HanoiVillan

1st plays 2nd this week (with 3 gameweeks after) so if I win it's over but if I lose it's right back on. Tense!

2 hours ago, CarryOnVilla said:

Exactly, but why not have both… ex pros to have the emotional aspects and the (carismatic) journos giving the analysis 

I tend to agree, but the argument against is basically: pundits have different purposes depending on the venue. The purpose of a halftime analyst between the ad breaks is to be a famous face smoothly giving a quick summary so that they can quickly move on to selling you beer and takeaway pizza. People who go into detail are literally bad for this role. The purpose of a MOTD analyst is likewise to be a famous face condensing one main talking point from a match into digestible analysis, so that a] people get the main idea of what happened, and b] people can talk about the game at work on Monday and say something that sounds sensible. The purpose of a journalist on a podcast or long-form radio like 'Premier League Sundays' is to go into detail and really drill down. For that, people need to be knowledgeable and able to talk in depth. 

It's difficult to get both on to the same type of show, because Jonathan Wilson is going to struggle to condense his comments into a charismatic twenty-second soundbite and Steven Gerrard is going to struggle to give interesting analysis for an hour. 

1 minute ago, Czarnikjak said:

Because there will be multiple clubs trying to out do others to get someone. Also they could possibly get them cheaper before 30th June.

Also, if it's a European club they won't care if we get points deduction or not.

Yes, that's the optimistic view. But there are some pretty clear ways those things might not happen (maybe we don't get any bidding wars, maybe European clubs don't think they could match the wage demands of the players we'd be looking to sell, etc), so I think the claim 'we won't get a points deduction' is too strong. *Hopefully* we won't. 

27 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

We are at risk, hence we asking for extra £30m. However, we can easily generate that £30m by selling a player if other clubs won't agree to the rules change. We won't get any points deducted, we have too many assets we can easily sell to generate that amount.

I certainly cannot see other 13 teams voting for it to help us out though, so we will be selling for profit.

I agree we have a lot of assets other clubs would want to buy if available. My question would be whether they will want to buy those players before June 30th, if they believe that buying them after that date would still get them the players and also get us a points deduction. 

Apparently an article in the Times today - I don't have an account - claiming that we're pushing for a £30m increase to the PSR allowance for next season, according to Stefan Borson:

I've seen quite a lot of takes on here suggesting we aren't at much risk from PSR, but I think people should be asking themselves why we would be pushing this if we weren't. Don't think it's implausible we get a points deduction next season. 

1 minute ago, Pinebro said:

It's just the Conference

Love to win it but it's isn't the end of the world

Nothing is 'the end of the world', it's just football. But I'd like to have won this trophy, because I haven't seen us win a European trophy, and this could easily be the best chance we get in my lifetime. I don't really care if you don't rate the competition.

20 minutes ago, Pinebro said:

Meh

We have already won an european trophy 2 tiers above this one

Not gonna lose any sleep if we miss out on the final

Yeah, really enjoyed the trophy we won when I was -5 years old, guess it's greedy to hope we ever win another one.

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

Also could win the cup

TBF, I think we can already rule that out 

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

Not really. They have been slowly and too slowly at that eradicated from the Premier League

The second sentence is an opinion (I don't agree, but it's a valid opinion), but the first is an incorrect factual claim. Clearly there *is* a place for Dyche, that's why he's employed. 

2 hours ago, Vancvillan said:

Football Insider linking us with Callum O'Hare.

lol

26 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Someone mentioned him before.

No problem at all with him as a body. Won't break the bank. Home grown. Always had a good attitude on the pitch.

The wider 'problem' we have is that we have four key players in Mings, Buendia, Ramsey and Kamara all coming back and we don't know what level they'll be at.

They're all unsellable because of last year's injuries so we have to sort of cover them, but equally don't over pack the squad. If they're back to where they were they'll all be hoping to start 35 games a season.

Firstly think there's no chance we'd be interested in him or that he'd be interested in us, but also thought he was pretty much definitely going to Celtic?

26 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

It was aimed at Ornstein who should know better. Transfer rumours are rubbish at the best of times. Tanswell wrote similar copy days later. 

Ornstein during the Jan window 

“But funds must be raised before the end of June to stay compliant with profit and sustainability rules and that has alerted suitors, who believe offers above £50million will at least be contemplated.”

The next rumour was selling Duran to Chelsea.

By March the club publish this that despite losses “we continue to operate within the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules.“

https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2024/march/04/aston-villa-end-of-year-accounts/
 

Newcastle have legitimate FFP issues though and would be in no position to afford JJ so the story was entirely speculative from the get go. 

Both Villa and Newcastle are within PSR for 22/23 (we know this because neither club was charged) but that doesn't mean that either or both clubs will be within PSR without selling a player before June 30th. Nothing about the club's statement contradicts that reporting. And to be clear, the reason I mention Tanswell is because he specifically mentioned both Ramsey and Luiz as possible sales after the accounts were released as well; that was speculation, not a promise, but it wasn't just in January that interest from other clubs was rumoured. 

12 hours ago, viivvaa66 said:

I don’t understand why we voted no. The vote was only about the anchoring, not the 70%/85% since those are UEFA rules. The anchoring would not make a difference against the top six, we would still have the low revenue. Actually it would help against ManU and ManC, since they are the only two teams that would have to limit their spending because of anchoring, since they have that high revenue.

Originally it was reported on Sky that we were against it because teams in Premier League not in Europe could spend £466 mill, while we could only spend 70% of revenue. That would have made sense, except it isn’t true, or maybe even the club misunderstood the rules.

The more I learn about this, the more baffling is the position of the club on this. It simply make no sense to vote no for Aston Villa. We are years and years away to be able to get a revenue that would limit our spending because of anchoring. 

Yeah, it's weird. TBH the anchoring thing is so far from relevant to us or our finances that I can only think the club are opposed to it in principle, rather than it being a question of material interest. 

57 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

We don’t need to sell for FFP at this stage. All the JJ stuff was purely speculative from The Athletic to prop up the Geordies. 

This seems bizarrely conspiratorial. Walk me through the thinking here, is it that Tanswell is secretly a Saudi agent or something?

19 hours ago, duke313 said:

But they wanted to buy United, but lost the bid to Sir Jim Ratface.

Possibly worth saying here that 'they' in that case was one member of the Qatari royal family, but the claim at the time was that he was bidding personally, not as a representative of the government or a state institution. Who knows, it might even have been at least partly true. 

44 minutes ago, Jonesy7211 said:

Thought I'd go and have a gander at the SHA forum to see if it was really as stupid as is being reported here. I've just seen quite possibly the worst football related post ever.

It's not funny, it's not clever, it's far beyond stupid. I really hope this shambles of a fan base get the result they deserve on Saturday. Nobody has called it out either. Unbelievable. Why are they so full of hate?

Why does that thought even cross somebody's mind? As you say, it's not even got the visible signs of a joke, even a bad or misplaced one. 

13 hours ago, villa4europe said:

To be fair who else is there worth keeping? Maybe dalot, surprised by Fernandes 

The bigger worry should be who do they think is going to buy them

They're absolutely not going to sell Fernandes, I simply don't believe that. 

7 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

No, he got few things wrong there. He forgot about 85% limit for clubs that don't qualify for Europe.

Also, when he says "to spend £400m on transfers" this is plainly wrong. There's no limit on "transfers"...only squad costs (wages, amortisation and agent fees)

Also, his argument is self-refuting. Even if the 85% squad cost-revenue didn't exist, what would be the point of Bournemouth spending £400m on squad costs, finishing 7th, and then having to sell all their best players just to enter UEFA competition? 

Looks like United have done us a solid. Coming to the end of injury time and they're winning 6-3. Just on us to get the job done. 

17 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

There's a link on the beeb about Liverpool allegedly preparing for bids of £150m for Mo Salah, according to the always hilarious Football Insider. 

That got me to thinking - if Salah wants out this summer, when he'll be 32 and perhaps starting to fade, how much do you think a Saudi team would have to pay for him?

I'd think Liverpool would be quite happy to have his £400k a week off the wage bill at this point - £150m would be an absolute fever dream.

I reckon they'd let him go for £30-40m

£30-£40m for a European team, £50m+ for a Saudi one. Gotta charge them a mark-up, how will they enjoy it unless they've overpaid?

Madueke comes across like the biggest bell-end in the entire sport, but let's not kid ourselves, he pretty much had Digne for dinner. Hopefully he can do the same to Ben Davies, then I can go back to hating him again afterwards. 

27 minutes ago, useless said:

 My excellent post regained

We're in a better position now relative to Spurs than if we had have both won this weeked, and now can't go above us even if they win their games in hand, it's not even guaranteed they will beat both of Burnley and Sheffield United

5 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

sheff utd, yes i'd say that's about as safe a bet as you're likely to get

we need to hope that burnley have a chance of survival though. teams fighting for their lives have a tendancy to spring the odd surprise

For weeks many of us - myself included - have been kind of silently giving Spurs +6 from the Burnley and Sheff Utd games, but while they'll beat the latter easily they aren't similar sides any more. Burnley have barely lost in the last 6-8 weeks now, and have drawn with Chelsea (in which Burnley were down to 10 for nearly the entire game) and Manchester United (in which Burnley were the better team) in that run. They almost certainly won't be mathematically down either, so could see a motivated Burnley possibly getting a point off Spurs. 

5 hours ago, ferguson1 said:

Tin hat time and I know it won’t be a popular statement but if we secure fourth and Champions League, I really wouldn’t be against us competing for Conor Gallagher. If rumours are to be believed and he’s available for around £40m, i’d take him. Yes, he’s a bit of a whingeing, moaning word removed at times but he can play. 

I do think we lack that horrible arrogance that the big teams have. Gallagher has that about him. Especially if Luiz were to leave, we’d be woefully short with Kamara out until October or November maybe?

I don't really see why it would be an unpopular suggestion. The guy is the single best player in the entire league at turning the ball over in the final third, so if that's a skillset we're looking for (I'm not sure it is) then he would be an excellent signing. He also has a shot on him, and works incredibly hard. 

I'm not saying we *should* sign him - have no idea really - but if we were to sign him, it wouldn't be crazy, he's a very good player. 

2 minutes ago, ben1505 said:

Also, which teams are liklely to get into which European Comp next season?

 

Arsenal, City, Liverpool, Villa CL

Spurs, Man U Europa

West Ham Conference...... that it?

You've missed Newcastle, who are not going to be caught by West Ham (IMO). 

Probably (more than?) a bit unfair to be making direct comparisons like this but I realised earlier he's not far off two years older than Mainoo. The problem is he just hasn't played all that much football, and most of what he's played was for QPR trying to avoid relegation to League One. 

At some point, he'll need to have a performance that makes everyone sit up and go 'yes, I can see this lad having a future starting for a club with European aspirations in the Premier League', and I don't think he's got close to having a game like that yet. 

10 minutes ago, Xela said:

He's not as his best as he is having to do the role he's not suited for best. 

That being said, if we had to sell any big first team player this summer for financial reasons, then I'd let Dougie go instead of Emi or Ollie. 

Yeah, if we need to get right by PSR then it may be the best time to sell Luiz. We're short in midfield, which ironically may make him the ideal position to sell, as it could potentially allow us to replace him with two good players and allow us to rotate our midfielders more. 

Need to look at it as an opportunity if we have a player who's highly sought-after yet we play better when he isn't on the pitch, and unfortunately that's now the case with Luiz.