zak

Just now, Keyblade said:

Ings looks gassed already.

I mean he played in England yesterday 

48 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

How many games will the 3 of them play next season? 

El Ghazi £40k a week for potentially 0

Sanson £50k a week, last year made 10 appearances

Throw in Hause £25k a week, last season 7 appearances

Chuk last season 12 appearances 

Why would he not want paying closer to players that he plays more games than? Why pay based on age rather than appearances? Why pay based on what you consider his performance rating to be rather than appearances? 

Pay him based on his role in the squad 

Right but using Samson for example, they are suggesting he was put on £50k a week because he was considered a top player when bought. Villa wouldn't value Sanson's performances as £50k. Also, Chuk was worse than terrible Sanson in his appearance last year according to most fans, there's nothing to say they would be better this year.

Chuks role in the squad currently is not a starter and shouldnt be paid that way.

If he was 27 would he have got the 12 appearances? Or are villa giving him game time to help his progress? Does his performances deserve 12 appearances.

19 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I atill dont think the squads strong enough for a European  push. I think top ten at best unless we get a couple more in. I dont think watkins and ings will get us enough  goals thats the biggest concern i have right now and still feel that another cm is needed

Compare the squad and Ings/Watkins to West Ham's Squad and Antonio.

Pick a starting 11 from both teams. Hopefully it'll give you abit of reassurance it is possible 

9 minutes ago, Zatman said:

One of the players on the list played 500 times for Real Madrid   

plus a lot of them have international caps, hardly into oblivion though

 

Dont Google and Drive   

WTF is Javier Saviola doing on that list aswell, scored 50 goals for Barca. If that's flopping........

I was going to say Ravel before seeing the list

47 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

So you do think he had a signing on fee of £20m? Or wages equating to that?

No, that's incorrect I'm afraid.

What do you mean? Why's that incorrect. There would have been numerous clubs after him and if they all value him at 20m then they'll offer close to that value to get him and their agent will pick for it. 

If Villa wanted him as first choice and valued him at 20m but Newcastle also wanted him and offered 15 m, you don't think villa would offer 17m. Villa would still get a player they value at 20m for a 3m discount. However if Newcastle also valued him at 20m they'd probably offer 18m and so on. 

It's a free market with sellers (agent &player) and buyers (teams) and so his price will be at market equilibrium. Obviously there are factors that change this (i.e cut price to a preferred team) but probably not by much in this case.

When buying from a club it's not really a free market if a team doesn't want to sell a player and that's why price can be above market equilibrium. That difference is the money you save on free transfers

36 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Well that's not the case all the time is it.

Carlos clearly lost us at least £20m more than Tarkowski would have.

Unless you think Tarkowski would have had a signing on fee of over £8m?

I would say he will have a signing on bonus similar to how much he would be worth as a transfer from a club. Or his wages are significantly more that cover the same costs.

If Tarkowski is worth 20m and 80k a week and has numerous teams interested. Then those teams would start offering close to that figure or equivalent to the player and agent. You're not getting him for 80k and a couple of mill sign on because the agent would demand the best offer, which will be near his value.

The difference where you do save, is where a club that owns the player doesn't want to sell and wouldn't accept market value. I.e JWP.

Seriously, everyone, a free transfer is not actually free! It would only be nominally cheaper than buying a player from a club. 

Wait, its just twitter rumours atm, right?

Seems all abit farfetched so im going to presume its wrong.

4 minutes ago, Xela said:

4 signings so far. One of, if not the, busiest team in the window so far.

So far?

1 hour ago, Tayls said:

Newcastle bound isn’t he? 

Oh, my only sort of ITK:

Newcastle owner has said to a source in response about Paqueta that although it sounds good, Newcastle are happy with their midfield options and will be concertrating on attackers and defenders this window.

So maybe not

2 minutes ago, RicRic said:

Explain because there seems to be confusion around this and im not sure what people are seeing? 

The question was: "If there is a striker that's clearly better than our current forwards, and would come to us, and cost 40m please inform the rest of us."

Nunez does not in anyway fit this criteria. He is clearly better than our current forwards but - 

He would not come to us, he's going to a top team

He's does not cost 40m, looks like he's going for around 100m

8 minutes ago, nick76 said:

There are almost always signing on fees for players whether the selling club gets a fee or not.  Yes, free transfers get a huge signing on fee compared but I bet it’s nowhere near his value and still a bargain in answer to the comment I responded to.

I don't think is as much of a bargain as you think. 

There would have been many other teams trying to sign him and so we would have had to be at the top of those offers.

If he would be worth 40m at a team, then that's what his agent would be looking for.

The savings you make from a free transfer is the difference between that players market value and the extra money the team would look for if he was contracted. I.e JWP on a free would have been cheaper than what Southampton were pushing for.

Your giving ruthless agents a disservice if you think they aren't getting very close to a players market value for their player on a free

21 hours ago, Aston_Villan4 said:

For those that like to scrutinize every little detail… he has added the Hammers emoji to his instagram account. What could it mean??

#FakeNews. He does have hammers emoji but hes apparently that and the gorilla emoji on there for years

1 minute ago, sparrow1988 said:

If only someone had made a similar point on the previous page.

I do not know what you are talking about. 

60m over 5 years could be split as £24m fee and  £100k a week, which sounds about right.

Again, "free" players arnt free. they and their agent will take the equivalent of a transfer fee. They are often cheaper as theirs no club in the middle. however you have to give a large signing fee to outbid other teams

42 minutes ago, Pez1974 said:

I'm sure there are 'better' options than this guy for that position, but the key for me is getting the balance of the transfer window right - and free transfers help massively with that. We can't have a top level player in every position (well, not for a few years).

If Tarkowski joined on a free, and it means that we could (for example) sell on Hause for £10m, then the net spend difference with this approach compared to (say) Botman is maybe £50m - which we can put towards another position - which might be the Konsa replacement. If this means we have Chambers and Tarkowski as our back-ups - that sounds a lot better than Axel and Hause, as these 2 would genuinely push for a starting position. 
Plus we have Bogarde, Swinkels and Feeney coming through, and if they are as highly thought of as rumours say, then someone at 29, and on a free, might be the perfect bridge for them - and the club saves a fortune. 
At some point very soon, we have to start balancing FFP the right way, rather than being on the edge all the time.

Not specifically directed at you but i find it strange that people think getting a player on a free is that much better than on a transfer.

The Agent of that player will know what his player is roughly worth and charge that in a signing on bonus because that's what teams would be willing to pay to get that player.

15 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Not for Jack surely?  The idea of the release clause is they'd have to pay the full £100m to activate it, no add-ons for this and that, wasn't it?

The rumour is that an add on to the deal was Villa get an extra £15m if Man City/Grealish win the league. You can imagine as it's probably Villa Vs Man city to decide the league, it's getting hot in Twitter

So everyone is agreed for next week?

Martinez

cash Ming's Chambers Digne/Young 

Sanson Luiz Ramsey 

Coutinho Ings Buendia 

Excited he gets the full 90

17 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Got £25 knocked off to £50 a month, everything except sports, which I tried my bestest to blag. Got the latest new Sky box too, with UHD.

I always do live chat and just ask to go to cancellations and say it's getting too expensive. I then say I would stay if..........?

I was texting with an agent yesterday but he didnt really offer much. So im in 31 day cancellation period. He did say once in cancellation period, no offers will populate my account. Which id be surprised about, maybe that doesnt include phone calls etc. we will see

On 04/01/2022 at 14:18, foreveryoung said:

I know alot of my pals have a fire stick. You get almost every channel including sports, might be worth going to the dark side. With utilities, bills are just rising everywhere costing a fortune

I think I will go cancellation and if they don't do me a amazing deal, go through with it.

How did you get on with this, i am in process of cancelling and getting nothing atm

1 minute ago, The Fun Factory said:

Lets just see what happens.

I don't think the top elite sides will go for him. Being a premier league side and Gerrard as his manager he might want to stay with us if things go well.

His time with huge super clubs at Inter Milan, Barca and Munich has been patchy. Liverpool by far has been his most successful spell so he must like the English style.

Coutinho reminds me slightly of Baggio. The divine ponytail  post Juve did not have the best of times at both Milan clubs, and was at his happiest at smaller clubs at Bologna and Brescia. 

 

If he plays well the way its looking like he might (yes, i know others have looked same like Jamez) do you think we are his best option. Spurs, West Ham....many other teams playin in Europe may be interested

Can we get him signed up permanently before things get out of control.

An option to buy is great and all, but im pretty worried if he performs well enough, he'll reject the option and go elsewhere

20 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

For Villa, there is no difference, but for @Hornso there is a big difference . . .

Ah ok. I don't really think it should be here and he should be in other football. But if Hornso wants to as he says he does, who am I to get in the way of his exceptional work

On 02/09/2021 at 10:09, HanoiVillan said:

Hang on, there's a big difference between 'he's left on a free where we pay some of his first years wages' and 'club says he's gona one a season long loan but he's out of contract upon his return', namely that if the first is true he isn't a Villa player, but if the second is true he is. I thought the second was true, not the first, but it must be one or the other.

Sorry, I missed this earlier, but what is the  difference for villa? When you say upon his return, it's pretty clear he's not going to return. He did a fairwell post and I'm sure villa did too