think Ashworth would’ve prevented it becoming so desperate. And so would Mitchell if he was in place and Staveley and co. Weren’t. PIF recognise that wasn’t a good way to handle it. 

[Froggy]

10 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

TCD being right again.

 

@KaKa he's at you son. 

[Nine]

There’s a whole lot of assumption going on in here at the moment  

 

We need a solid link, half of you lot will be crawling up the walls soon 

[gdm]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

To add - I also think the plan was to buy the Atalanta Ederson.  From what I could tell - a similar profile. Younger. 
 

And at least it’s a coherent plan with forethought. That’s what I’m commending Villa for. Having a plan to reconcile their spending spree for FFP that they could execute comfortably. 

 

I can accept our plan A was selling Bruno - and I hate that. I love Bruno. Think he’s hard to replace. I hate that plan.  But it’s clear and coherent. We didn’t have a plan B, so Minteh saved the day by doing so well at Feyenoord and we did the SHADIEST FFP deals out of all the clubs. Because we had no other decent plans. That’s poor leadership and management. 
 

I think Ashworth would’ve prevented it becoming so desperate. And so would Mitchell if he was in place and Staveley and co. Weren’t. PIF recognise that wasn’t a good way to handle it. 

That’s a hell of a lot of guesswork. 

[joeyt]

I'm not sure how we were the shadiest club when Villa,  Everton and Chelsea were all in cohoots overinflating fees for their random youngsters?

 

How do we know the club didn't plan for Minteh to play a season for a champions league club and then sell him for a profit?

[LionOfGosforth]

Shady howeh man. Chelsea just sold physical buildings and their own women's team to themselves and you're saying our FFP deals were the shadiest? You make a few good points and the rest is just hypothesis, guesswork and hyperbole.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2024 by LionOfGosforth

[The Prophet]

27 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The fact we did all our deals for 1st July makes me think we needed that money to be compliant. Not that it gives us tremendous headroom for new transfers.  
 

And the rumours seem to suggest we aren’t looking at the top of our wish lists either (Thiaw).  And we are still actively trying to sell a few more.  IMO it’s those transfers that will give us the real wriggle room to invest. 
 

Why did we not know Almiron had no desire to go Saudi? If not Saudi, it would be silly to expect decent money for Almiron.  I had this discussion loads last season - always maintained the European market for Almiron wouldn’t pay a good fee for him. TCD being right again. I’m sure the club knew that too.  Never getting £50m for Almiron and Wilson in Europe.  I’m sure the club knew that. 

 

17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

To add - I also think the plan was to buy the Atalanta Ederson.  From what I could tell - a similar profile. Younger. 
 

And at least it’s a coherent plan with forethought. That’s what I’m commending Villa for. Having a plan to reconcile their spending spree for FFP that they could execute comfortably. 

 

I can accept our plan A was selling Bruno - and I hate that. I love Bruno. Think he’s hard to replace. I hate that plan.  But it’s clear and coherent. We didn’t have a plan B, so Minteh saved the day by doing so well at Feyenoord and we did the SHADIEST FFP deals out of all the clubs. Because we had no other decent plans. That’s poor leadership and management. 
 

I think Ashworth would’ve prevented it becoming so desperate. And so would Mitchell if he was in place and Staveley and co. Weren’t. PIF recognise that wasn’t a good way to handle it. 

 

Are you ITK TCD?

 

We haven't had a good forum ITK in a while.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2024 by The Prophet

[Fak]

Surely selling Minteh/Ashworth/Anderson/other(s) were plan A, selling Bruno, Joelinton, Isak etc. was plan F.

[gdm]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

 

Are you ITK TCD?

 

We haven't had a good forum ITK in a while.

 

 

 

Really is a ludicrous amount of assumption & guesswork passed off as fact. Impossible to form a solid opinion when even half of that might not be true

[The College Dropout]

21 minutes ago, LionOfGosforth said:

Shady howeh man. Chelsea just sold physical buildings and their own women's team to themselves and you're saying our FFP deals were the shadiest? You make a few good points and the rest is just hypothesis, guesswork and hyperbole.

 

 

 

Aye right tbf Chelsea are the shadiest. Forgot about their hotel shit.

[The College Dropout]

Having the release clause expire in June I think is a clear strategy by the club to ensure that if he is sold - he helps the current seasons FFP. He continued his fantastic form. I think that was a sensible route to before ffp issues, get spending money and act like we didn’t want to sell him. That all makes sense - no?

 

16 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

 

Are you ITK TCD?

 

We haven't had a good forum ITK in a while.

 

 

 

You see a took a fact - which led to an idea based on that fact. Clearly examples by using the words ‘the fact.. leads me to think’. It’s an idea that could be wrong but one based on what we do know. Not presented as fact. But a logical thought.  
 

Where there’s rumour - I’ve said so. Again could be wrong. 

31 minutes ago, joeyt said:

I'm not sure how we were the shadiest club when Villa,  Everton and Chelsea were all in cohoots overinflating fees for their random youngsters?

 

How do we know the club didn't plan for Minteh to play a season for a champions league club and then sell him for a profit?

I can’t believe we would pin our FFP strategy in August of the same FFP financial year on a 19 year old from Odensse quadrupling his value that season so we could sell him by July. 
 

I shouldn’t have to say this…….. that’s not good planning. 
 

Those responsible for that plan aren’t here anymore anyway. So we move.  

[KaKa]

47 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

And the rumours seem to suggest we aren’t looking at the top of our wish lists either (Thiaw). 

 

Seems they rate Thiaw really highly tbh. We looked at him last year and have returned again.

 

And as usual are taking advantage of a down year due to being out of the team after an injury early in the season.

 

 

[Joe1984]

18 hours ago, Pata said:

 

Villa already did that with Philogene. Instead of loaning out your youngsters you sell them and have a buyback clause to get them back.

 

It can't keep going like this, these swap deals are also getting ridiculous but such an easy way to get past the regulations.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, joeyt said:

Can't help but feel you're playing Football Manager in your head here TCD

 

We're not in a position to put buy back clauses to teams like Brighton for our players

Are Villa playing Football Manager? 😄

 

We absolutely can and should be putting buy back clauses into young players we rate, if we are forced to sell them for FFP reasons.

 

Although ideally we won't be in that position again...

[kingxlnc]

Bournemouth are very well run and have a good eye - they bought Kerkez and Zabarniya and now Hujisen - all of these would have been good for us. 

[joeyt]

1 minute ago, Joe1984 said:

 

Are Villa playing Football Manager? 😄

 

We absolutely can and should be putting buy back clauses into young players we rate, if we are forced to sell them for FFP reasons.

 

Although ideally we won't be in that position again...

 

But why would Brighton agree to a buy back clause?  What do they have to gain from it? They nearly always get amazing value for their players

 

 No one was going to give us £35mil and be happy with a buy back clause unless it was a huge number £80/90mil

 

[joeyt]

Again, Villa selling their youngsters to Hull and Sheff Utd is not the same as us selling to Brighton

[Joe1984]

1 minute ago, joeyt said:

 

But why would Brighton agree to a buy back clause?  What do they have to gain from it? They nearly always get amazing value for their players

 

 No one was going to give us £35mil and be happy with a buy back clause unless it was a huge number £80/90mil

 

Well the idea is to sell to a club stupid enough to agree to such a clause.

 

The problem would be finding one like you said.

[brummie]

The reason we are managing to live within the fiscal controls is because we've employed people behind the scenes who absolutely know exactly what they are doing.

 

Monchi is one of the best in Europe at this. Not infallible, nobody is, but they have put a triangle of Emery, Monchi and Vidagany to work together as the football brains of the club - they're very tight knit, both with each other and also with Sawiris, the most involved of our two owners.

 

Under Lerner or - shudder - Tony Xia, we'd have walked straight off a cliff with PSR rules, they were clueless, but this lot absolutely know what they are doing.

 

re buying back young players, we've only actually done that with Philogene. With Cameron Archer, that article in the Telegraph is wrong, we sold him but with a clause they pay 9m up front, but if they get relegated they sent him back gratis and didn't have to pay the rest. We then negotiated his salary with his agent should he come back to us, which is what has happened - all set up to cover every eventuality. So we've trousered 9m for a one season loan. But it wasn't us triggering the move, it was all in his contract and automatic if they went down.

 

People go on about our spending but usually overlook things like us raising lots of money on homegrown players. 100m Grealish, 20m Chukwemeka, 19m Kellyman, 14m Aaron Ramsey, 9m Iroegbunam in the last few years. Grealish was a big hole to fill, yes, but Iroegbunam and Kellyman was almost 30m for two players who had played a couple of hours first team football between them.

 

We've also done a deal to move Luiz on (prob the least impactful of all the valuable players if we had to sell one of them) for a decent chunk of money PLUS two players in positions where we could do with options.

 

We've just sold Diaby (inconsistent all season) and probably Duran too. Those three players will fetch close to 110 million (plus Iling Jr and Barrenechea coming to us) in total. Again, Duran a player who is clearly a nutter, but a 25m profit in 12 months.

 

Annoys me reading amateur accountants on twitter going on about us risklng breaking the rules when all they've done is point at Onana and say "how come they can afford him?" - because we also sell a lot of players too.

 

We've understood that no matter how much money you have, there are rules to live within, and you have to horse trade to get the best you can for the squad within the existing rules.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2024 by brummie

[The Prophet]

 

[tarie4]

29 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Having the release clause expire in June I think is a clear strategy by the club to ensure that if he is sold - he helps the current seasons FFP. He continued his fantastic form. I think that was a sensible route to before ffp issues, get spending money and act like we didn’t want to sell him. That all makes sense - no?

 

You see a took a fact - which led to an idea based on that fact. Clearly examples by using the words ‘the fact.. leads me to think’. It’s an idea that could be wrong but one based on what we do know. Not presented as fact. But a logical thought.  
 

Where there’s rumour - I’ve said so. Again could be wrong. 

I can’t believe we would pin our FFP strategy in August of the same FFP financial year on a 19 year old from Odensse quadrupling his value that season so we could sell him by July. 
 

I shouldn’t have to say this…….. that’s not good planning. 
 

Those responsible for that plan aren’t here anymore anyway. So we move.  

If we are to base our discussion on assumptions or opinions, I would like to suggest that once the club came to the understanding that they could potentially secure a reasonable transfer fee for a 19-year-old player, they may have concluded that it would be more cost-effective to offer a new contract to the experienced player, Joe, rather than selling him for PSR reasons and subsequently acquiring Ederson. In my opinion, it was crucial for the club to retain all of its highly valued players. Sometimes, it is necessary to exercise patience in order to achieve the most favorable outcome, and I believe that, under the circumstances, we were able to secure the best possible deal.

[healthyaddiction]

19 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Why capitlise "sign"? Surely if anything you'd emphasise "both" in that sentence?

[The College Dropout]

That’s a view. 
 

 

At the time it was being reported that Ashworth wanted to keep the sale option open. Joelinton had 15 months left - Ashworth was definitely considering the sale.  
 

As soon as he was on gardening leave -  Eddie Staveley and co. moved to secure Joelinton.  That’s what was reported at the time. 
 

I think Ashworth wanted multiple cards in his deck for FFP. Staveley, Eddie and co. were less concerned. 
 

And that’s the best case scenario imo. Because we can blame the Ashworth BS and the other leadership people have left and it wasn’t their jobs or skill set to make us FFP compliant.