Jump to content

Other clubs' transfers


Greg

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Interpolic said:

If it happens then it'll be interesting seeing how him and Foden fit together in the same side, and whether that could work for England. Even bigger implications for England if Kane goes there too. 

Can't be a bad thing for England that's for sure. Shades of Spain when they were basically Barcelona - Messi + a couple of Madrid players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LiquidAK said:

Can't be a bad thing for England that's for sure. Shades of Spain when they were basically Barcelona - Messi + a couple of Madrid players.

 

Apart from it's far more likely the Man City starting XI gets filled up with FOREIGNERS and Man City's English youth languish on the bench. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, toon25 said:

Have to say, I think £100 million for Grealish is a great price for Villa.

 

They'll do just as well without him if it's spent on 3-4 good replacements.

 

It's a good price in the sense that I don't think they'd get any other club to stump up that sort of cash if they were wanting to sell. 

 

But I don't think they need the money, and could probably easily afford to splash out on a few players alongside him to help make a push for a European spot. To Villa I reckon he's worth more than 100m in the kitty. 

 

Only thing that makes sense is he wants away or there was some sort of agreement in place to allow him to leave if City came in for him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A hundred million though, for only one 'asset' and for a club that was absolutely on its knees two or three years ago? I hate talking in purely business terms when it comes to football and particularly when it comes to the movements of players, but it's a truly incredible amount of money for one player; even in today's market we're looking at - what - the third most expensive player of all time? 

 

I think it's very depressing that we have a system that affords one club the might and power to literally just get whatever they want whenever they want, in spite of all the ills they're guilty of - but that sort of investment is surely too good to turn down? I fail to see how anyone doesn't 'need' a hundred million quid tbh; it's riches beyond the wildest dreams of only a tiny amount of clubs. Think of who that money is going to benefit; it won't just be Villa, it'll be the clubs from whom Villa purchase his replacement(s), not to mention all the non-playing areas which could use that investment (arguably even the non-footballing areas, depending on how integrated the club is in its community). 

 

I'm all for clubs refusing to be held to ransom, and if he ends up staying put I'd find that admirable on behalf of both the club and the player too. It would stick a finger up to the elite and demonstrate incredible ambition and loyalty. But it's more than a fair offer, and if we're gonna have people in the game throwing money around like that without any regulation, we might as well try and maximise their extravagance for the greater good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

A hundred million though, for only one 'asset' and for a club that was absolutely on its knees two or three years ago? I hate talking in purely business terms when it comes to football and particularly when it comes to the movements of players, but it's a truly incredible amount of money for one player; even in today's market we're looking at - what - the third most expensive player of all time? 

 

I think it's very depressing that we have a system that affords one club the might and power to literally just get whatever they want whenever they want, in spite of all the ills they're guilty of - but that sort of investment is surely too good to turn down? I fail to see how anyone doesn't 'need' a hundred million quid tbh; it's riches beyond the wildest dreams of only a tiny amount of clubs. Think of who that money is going to benefit; it won't just be Villa, it'll be the clubs from whom Villa purchase his replacement(s), not to mention all the non-playing areas which could use that investment (arguably even the non-footballing areas, depending on how integrated the club is in its community). 

 

I'm all for clubs refusing to be held to ransom, and if he ends up staying put I'd find that admirable on behalf of both the club and the player too. It would stick a finger up to the elite and demonstrate incredible ambition and loyalty. But it's more than a fair offer, and if we're gonna have people in the game throwing money around like that without any regulation, we might as well try and maximise their extravagance for the greater good. 


Guardiola - ‘We can’t afford a new striker, the pandemic hit us hard too’ ….. 3 weeks later £100m for Grealish, no doubt £100m+ for Kane will follow. Probably a couple of £50m left backs too. 

 

Then you’ve got Arsenal spending £50m on Brighton’s 3rd best defender despite pleading poverty, sacking staff, using the furlough scheme and claiming the pandemic hit them hard.
 

Sky and Talksport will pretend the ESL coup never happened and wank themselves into oblivion with thought of Man Utd or Liverpool finishing behind Man City by only 9pts this year. While that top 6 powerhouse Arsenal will actually try to break into the top 6 this year.
 

Although now that Barca, Madrid and Juve have brought the ESL back into the spotlight it will be interesting to see how the rich 6 will try to manoeuvre a u-turn that would even make a Tory ashamed. 

 

Can easily see Masters accepting a ‘different’ format to keep them in the PL and also let them play Barca, Real, Juve and whoever else joins for millions each season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would much rather keep Jack, even if the price is £100m. Jsut because of the symbolism of it.

 

However, I concede, that's a fucking huge amount of money and could be transformative on top of what we've already spent of late.

 

One thing we saw last year was that when he was out injured, we really suffered, and I think the signings so far this close season are aimed very much at being less reliant on him. Buendia and Bailey suggest a requirement for creativity, certainly, and I think Buendia in particular looks like an incredible prospect.

 

My only comment on Grealish is that he is absolutely brilliant, and will become more brilliant, but he's prone to long injury lay offs, so perhaps spending that money a bit cleverly would spread that reliance and mitigate the potential chaos caused by a single injury.

 

Ultimately, if he goes, it will because he wants to guarantee champions league football and medals and we're just going to have to accept it. What I absolutely do know though is, the owners will have pulled out all the stops to attempt to get him to stay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, JeffJ said:


Guardiola - ‘We can’t afford a new striker, the pandemic hit us hard too’ ….. 3 weeks later £100m for Grealish, no doubt £100m+ for Kane will follow. Probably a couple of £50m left backs too. 

 

Then you’ve got Arsenal spending £50m on Brighton’s 3rd best defender despite pleading poverty, sacking staff, using the furlough scheme and claiming the pandemic hit them hard.
 

Sky and Talksport will pretend the ESL coup never happened and wank themselves into oblivion with thought of Man Utd or Liverpool finishing behind Man City by only 9pts this year. While that top 6 powerhouse Arsenal will actually try to break into the top 6 this year.
 

Although now that Barca, Madrid and Juve have brought the ESL back into the spotlight it will be interesting to see how the rich 6 will try to manoeuvre a u-turn that would even make a Tory ashamed. 

 

Can easily see Masters accepting a ‘different’ format to keep them in the PL and also let them play Barca, Real, Juve and whoever else joins for millions each season. 

But where's your sympathy for the 6.....they're so skint they can only get one nine figure signing, and have to tolerate the rest being between 30-50m. 

I'm tempted to set up a Justgiving page for them

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

A hundred million though, for only one 'asset' and for a club that was absolutely on its knees two or three years ago? I hate talking in purely business terms when it comes to football and particularly when it comes to the movements of players, but it's a truly incredible amount of money for one player; even in today's market we're looking at - what - the third most expensive player of all time? 

 

I think it's very depressing that we have a system that affords one club the might and power to literally just get whatever they want whenever they want, in spite of all the ills they're guilty of - but that sort of investment is surely too good to turn down? I fail to see how anyone doesn't 'need' a hundred million quid tbh; it's riches beyond the wildest dreams of only a tiny amount of clubs. Think of who that money is going to benefit; it won't just be Villa, it'll be the clubs from whom Villa purchase his replacement(s), not to mention all the non-playing areas which could use that investment (arguably even the non-footballing areas, depending on how integrated the club is in its community). 

 

I'm all for clubs refusing to be held to ransom, and if he ends up staying put I'd find that admirable on behalf of both the club and the player too. It would stick a finger up to the elite and demonstrate incredible ambition and loyalty. But it's more than a fair offer, and if we're gonna have people in the game throwing money around like that without any regulation, we might as well try and maximise their extravagance for the greater good. 

Absolutely.

 

And particularly considering Grealish is by no means a 'world class' player yet (in the sense that he's not been able to perform on the biggest stages).

 

He's a cracking player for a mid-table side who's now one of the most expensive players of all time. Fucking mental.

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, brummie said:

I would much rather keep Jack, even if the price is £100m. Jsut because of the symbolism of it.

 

However, I concede, that's a fucking huge amount of money and could be transformative on top of what we've already spent of late.

 

One thing we saw last year was that when he was out injured, we really suffered, and I think the signings so far this close season are aimed very much at being less reliant on him. Buendia and Bailey suggest a requirement for creativity, certainly, and I think Buendia in particular looks like an incredible prospect.

 

My only comment on Grealish is that he is absolutely brilliant, and will become more brilliant, but he's prone to long injury lay offs, so perhaps spending that money a bit cleverly would spread that reliance and mitigate the potential chaos caused by a single injury.

 

Ultimately, if he goes, it will because he wants to guarantee champions league football and medals and we're just going to have to accept it. What I absolutely do know though is, the owners will have pulled out all the stops to attempt to get him to stay.

 

I think it's a reasonable position to be in. You either keep your man and everyone feels justifiably romantic and optimistic; or he goes - without animosity - to a team whom you don't really share the same spaces with (again, I'm very aware of the perverse advocative tone around something that I still think is actually quite depressing); meanwhile you can feel assured that you'll at least attempt to make the most of the riches you'll get in exchange. It's not like you have any worries about the owner pocketing the cash or being obstructively frugal; they'll sell him because they'll have accepted that £100m in the bank is a greater asset to have, in a competitive and footballing sense, than a brilliant player who's had his head turned. 

 

I think you are going places with or without him tbh. 

 

Bastards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I think it's a reasonable position to be in. You either keep your man and everyone feels justifiably romantic and optimistic; or he goes - without animosity - to a team whom you don't really share the same spaces with (again, I'm very aware of the perverse advocative tone around something that I still think is actually quite depressing); meanwhile you can feel assured that you'll at least attempt to make the most of the riches you'll get in exchange. It's not like you have any worries about the owner pocketing the cash or being obstructively frugal; they'll sell him because they'll have accepted that £100m in the bank is a greater asset to have, in a competitive and footballing sense, than a brilliant player who's had his head turned. 

 

I think you are going places with or without him tbh. 

 

Bastards. 

Also agree here.

 

Villa will finish a few places higher in the league this year even without him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Villa a proper club signing players to improve their team before their star player is sold. Meanwhile we sold Andy Carroll and ended up with Shefki Kuqi as his replacement

 

4 years ago we were so far ahead of them too

 

 

Edited by joeyt

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brummie said:

I would much rather keep Jack, even if the price is £100m. Jsut because of the symbolism of it.

 

However, I concede, that's a fucking huge amount of money and could be transformative on top of what we've already spent of late.

 

One thing we saw last year was that when he was out injured, we really suffered, and I think the signings so far this close season are aimed very much at being less reliant on him. Buendia and Bailey suggest a requirement for creativity, certainly, and I think Buendia in particular looks like an incredible prospect.

 

My only comment on Grealish is that he is absolutely brilliant, and will become more brilliant, but he's prone to long injury lay offs, so perhaps spending that money a bit cleverly would spread that reliance and mitigate the potential chaos caused by a single injury.

 

Ultimately, if he goes, it will because he wants to guarantee champions league football and medals and we're just going to have to accept it. What I absolutely do know though is, the owners will have pulled out all the stops to attempt to get him to stay.

 

I think if these top clubs come for other clubs players then as long as you make sure you rinse them for a big fee then it's somewhat fair enough IMO.

 

£100 million spent well really should make Villa a better team than they were last year and so really this should be a way to make up ground on those teams. It's all about ensuring the money is used wisely and therein lies the problem a lot of the time. 

 

Really like what Villa are doing with their money so far this summer already though and I think it is very likely they will be better next season than they were this one past even with Grealish in the team.

 

 

Edited by KaKa

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II

Chuffed for @brummiebtw that his club is back basically, I have no ill will whatsoever towards Villa, I work around there a lot and the fans are sound and it was my first ever away game, winning 2-0 Cole and Lee. Happier days. I hope Grealish stays, but if not, 100m is a lot of money that can be used to good effect and I think it will be used to good effect with their owners and manager who has done an amazing job and is very likeable as are Villa as a club these days, for me they have always been a big club, former European Champions no less, like NUFC they should be looking towards the top 6 at least every season. 

 

 

Edited by HTT II

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, toon25 said:

I'd certainly be more worried if I was a Spurs fan selling Kane than if I were a Villa fan selling Grealish.

Villa went to complete shit when he was out last season mind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Villa went to complete shit when he was out last season mind. 

 

I think that's the thinking behind Buendia, Bailey and prob Cantwell - once Grealish was out, we had no creativity around the box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...