João Pedro

[tarie4]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yeah, but either way we might still need a better option for a 3rd CM, unless this new system is every week. 

Yeah, but we gotta move Willock or Longstaff first. I just think getting JP means we don't desperately need a CM. A good one that costs a bit, like Ederson. Or one with a high wage.

Makes no sense.

 

JP likes to get deep and then play it upfield, I'm sure Eddie can help him fit into our system.

[The College Dropout]

18 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yeah, but either way we might still need a better option for a 3rd CM, unless this new system is every week. 

Agreed. 
 

Longstaff and Willock are dead squad spots.  We’ll change formation to avoid playing them - even if it doesn’t suit the team or opponent. 
 

Before his calf injury and the return of Kamara - Ross Barkley was getting regular minutes at Villa. At worst we need a player of that ability. Someone that would’ve started that last game of the season. Assuming we sign an AM Miley needs more minutes than that player is going to get (hopefully). Which is why a veteran is ideal. We need quality in depth. 

 

Welbeck plays for Brighton. He’s not on big wages. 

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by The College Dropout

[AyeDubbleYoo]

13 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

Yeah, but we gotta move Willock or Longstaff first. I just think getting JP means we don't desperately need a CM. A good one that costs a bit, like Ederson. Or one with a high wage.

Makes no sense.

 

JP likes to get deep and then play it upfield, I'm sure Eddie can help him fit into our system.

 

Yeah I'm assumed we sell on of them at least. Personally I would move them both out if possible, but I know we'd be talking about a lot of moves in and out. 

[tarie4]

15 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Agreed. 
 

Longstaff and Willock are dead squad spots.  We’ll change formation to avoid playing them - even if it doesn’t suit the team or opponent. 
 

Before his calf injury and the return of Kamara - Ross Barkley was getting regular minutes at Villa. At worst we need a player of that ability. Someone that would’ve started that last game of the season. Assuming we sign an AM Miley needs more minutes than that player is going to get (hopefully). Which is why a veteran is ideal. &nbsp

 

Welbeck plays for Brighton. He’s not on big wages. 

Villa want Barkley gone, by the way. I wonder who will help them there? I wonder who buys him at his wages of 3 million a year. Makes zero sense. 

 

Welbeck's at Brighton, supposedly on £60k a week. I'd rather get a high-potential player for that than a temporary fix. Doesn't make sense at this point in our project. 

Barkley and Welbeck because of their age are bad calls financially.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by tarie4

[tarie4]

11 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Yeah I'm assumed we sell on of them at least. Personally I would move them both out if possible, but I know we'd be talking about a lot of moves in and out. 

Agreed. Sell them both and get Ederson in along with JP makes sense, but if we are unable to move one or both, then another CM is a luxury we cant afford.

 

[STM]

Absolutely nowt wrong with signing an older player if the finances work. In fact if you can get the odd bargain who can help with the squad effort, it will free up money for other areas and long term investments.

 

I wanted Norgaard from Brentford because he would have been out of contract for this reason.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by STM

[The College Dropout]

I don’t think JP, Ederson, RW, RCB is feasible.  If it is - great.  I also don’t think it works from a squad perspective. 
 

I think one of the striker or CM needs to be someone ok with sitting on the bench. Having all first teamers would be great and intent to go for it.  But don’t think it works. 

[tarie4]

16 minutes ago, STM said:

Absolutely nowt wrong with signing an older player if the finances work. In fact if you can get the odd bargain who can help with the squad effort, it will free up money for other areas and long term investments.

 

I wanted Norgaard  from Brentford because he would have been out of contract for this reason.

 

 

 

Okay, so if the money's there. The thing with these players is we're getting them as backups, probably on three-year deals. If the season bombs or they get hurt (like Barkley at Villa), it's a waste and we're stuck with them, meaning loans and paying half their wages. We should skip these deals right now, money's tight. Remember, we got Trippier and BDB as starters. Older players are fine if they're upgrades for the first 11, not backups. It'll end badly – we won't be able to shift them, and they'll just run down their contracts.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by tarie4

[Weezertron]

Last I heard, the club is looking to aggressively reduce the team's average age. 

 

Unless that was a Mitchell's goal.

 

Edit -reckon I got the wrong thread...

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Weezertron

[tarie4]

16 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I don’t think JP, Ederson, RW, RCB is feasible.  If it is - great.  I also don’t think it works from a squad perspective. 
 

I think one of the striker or CM needs to be someone ok with sitting on the bench. Having all first teamers would be great and intent to go for it.  But don’t think it works. 

I think any striker we get knows they will be on the bench. However with CL and cup games. He will definitely start a game a week. I dont see Isak starting all games in a 9 game 21 day stretch. Will say the

Same with the CM. 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by tarie4

[The College Dropout]

Barkley was a 2-year deal with Villa have an option for a 3rd.

 

Villa have Onana, Kamara, McGinn, Tielemans at CM. With Europa League football, they probably don't need him and could use the FFP saving on his wages.

 

Jorginho was initially signed on an 18-month contract.

 

- Aggresively reduce age of squad

- Requalify for CL

- Not run into PSR issues next June

 

I don't think all 3 is possible personally.

[STM]

6 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

Okay, so if the money's there. The thing with these players is we're getting them as backups, probably on three-year deals. If the season bombs or they get hurt (like Barkley at Villa), it's a waste and we're stuck with them, meaning loans and paying half their wages. We should skip these deals right now, money's tight. Remember, we got Trippier and BDB as starters. Older players are fine if they're upgrades for the first 11, not backups. It'll end badly – we won't be able to shift them, and they'll just run down their contracts.

 

 

 

 

Well what I'm suggesting is looking at deals for players who are either out contract, low transfer fees or have something like a relegation release clause. The point being that without the transfer fee outlay, the wages become more affordable.

 

There's a limit to this mind, I don't want us having Ashley Young type players who are still around at 40.

 

I dont suspect Ross Barkley is causing Villa any problems financially, in fact I reckon that's what was so attractive about him in the first place.

 

Ferguson used to have a canny knack of picking up an Owen or a Larsson and getting a couple of years use out of them before moving them on. 

 

Id also like to see us have more Lewis Hall typed deals. Spread costs around.

[The College Dropout]

Just now, tarie4 said:

I think any striker we get knows they will be on the bench. However with CL and cup games. He will definitely start a game a week. I dont see Isak starting all games in a 9 game 21 day stretch. 

Nah I think JP comes in and plays regularly - largely at the expense of the 3rd CM. 70/30 when everyone is fit. Then injuries and suspensions mean they both play more.

 

Isak will start every CL game and 95% of PL games he's fit for. Same is true for Haaland, Kane, Son, Saka, Rodri, Salah etc. Every top team has 2 or 3 players that just start 95% of game. Isak is in that bracket. He might be forced to play 60 minutes on occasion. If he's fit all season he's starting 45 games. The beauty of JP is he still gets a bag of minutes at AM and we can take Isak off earlier than we have been.

[tarie4]

2 minutes ago, STM said:

 

Well what I'm suggesting is looking at deals for players who are either out contract, low transfer fees or have something like a relegation release clause. The point being that without the transfer fee outlay, the wages become more affordable.

 

There's a limit to this mind, I don't want us having Ashley Young type players who are still around at 40.

 

I dont suspect Ross Barkley is causing Villa any problems financially, in fact I reckon that's what was so attractive about him in the first place.

 

Ferguson used to have a canny knack of picking up an Owen or a Larsson and getting a couple of years use out of them before moving them on. 

 

Id also like to see us have more Lewis Hall typed deals. Spread costs around.

Villa's in a right mess, and they'll probably offload Ramsey or Watkins. They'd prefer Barkley, but that's a no-go because of his age and wages, who will buy him? I totally disagree.

 

Like I've said before, Villa's transfers aren't a good example to use on this forum. They made a killing on Duran, but still need to sell players. Their wage bill is crazy high. Over 90% to turnover

 

So saying Barkley's not part of their financial problems is just plain wrong.

[Gaztoon]

1 minute ago, tarie4 said:

Villa's in a right mess, and they'll probably offload Ramsey or Watkins. They'd prefer Barkley, but that's a no-go because of his age and wages, who will buy him? I totally disagree.

 

Like I've said before, Villa's transfers aren't a good example to use on this forum. They made a killing on Duran, but still need to sell players. Their wage bill is crazy high. Over 90% to turnover

 

So saying Barkley's not part of their financial problems is just plain wrong.

 

PSR working as intended. Really isn't a good look for the sport.

[tarie4]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Nah I think JP comes in and plays regularly - largely at the expense of the 3rd CM. 70/30 when everyone is fit. Then injuries and suspensions mean they both play more.

 

Isak will start every CL game and 95% of PL games he's fit for. Same is true for Haaland, Kane, Son, Saka, Rodri, Salah etc. Every top team has 2 or 3 players that just start 95% of game. Isak is in that bracket. He might be forced to play 60 minutes on occasion. If he's fit all season he's starting 45 games. The beauty of JP is he still gets a bag of minutes at AM and we can take Isak off earlier than we have been.

Nah, mate, that ain't happening. Isak can't do that, he needs a rest if we want him fit. Play him all the time and he'll get injured. Every Toon fan knows this, it's not even up for debate. Rodri got injured, Saka and Haaland too, it's unsustainable. You cant overplay players.

[tarie4]

14 minutes ago, Gaztoon said:

 

PSR working as intended. Really isn't a good look for the sport.

I personally have zero sympathy for Villa, they were 1 of 18 clubs to vote in PSR. I will have sympathy for Forest as they weren't in the league at the time and I would like to think they would have voted against it. Villa can suffer, and should suffer.

[The College Dropout]

26 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

Nah, mate, that ain't happening. Isak can't do that, he needs a rest if we want him fit. Play him all the time and he'll get injured. Every Toon fan knows this, it's not even up for debate. Rodri got injured, Saka and Haaland too, it's unsustainable. You cant overplay players.

He played 3.3k minutes this season over 42 games. If he's fit enough, he'll play more next season. You can bookmark this.

[Scoot]

3 new pages, here's me thinking there's been a development. 

 

Nope.

[TRon]

5 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

I know we don't like paying 'above value' but I think there's another point here that sometimes slightly inflated transfer fees will give us free runs at players with achievable wages where if the fee were lower there would be more competition from other PL clubs or abroad.

 

I think we will sometimes have to bite the bullet on this particularly if it's a target we've done a lot of homework on. This seems an example of this.

 

Plus he's young enough that his value will likely increase if he hits it off. It all comes down to how much homework we've done on him, and seeing as we wanted him two years ago, I'd say we've scouted him pretty extensively. £60m for a PL striker with a high ceiling is not outrageous. 

[Shearergol]

1 hour ago, tarie4 said:

I think any striker we get knows they will be on the bench. However with CL and cup games. He will definitely start a game a week. I dont see Isak starting all games in a 9 game 21 day stretch. Will say the

Same with the CM. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Seegull]

2 hours ago, Erikse said:

 

What do you mean by "balance the books"? I suppose the budget that the owner has set? Because I saw an estimate of how much each club was allowed to spend within the PSR limits, and Brighton was top with a £300m headroom. Unrelated to the discussion, but I think Chelseas headroom was around the same, which is ridiculous.

As you say, PSR not an issue with us. I meant balancing the books in the context of not spending too much on buying players than the income balance from selling. We are not a big club and we have to be careful about our spending and overall financial management. Thankfully we have an owner that gets this and has a strategy to achieve it. 
JP is a very good player but I think we may need to take the profit in order to strengthen elsewhere and maintain our financial stability 

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Seegull

[Seegull]

4 hours ago, GeordieDazzler said:

You say you have a no dickheads policy but continue to pay Julio Ensico a wage

In fairness he had been out on loan all season and will be sold this summer.

[tarie4]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

He played 3.3k minutes this season over 42 games. If he's fit enough, he'll play more next season. You can bookmark this.

Aye, he did, but mostly 'cause we didn't have anyone better on the bench. You saw the last ten games, right? Isak clearly needed a break; he was just going through the motions in most of them. You could argue he'd have been better at the end if we'd rotated properly.

[TRon]

16 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

Aye, he did, but mostly 'cause we didn't have anyone better on the bench. You saw the last ten games, right? Isak clearly needed a break; he was just going through the motions in most of them. You could argue he'd have been better at the end if we'd rotated properly.

 

 

I always thought Isak was much better when he had competition. When he was vying with Wilson for the first team shirt we saw his best performances IMO.