Other clubs' transfers

[nufc123]

10 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Not sure how good he is, but at that fee worth the gamble.

[Donut]

Villa are strengthening and getting numbers in for their squad ahead of a season with many games. Seems sensible enough. That being said I much preferred them when they were struggling with Stevie g I must say. 

[St1pe]

Barkley for that price is such a good deal. It’s so low risk. 

[Shearergol]

35 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The bad thing about Villa’s approach is a lot of their business is heavily linked to FFP.  

 

Which is really strange, given how well they've planned for it, eh.

[The College Dropout]

19 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

What are you suggesting as an alternative?

To have an actionable plan from Jan/Feb 2024.  Selling Minteh couldn’t have been the plan in Jan/Feb.  I think Ashworths plan was to sell Joelinton and I wouldn’t have been mad at that. 
 

Yeh in June we had no other alternatives.  
 

I didn’t even think we had PSR issues when Villa sold Luiz. They were no strongly rumoured sales. We rushed it at the end.  
 

Anywys - new leadership team won’t let that happen again. 

[Dr.Spaceman]

But what are we going to whinge about if we're constantly smashing PSR in the nuts and signing players left, right and centre?

[Dr.Spaceman]

[gdm]

5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

To have an actionable plan from Jan/Feb 2024.  Selling Minteh couldn’t have been the plan in Jan/Feb.  I think Ashworths plan was to sell Joelinton and I wouldn’t have been mad at that. 
 

Yeh in June we had no other alternatives.  
 

I didn’t even think we had PSR issues when Villa sold Luiz. They were no strongly rumoured sales. We rushed it at the end.  
 

Anywys - new leadership team won’t let that happen again. 

so you think a better idea would have been to sell Joelinton? 

[Sibierski]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

Aston Villa deal with PSR way smarter than we do.  

 

They've had to sell and make some questionable deals, so not quite.

 

Giving how they're one of the clubs that are vocal for having this removed, they are rolling the dice. Brave, but a poor season this year, and it can look very stupid next summer.

[Dan Gleebals]

Not sure on their net spend, but nothing on that Villa list really excites me for that amount of outlay.  They are certainly not messing about. 

Cannot really see how that lot massively improves them considering who has gone. 

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

Which is really strange, given how well they've planned for it, eh.

Not really. Because these transfers help them out with PSR going forward. They’ve bought young players with high reputations they can continue to trade in future transfer windows. As someone Said, low risk high ceiling. 
 

Philogene could have a bad season and be sold for a gross profit next season. 
 

The drawback is they might be prioritising that over the exact profiles they need. I don’t think they needed Maatsen for example.  But as a FFP favour he improves the first team, high ceiling, could sell him for good money going forward.  
 

Our FFP favour signing doesnt improve the first team, is unlikely to play, and we’ll not get good money for him.  It looks like we couldn’t agree a deal for any of their players we wouldn’t actually want (Elanga rumours) so we took someone on low wages for a fee that would make us and Forest FFP compliant. 

[Ginola]

We should've just sold players nobody wanted for a price they weren't willing to pay and we'd be in a better position 

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, gdm said:

so you think a better idea would have been to sell Joelinton? 

Yes. 
 

He was at the peak of his value.  I’m a big fan but I don’t think he’s irreplaceable. It looks like we were lining up a potential replacement in Ederson. 
 

Now he’s going to be hard to shift due to his age, salary and ability (in Europe anyway).  

[Sibierski]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Not really. Because these transfers help them out with PSR going forward. They’ve bought young players with high reputations they can continue to trade in future transfer windows. As someone Said, low risk high ceiling. 
 

Philogene could have a bad season and be sold for a gross profit next season. 
 

The drawback is they might be prioritising that over the exact profiles they need. I don’t think they needed Maatsen for example.  But as a FFP favour he improves the first team, high ceiling, could sell him for good money going forward.  
 

Our FFP favour signing doesnt improve the first team, is unlikely to play, and we’ll not get good money for him.  It looks like we couldn’t agree a deal for any of their players we wouldn’t actually want (Elanga rumours) so we took someone on low wages for a fee that would make us and Forest FFP compliant. 

 

Swings about. They signed Coutinho, Carlos, Dedoncker, Moreno for £70m in 2022/23, and probably get scratch money back for them. Being fortunate that the Saudis have giving them their money back for Diaby isn't part of some long term plan, just enables them to then spend more elsewhere which may or may not help them.

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

 

They've had to sell and make some questionable deals, so not quite.

 

Giving how they're one of the clubs that are vocal for having this removed, they are rolling the dice. Brave, but a poor season this year, and it can look very stupid next summer.

The HG players they’ve sold - seem to all have buy back options. 
 

The shady deals they’ve brought in are for young players with high ceilings. 
 

They could sell all of them next summer and at least break even PSR accounting wise. 
 

Luiz they got a bad fee. But they got a great fee for Diaby. 
 

Only questionable one is the Onana fee and I don’t think they’ve brought in a passer for midfield.  Maatsen fee a tad high too. 

[joeyt]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Not really. Because these transfers help them out with PSR going forward. They’ve bought young players with high reputations they can continue to trade in future transfer windows. As someone Said, low risk high ceiling. 
 

Philogene could have a bad season and be sold for a gross profit next season. 
 

The drawback is they might be prioritising that over the exact profiles they need. I don’t think they needed Maatsen for example.  But as a FFP favour he improves the first team, high ceiling, could sell him for good money going forward.  
 

Our FFP favour signing doesnt improve the first team, is unlikely to play, and we’ll not get good money for him.  It looks like we couldn’t agree a deal for any of their players we wouldn’t actually want (Elanga rumours) so we took someone on low wages for a fee that would make us and Forest FFP compliant. 

 

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 

[joeyt]

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

[Unbelievable]

49 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Bugger, kind of signing we should have been doing for RCB

[The College Dropout]

6 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

 

Swings about. They signed Coutinho, Carlos, Dedoncker, Moreno for £70m in 2022/23, and probably get scratch money back for them. Being fortunate that the Saudis have giving them their money back for Diaby isn't part of some long term plan, just enables them to then spend more elsewhere which may or may not help them.

Agree about their previous spending.  I was critical of it then but I didn’t realise they had buybacks for their young players. 
 

They’ve seemingly stopped signing players 28+ for FFP reasons. 
 

Agree fortunate on the Diaby money. Unfortunate on the Luiz deal.  But Saudi wanted Diaby last year too. And if not Saudi - they would’ve still received decent money for him. 
 

They knew they needed to do shady deals so secured some bright young talent from Chelsea. 

[The College Dropout]

7 minutes 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

We ended up being desperate. Why did we end up in a desperate situation? When did we realise nobody would want Almiron and Longstaff??? 

 

for the last time - we didn’t even get the best fee. We secured no sell on or buyback. 
 

And that ended up being the best outcome. By far.  And not one we knew we could leverage when we should’ve been planning our escape route. 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2024 by The College Dropout

[rebelrouser]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Why did we end up in a desperate situation?

Because we didn't want to sell last summer with the Champions League in front of us?

[gdm]

16 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Yes. 
 

He was at the peak of his value.  I’m a big fan but I don’t think he’s irreplaceable. It looks like we were lining up a potential replacement in Ederson. 
 

Now he’s going to be hard to shift due to his age, salary and ability (in Europe anyway).  

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  

[joeyt]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We ended up being desperate. Why did we end up in a desperate situation? When did we realise nobody would want Almiron and Longstaff??? 

 

for the last time - we didn’t even get the best fee. We secured no sell on or buyback. 
 

And that ended up being the best outcome. By far.  And not one we knew we could leverage when we should’ve been planning our escape route. 

 

 

 

 

You don't seem to understand that we wouldn't have got as much money from Brighton or Forest had we put buy back clauses in them. 

 

There's a reason villa buy back their youngsters from Hull and Sheff Utd and not Prem teams

[Sibierski]

6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Agree about their previous spending.  I was critical of it then but I didn’t realise they had buybacks for their young players. 
 

They’ve seemingly stopped signing players 28+ for FFP reasons. 
 

Agree fortunate on the Diaby money. Unfortunate on the Luiz deal.  But Saudi wanted Diaby last year too. And if not Saudi - they would’ve still received decent money for him. 
 

They knew they needed to do shady deals so secured some bright young talent from Chelsea. 

 

Has Kellyman got a buy back clause?

 

They've also been able to make deals on players like Archer, because they have an actual academy which we haven't. We'll be years away before we can get to a level similar of producing players that are capable of playing in Championship.

 

Can argue it helped in some way to them getting UCL, but they spent money on Zaniolo and Lenglet last season, who have no future with them. As mentioned, they have both good and bad deals to show.

 

We sell Hall next summer say for £50m, are we lauded as a well run club in PSR world?

[gdm]

Just now, joeyt said:

 

You don't seem to understand that we wouldn't have got as much money from Brighton or Forest had we put buy back clauses in them. 

 

There's a reason villa buy back their youngsters from Hull and Sheff Utd and not Prem teams

Exactly this. It’s like Everton trying to put a buy back clause for Gordon there’s not a chance we’d have done that deal