Other clubs' transfers

[JigsawGoesToPieces]

Ederson from Atalanta to Man Utd for £38m

 

Bargain that

[John P]

6 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Chelsea have a wage structure though. Their reported weekly wage on players is the same as Villa. Both £2.7m a week. 

 

Rogers reported wage right now would put him amongst the highest earners at all of those clubs.

 

 

 

Yes I'm sure all of those clubs won't be offering him a pay rise then

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, John P said:

Yes I'm sure all of those clubs won't be offering him a pay rise then

 

So will Villa though? 

[500bhp]

2 minutes ago, JigsawGoesToPieces said:

Ederson from Atalanta to Man Utd for £38m

 

Bargain that

 

£4m less than Jacob Ramsey, possibly similar wages? Thank fuck we are looking abroad more this summer. 

[The Prophet]

2 minutes ago, JigsawGoesToPieces said:

Ederson from Atalanta to Man Utd for £38m

 

Bargain that

 

If he recapture his form from a season or two ago, it's a very good buy.

[John P]

9 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

So will Villa though? 

How do you know that? The point is that Villa shouldn't need to be getting/be enticed by a transfer windfall to reinvest, because for the last few years they've been better and achieved more than two of those clubs, who have repeatedly failed yet can still go and poach the best players from other teams due to an ingrained financial hierarchy that will still be there even if those teams massively underachieve 

[Optimistic Nut]

1 hour ago, Ben said:

 

PSR sale ? 

 

Anything that stops the non Sky 6 clubs being able to give them the same wages is a PSR sale. 

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, John P said:

How do you know that? The point is that Villa shouldn't need to be getting/be enticed by a transfer windfall to reinvest, because for the last few years they've been better and achieved more than two of those clubs, who have repeatedly failed yet can still go and poach the best players from other teams due to an ingrained financial hierarchy that will still be there even if those teams massively underachieve 

 

I don't know that, same way you don't know how much he'd get if he moved. I think it's safe to say though that if he decided he wanted to stay at Villa he'd get a pay increase.

 

 

If you think the only reason Morgan Rogers would want to play for Arsenal, Chelsea or Man United is because of the money then that's a weird mindset to be in. 

 

[John P]

4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I don't know that, same way you don't know how much he'd get if he moved. I think it's safe to say though that if he decided he wanted to stay at Villa he'd get a pay increase.

 

 

If you think the only reason Morgan Rogers would want to play for Arsenal, Chelsea or Man United is because of the money then that's a weird mindset to be in. 

 

If you think that the current financial regulations in place that massively restrict any team outside of the traditional big 6 from competing doesn't play a role in any of this (which is the point I'm trying to make) then that's also a weird mindset to be in

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, John P said:

If you think that the current financial regulations in place that massively restrict any team outside of the traditional big 6 from competing doesn't play a role in any of this (which is the point I'm trying to make) then that's also a weird mindset to be in

 

I don't think that. It's just got the point where any transfer from any other team in the league to one of the "big 6" is seen as scandalous and only happening because of money, which is hideously untrue.

 

Villa took a player off us on loan two seasons in a row and paid them £200,000 a week because we were struggling with a wage bill. Yet people are talking about them like they're paupers because they might sell Rogers for £80m+.

[Craig]

 

18 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I don't think that. It's just got the point where any transfer from any other team in the league to one of the "big 6" is seen as scandalous and only happening because of money, which is hideously untrue.

 

Villa took a player off us on loan two seasons in a row and paid them £200,000 a week because we were struggling with a wage bill. Yet people are talking about them like they're paupers because they might sell Rogers for £80m+.

Rodgers wouldn't be moving if Villa could match the wages of those 3 clubs and they could also match those clubs future spending on the squad around him (which they can't because of rules put in place to benefit the traditional 6). 

Has Sir Jim telling been telling you you're poor and struggling with your wage bill again so he can get rid of some more canteen staff (while spending a few 100 mil on players every summer)?

 

 

Edited May 27 by Craig

[KingArthur]

24 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I don't know that, same way you don't know how much he'd get if he moved. I think it's safe to say though that if he decided he wanted to stay at Villa he'd get a pay increase.

 

 

If you think the only reason Morgan Rogers would want to play for Arsenal, Chelsea or Man United is because of the money then that's a weird mindset to be in. 

 

If you think players, like regular workers, don't get pay rise when they are headhunted to other company/team, then that is a weird mindset.

If player moves for a big money, he will get a pay rise. That is how football works. 

[Froggy]

4 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

If you think players, like regular workers, don't get pay rise when they are headhunted to other company/team, then that is a weird mindset.

If player moves for a big money, he will get a pay rise. That is how football works. 

 

Not sure where I said he wouldn't get a pay rise. Well aware of how it all works.

[John P]

24 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I don't think that. It's just got the point where any transfer from any other team in the league to one of the "big 6" is seen as scandalous and only happening because of money, which is hideously untrue.

 

Villa took a player off us on loan two seasons in a row and paid them £200,000 a week because we were struggling with a wage bill. Yet people are talking about them like they're paupers because they might sell Rogers for £80m+.

Chelsea have finished 12th and 10th in the last few years. They shouldn't even be in with a sniff of signing the best player from a team that's been in the CL in 2 of the last 3 years. Yet, because of how the rules are, they probably will be back competing for the top 4/5 again soon, despite being run terribly by a bunch of jokers. The financial rules give them a get out every time, so yes, it is happening because of money, just not always because of the wage that can be offered to an individual player at a certain point in time 

[KaKa]

13 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

Rodgers wouldn't be moving if Villa could match the wages of those 3 clubs and they could also match those clubs future spending on the squad around him (which they can't because of rules put in place to benefit the traditional 6). 

Has Sir Jim telling been telling you you're poor and struggling with your wage bill again so he can get rid of some more canteen staff (while spending a few 100 mil on players every summer)?

 

 

 

 

No, my friend ... they are moving for the big club "aura".

 

That's why Man City were able to sign all the talent they did after their takeover and none of these "aura" big clubs could just go and take them off Man City. Because we all know Man City always had the ultimate "aura"!

 

 

Edited May 27 by KaKa

[Froggy]

7 minutes ago, Craig said:

Rodgers wouldn't be moving if Villa could match the wages of those 3 clubs and they could also match those clubs future spending on the squad around him (which they can't because of rules put in place to benefit the traditional 6). 

Has Sir Jim telling been telling you you're poor and struggling with your wage bill again so he can get rid of some more canteen staff (while spending a few 100 mil on players every summer)?

 

Pretty much debunked this already by showing Villa pay the same wages as Chelsea.

 

We were struggling with a wage bill long before Sir Jim. We were paying over £4m a week in wages a few seasons ago, and that's about to drop below £3m for the first time in a long time. 

 

And yes, we're a footballing business. The football team is always going to be first priority.

[Viana]

57 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

So will Villa though? 

I think you've seen with ourselves and Villa that we're operating in a different financial cycle to say someone like Man Utd. 

 

No one is looking at Man Utd asking which big player they'll sell to balance the books. In essence, you've created a financial bubble that allows you to sign a few duds knowing that you can take the hit. Sancho and Antony costing circa £160m and only returning £20m 4-5 years later is a great example of that.

 

We were forced to sell Isak, but then when it came to reinvesting we were competing with yourselves, who spent touching £250m on Cunha, Mbeumo, and Sesko. Chelsea nabbed Joao Pedro and Liam Delap ahead of us. Players would rather be second choice at Chelsea or Man Utd than first choice at Newcastle. That tells you the system is broken somewhere. 

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, John P said:

Chelsea have finished 12th and 10th in the last few years. They shouldn't even be in with a sniff of signing the best player from a team that's been in the CL in 2 of the last 3 years. Yet, because of how the rules are, they probably will be back competing for the top 4/5 again soon, despite being run terribly by a bunch of jokers. The financial rules give them a get out every time, so yes, it is happening because of money, just not always because of the wage that can be offered to an individual player at a certain point in time 

 

Chelsea:

25/26: Finished 10th. Final of FA Cup. Played in CL (huge revenue)

24/25: Finished 4th. Won Conference League. Won Club World Cup

23/24: Finished 6th. Final of League Cup

22/23: Finished 12th. Played in CL

21/22: Finished 3rd. Won Super Cup. Won Club World Cup. Final of FA Cup. Final of League Cup. Played in CL

20/21: Finished 4th. Won Champions League. Final of FA Cup.

 

Aye, they shouldn't be able to sign players from Aston Villa.  

 

Come on man. 

[Kimbo]

Rogers would want to move to Chelsea because Chelsea have a better chance of competing at the top than Aston Villa. Villa’s chances of competing at the top are restricted by the financial rules. Without these rules, their owners would be investing more and players would find Villa more attractive.

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Viana said:

I think you've seen with ourselves and Villa that we're operating in a different financial cycle to say someone like Man Utd. 

 

No one is looking at Man Utd asking which big player they'll sell to balance the books. In essence, you've created a financial bubble that allows you to sign a few duds knowing that you can take the hit. Sancho and Antony costing circa £160m and only returning £20m 4-5 years later is a great example of that.

 

We were forced to sell Isak, but then when it came to reinvesting we were competing with yourselves, who spent touching £250m on Cunha, Mbeumo, and Sesko. Chelsea nabbed Joao Pedro and Liam Delap ahead of us. Players would rather be second choice at Chelsea or Man Utd than first choice at Newcastle. That tells you the system is broken somewhere. 

 

I disagree with a lot of this. 

 

We were desperate to sell "big players" like Rashford, Hojlund, Antony, Sancho etc. to balance the books. Because of the stupid contracts given out by the previous board we struggled to do so. People talk about Newcastle having to sell Anderson for PSR reasons etc. We sold homegrown talents like McTominay. Garnacho, Pellistri, Kambwala, Henderson for the exact same reason and were floating the idea of even selling Mainoo because of the PSR implications.

 

You also weren't forced to sell Isak. You simply sold Isak because he didn't want to play for you anymore and it would be stupid to keep him with such a huge offer on the table. The reports I read suggested you'd be more than happy to give him a record contract at Newcastle, but he wanted to leave so this never happened. It was nothing to do with PSR.

 

I don't think players moving to Chelsea or Man United where they won't be a guaranteed starter suggests the system is broken. Players will back themselves to break into teams, and the vast majority would rather player for teams like Chelsea or Man United over the likes of Aston Villa or Newcastle. 

 

We did spend £250m, and you spent £260. Hardly different financial cycles. You're bemoaning being left with Woltemade over Sesko now, but you were all gloating about how you got the better player in the first couple of months of the season where you had all written Sesko off. Now that it's obvious Sesko is far better, it's back to the argument that you were left with scraps.

 

PSR and the "cartel" didn't make you spend £110m on Elanga and Wissa lads. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

17 minutes ago, Kimbo said:

Rogers would want to move to Chelsea because Chelsea have a better chance of competing at the top than Aston Villa. Villa’s chances of competing at the top are restricted by the financial rules. Without these rules, their owners would be investing more and players would find Villa more attractive.

 

You would think Rogers would want a more stable and reliable option than Chelsea though. Although money obviously talks, Chelsea are a mess. 

[Kimbo]

7 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I disagree with a lot of this. 

 

We were desperate to sell "big players" like Rashford, Hojlund, Antony, Sancho etc. to balance the books. Because of the stupid contracts given out by the previous board we struggled to do so. People talk about Newcastle having to sell Anderson for PSR reasons etc. We sold homegrown talents like McTominay. Garnacho, Pellistri, Kambwala, Henderson for the exact same reason and were floating the idea of even selling Mainoo because of the PSR implications.

 

You also weren't forced to sell Isak. You simply sold Isak because he didn't want to play for you anymore and it would be stupid to keep him with such a huge offer on the table. The reports I read suggested you'd be more than happy to give him a record contract at Newcastle, but he wanted to leave so this never happened. It was nothing to do with PSR.

 

I don't think players moving to Chelsea or Man United where they won't be a guaranteed starter suggests the system is broken. Players will back themselves to break into teams, and the vast majority would rather player for teams like Chelsea or Man United over the likes of Aston Villa or Newcastle. 

 

We did spend £250m, and you spent £260. Hardly different financial cycles. You're bemoaning being left with Woltemade over Sesko now, but you were all gloating about how you got the better player in the first couple of months of the season where you had all written Sesko off. Now that it's obvious Sesko is far better, it's back to the argument that you were left with scraps.

 

PSR and the "cartel" didn't make you spend £110m on Elanga and Wissa lads. 

You’re failing to understand the dynamic that the financial rules have created. I’m not sure if you’re doing it on purpose.

[Viana]

7 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I disagree with a lot of this. 

 

We were desperate to sell "big players" like Rashford, Hojlund, Antony, Sancho etc. to balance the books. Because of the stupid contracts given out by the previous board we struggled to do so. People talk about Newcastle having to sell Anderson for PSR reasons etc. We sold homegrown talents like McTominay. Garnacho, Pellistri, Kambwala, Henderson for the exact same reason and were floating the idea of even selling Mainoo because of the PSR implications.

 

You also weren't forced to sell Isak. You simply sold Isak because he didn't want to play for you anymore and it would be stupid to keep him with such a huge offer on the table. The reports I read suggested you'd be more than happy to give him a record contract at Newcastle, but he wanted to leave so this never happened. It was nothing to do with PSR.

 

I don't think players moving to Chelsea or Man United where they won't be a guaranteed starter suggests the system is broken. Players will back themselves to break into teams, and the vast majority would rather player for teams like Chelsea or Man United over the likes of Aston Villa or Newcastle. 

 

We did spend £250m, and you spent £260. Hardly different financial cycles. You're bemoaning being left with Woltemade over Sesko now, but you were all gloating about how you got the better player in the first couple of months of the season where you had all written Sesko off. Now that it's obvious Sesko is far better, it's back to the argument that you were left with scraps.

 

PSR and the "cartel" didn't make you spend £110m on Elanga and Wissa lads. 

A lot to unpack here. 

 

-Being desperate to sell and not actually selling are two different things. Of that group only Hojlund has been sold to date. And even then you took a £26m loss on him. 

 

-As for comparing Anderson to the list you did, I would say only Garnacho and McTominay can be considered as having any footprint in the first team, and I don't remember an outcry when either went. Again, floating the idea of selling Mainoo and selling him are two different things. 

 

-We'd been hearing about the need to make a big sale for a year or two at least. The vultures had been circling to that end for a while with speculation about it being Bruno or Isak or someone else that had to go. This year it's Gordon. I think to simply explain it as 'they don't want to play for you anymore' is misleading. 

 

-I mean sure, but that's also the problem here, is that Mbuemo is pulling in close to 200k a week when he's playing. Sesko similar. If you're offering 160k a week to the lad who's been on the bench half the season, how do we compete with that? That's what I think you're missing here, it's nothing to do with the transfer fee sum total, it's everything to do with the players that are ring fenced off to those of us trying to break through. 

 

We settled for Elanga and Wissa because the others weren't available. When Chelsea and Man City had their sharp rise they were allowed to financially compete with the establishment. We're forced to play some janky game whereby we try to hit every note in succession to 'build a club' meanwhile knowing the players we identify are out of reach, and our best players are subject to bids from the same teams we're competing against. 

 

Don't forget Man City went out and bought Sterling from Liverpool. There's no way an up and comer like ourselves is doing that to say Liverpool or yourselves. 

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Viana said:

-Being desperate to sell and not actually selling are two different things. Of that group only Hojlund has been sold to date. And even then you took a £26m loss on him. 

 

Hojlund is a PSR profit.

 

3 minutes ago, Viana said:

-As for comparing Anderson to the list you did, I would say only Garnacho and McTominay can be considered as having any footprint in the first team, and I don't remember an outcry when either went. Again, floating the idea of selling Mainoo and selling him are two different things. 

 

Garnacho and McTominay were far more involved in our first team setup than Anderson or Minteh for example were to yours. There was no outcry when Garnacho was sold because he was a ballbag. McTominay is a limited footballer and the money was good, but it was a PSR sale at the end of the day. People make out like we don't have to do that. We absolutely do. 

 

5 minutes ago, Viana said:

-I mean sure, but that's also the problem here, is that Mbuemo is pulling in close to 200k a week when he's playing. Sesko similar. If you're offering 160k a week to the lad who's been on the bench half the season, how do we compete with that? That's what I think you're missing here, it's nothing to do with the transfer fee sum total, it's everything to do with the players that are ring fenced off to those of us trying to break through. 

 

OK so. Mbeumo's reported wage is £150,000 a week. This is why I get my back up a lot about this sort of stuff. People inflate our wages for no reason but to make it appear worse than what it is.

 

Pretty clear Sesko is young and an investment. Carrick started Mbeumo up top in his first game against City to help the press and we played so well in that game and the ones that followed that he couldn't really change the team. Sesko did work his way back in though. Even at that he's started 17 out of his 31 games, and a number of bench appearances were either right after he signed, or right after injury.

 

The main bit I'd like to address here though is how we're paying him £160,000 a week and because he's spent half the time on the bench you can't compete with that. Sesko started 54% of his games. 

 

Wissa, £50-55m, £140k a week - 19 appearances, 15 as a sub - started 21% of his games

Elanga, £50-55m, £100k a week - 32 appearances, 18 as a sub - started 43% of his games

Woltemade, £65-70m, £132k a week - 33 appearances, 9 as a sub - started 72% of his games

Ramsey - £39-£43m, £120k a week - 28 appearances, 13 as a sub - started 53% of his games

 

They're all big money signings on big wages and they've collectively started 47% of their games. Not sure what it is you can't compete with to be honest.

 

13 minutes ago, Viana said:

We settled for Elanga and Wissa because the others weren't available. When Chelsea and Man City had their sharp rise they were allowed to financially compete with the establishment. We're forced to play some janky game whereby we try to hit every note in succession to 'build a club' meanwhile knowing the players we identify are out of reach, and our best players are subject to bids from the same teams we're competing against. 

 

Don't forget Man City went out and bought Sterling from Liverpool. There's no way an up and comer like ourselves is doing that to say Liverpool or yourselves.

 

Howe wanted Elanga for years. I can't buy this that he wasn't first choice. He absolutely was first choice. He has been a bad signing, and joined the team with a bunch of other bad signings. They're not write offs, but they were rubbish this season.

 

Sterling also joined City years after they had established themselves. They didn't start with players like Sterling or Aguero. They started with players like Jo and Craig Bellamy. Robinho thought he was joining Chelsea, and he left to go to AC Milan a year or two later anyway.

 

I'd argue the players you were able to sign initially under Howe were of a higher quality than those City initially signed. Even City greats like Kompany, Silva, Zabaleta etc. weren't signed from big clubs. They were signed from teams like Hamburger and Espanyol who were midtable Spanish and German sides and a lot of them were very modest fees.

 

Are you telling me Newcastle couldn't go into Spain and Germany and have their pick of players from Stuttgart or Rayo Vallecano? Of course they could.

 

They simply signed better than you and as hard as it is to maybe admit, Mancini was probably a better coach than Howe.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Long story short, you cannot put every single signing or every single negative situation down to money. 

[Froggy]

Also @Viana I genuinely appreciate the measured responses despite the difference of opinion. It's refreshing.