Silent_Bob

5 minutes ago, pas5898 said:

Apologies if mentioned elsewhere. We've  cancelled out their advantage of Burnley and Sheffield at home with our 6 point advantage.

It's literally down to: Who can take the most points from:

Villa: Chelsea, Brighton, Liverpool, Palace,

Spurs: Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City.

 

 

Still nervous, but I think we will do this now. I was a little unsure at Christmas and was thinking the season might fade away. But we're in a European semifinal and I think it's like 75-80% chance of getting 4th and Champions League. 

I still have to pinch myself as it's less than four years since we were playing that last game against West Ham with players like Reina, Samatta, Hourihane, Trez and Guilbert. 

I think we will beat both Chelsea and Brighton. And if we do that, I'm sure we will beat Liverpool as well. Last home game of the season, no pressure. This is about psychology as well as quality now. A massive week for us. We've beaten Arsenal, we're through to the semi in Europe and we managed to turn it around yesterday. Our confidence must be sky high right now. 

17 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

I kinda get the fear after Bailey and signing players from the German league in general, but I fully trust Emery on this one. 

Haaland did okay.

I don't want a gamble right now.

The job this season is to make sure that a squad that should be good enough for midtable actually finish midtable and not in the relegation zone.

Poch is probably the best one we can get in my opinion. Would fit well with our South American players. Has done quite well in this league, has experience from a top European club and can do both the short term objective and some more on top of that. Should also have a name that will attract some players. 

Taking a chance on another inexperienced manager would be the worst thing we could do now.

I like the idea of getting managers in to do the job that is required. We got Dean Smith to get us out of the Champonship and stabilize us in the Premier League. He did that. We got Steven Gerrard to take us even higher, he didn't. So now we want a manager that short term can save us from relegation and then do the job Gerrard was meant to do for a year or two. 

With the right backing I think Poch is the best candidate for that. 

On 27/04/2022 at 13:20, Zatman said:

Everton would be the team to worry about now catching us not Burnley 

Yes. We were takling about survival at 37. I think that’s possible. But not sure it applies for us. If we finish with 37, we will most likely be 17th. Then our survival will depend on Everton not winning 3 out of 6.

If we win both vs Burnley it’s probably possible for Everton to survive on less than 37. 

On 25/04/2022 at 23:40, OutByEaster? said:

I don't think we need another point. 

I think 37 will keep you up.

 

Could be. But if we end up with 37 Burnley will also have 37 and whatever they get from their last three. 

I think it’s possible to survive on 37, Not sure if we will though, as it means we’ve given Burnley 6 more points.

Not too worried at the moment though, as I think it’s more realistic that we will finish with 49 points than In the bottom 3.

If we beat Burnley both games I think Everton can stay up even at 36. 

We are probably done in terms of must haves. But many clubs are short of cash after Covid. Some opportunities might still appear, and it's good to know we have the money available. Would not be surprised at all if some top European clubs offer us some quality players at a discount late in the window. And I think we're still talking to a lot of clubs, but not necessarily trying to push deals through. Just keeping an eye on things.

If a £50m player became available today, there are very few clubs in the world that can afford it. Barcelona couldn't afford to keep Messi, Real Madrid is saving their money to buy Mbappe. German clubs doesn't spend that amount of money on a regular basis. PSG are probably done with major transfers this summer. Italian clubs...don't think so. The Manchester clubs have both spent big, so has Chelsea. Not that many left then.

28 minutes ago, KangarooVillan said:

Be patient, trust in the process, we literally haven’t been let down so far.

Agree. Let's not forget that it's less than 13 months since we secured our PL survival on the last day of the season. We probably overachieved a bit last season.

Rome wasn't built in a day. And things that are built in a day usually don't last very long. 

2019/20 was about survival. 2020/21 was about survival with good margin and 2021/22 was/is about consolidating as an upper mid table team. 

We should use this year to bring in quality in depth. Which we are doing. We now have options in most positions. 

Going for the players that should ensure we're challenging for a top 4 is for next summer or the summer after.

8 minutes ago, supermon said:

 

8 minutes ago, supermon said:

Makes perfect sense, Tuanzebe to be the midfield destroyer that we need

That means we could play Mario in the back 4.

JWP would fit right in among our current brothers in arms. Get it done.

9 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

This is true. They don’t even need him. That’s the worst thing about it. 

No, the top clubs just need to take the best players off potential challengers to stay on top. 

3 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

The “Grealish team”. Not Villa.

If I made millions on his transfer, I too would probably recommend a move if he asked me for advise.

6 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said:

This is awful, all this hate, we’re poisoning all those amazing  memories. Yes we feel he’s let us down but the idea of sending him abuse and booing him, this is making me sadder than the actual transfer. 

Football is love and hate.

If your girlfriend tells you that she love someone else, you don't thank her for the memories and say you understand her because the new guy is richer and more handsome.

12 minutes ago, est1874 said:

They've just reported that City have signed Gareth Barry and James Milner from Aston Villa.

I just read about some riots happening in Boston. Apparently they have thrown some tea in the water.

10 minutes ago, thabucks said:

Martin Odegaard & Jonathan David then sander berge and Caleta-car and we are sorted. Get it done I’d accept Latauro Martinez 

lolz 

I'm not sure a couple of Norwegians are the answer here. And if it is, let's save the money for Haaland next summer, when he's got a €75m release clause 

1 hour ago, dounavilla said:

No booing but no clapping from me.

For me:

Hit the road Jack, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more.

38 minutes ago, Chindie said:

My suspicions

Citeh have bid but the structure doesn't meet our requirements - either they don't meet the valuation we've set or the way it's being met isn't to our liking.

Grealish has our contract offer and is fully aware of what Citeh will offer. There's probably not much in them. I suspect we've sweetened the deal following the bid.

All things being considered Jack wants to go but he's not so completely set on it to burn his bridges. He's in a pretty good position -either he moves to win some bought trophies and gets to be an even richer man, or he can stay here and be a very rich man where he's already a bit of a legend and in a year we'll do all this again. He can't really lose.

The other option may well be that we've accepted he's off but the stalling is to get our ducks in a row before every transfer becomes 20% more expensive.

Either way I lean towards him not being here in a months time.

My suspicions

City tried to get Kane, as they obviously need a striker. Spurs refused to sell, so they went to their 2nd target, Grealish.

They put in a first bid, that we turned down. An agreement could possibly have been reached after negotiations. City talk with Jack's agent about which contract they will offer, should they reach an agreement. 

On Monday Kane goes AWOL from Spurs training. City doesn't follow up on Jack until Kane's situation is resolved. Leaving Villa and Jack in some sort of limbo.

Villa are then bracing themselves for a second bid, which may not come should City go all in for Kane instead. Jack know he has a decision to make if City come back with that 2nd offer and an agreement can be reached.

Jack can't really say one thing or the other, as currently he is a Villa player. He has no firm contract offer from City and Villa haven't reached an agreement. They don't even have a offer on the table and unsure if City will follow up.

As this situation also need to be resolved, Jack will sign a contract later this week unless City come back with an improved offer. If he doesn't and City don't sign Kane, Jack will cleary be their number 2 option. He don't want to go there as a 2nd choice and would prefer to stay under those circumstances.

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

i do see your point, and broadly i see your direction and agree with the sentiment.

However, you are missing some clear points.

Last time we were in a similar scenario (Young, Barry, Milner etc), we didnt reinvest that money, or money we did reinvest was spent badly, we kept most of it and the quality of the team deteriorated.

If we got 100m, and reinvested every penny of that, plus any money we were going to spend, to improve the first 11, its quite possible our first 11 would be better in that scenario, than if we kept Jack.

If we did reinvest that, improved the first 11 and were actually a better team, players would defo come to us, as the pull is at least in part that improvement and performance.

Now, a lot of that depends on top class recruitment, spending and reinvesting wisely, and not banking large portions of the cash which telegraphs the fact we arent a club who wants to progress, so a lot of things would need to happen right, but to say we cant be better witohut Jack just isnt true, it would just take a lot of dominoes to fall correctly for us, which ofc in reality might not happen.

Do i want to keep Jack?, yes.....do i think we cant get where we want to go witohut him?, no i dont.

You just need to look at Leicester as a model, again, im not saying we can repeat that, and there are many risks to it, but to say we cant progress without Jack is just plain wrong, however i do agree there are many risks to it.

But every transfer is a gamble. And you don’t win every time. Some players brought in will perform, some even increasing further in value. Some players will not.

Watkins’ value might have increased. But that increase is eaten up by the decrease in value on Samatta and Wesley.

It is very difficult to make a good sale of your best player.

We don’t make 100m on selling Jack. We need to replace him. If the replacment player cost 50m and turn out to be shit, we need to spend another 50m on a third player. Then we’ve just replaced a 100m player with a 50m player and have  no more money than before we sold Jack.

9 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

you do wonder, with a cold hard and impartial view on it, whether the best thing for the club is to let Grealish go for 100/120m.

The best thing is that he stays. If we let our only 'next level' player leave, then that is what they all are going to do. Even if selling Jack for 120m mean we can bring in five more 50m players, they aren't going to stay if they also reach that 'next level'.

Our best chance of having a player that would walk into every team in the world (except England) is to keep Jack. 

And having a chance of attracting players of a similar quality in the future is by having players that are already on that level at the club. 

If we indeed are going to challenge the top clubs, we need to be able to attract top quality players. And they don't come for money alone. When Manchester City tried to buy Ronaldinho back in 2008, he decided against going there. He would have been a statement signing for them, but they had to settle for Craig Bellamy instead. And it wasn't because of lack of money that Ronaldinho didn't want to come. He just didn't want to become their first big name player. 

So if we want to sign a really big name next summer he won't come, even if we offer more money than anyone else. For money alone we can get players of that calibre unless there are similar players already at the club. 

I remember the last time we tried to challenge. The top clubs took our best players off us, and made sure we stayed where we were. If we allow that to happen again, we will never break into the top 4. 

12 minutes ago, Nicho said:

Was reading VT before I went to sleep. To be honest I’m happy it wasn’t 7 hours of fish puns. 

Did you actually dream that, or are you just fishing for complimebt?

4 minutes ago, Sulberto21 said:

Well it certainly seems like a 'smart' signing which would fit the narrative that has come out of Villa Park recently.

As I said last season the owners won't be spending the TV money every season. They're businessmen who expect returns on their investment. 

Ashley Young still producing the goods at his age and would bring in the winning mentality and arrogance which I feel we lack sometimes. 

I agree. Not sure what we will spend or not spend. But whatever we have available would remain untouched. Guilbert, Young and Buendia will replace Taylor, Elmo and Barkley. Then we can spend whatever we have left to actually strengthen. 

Not all signings can be to improve the team. Some are also done to improve the squad. And on a free I don’t think this is a bad deal. We have three strikers. But behind our main striker we have one just back from a long injury. And one that can’t score and has a long injury record as well.

Remember how the team suffered from losing players in key positions in 19/20 and also our drop in performance with Jack out injuried this season. Strength in depth is vital. 

Hansi Flick, or Hans Dieter Flick, has been confirmed as new national coach of Germany. 

I guess he would like to be addressed as Herr Flick from now on. 

It has probably been said already, but I'm not sure if these clubs actually understand what they've done wrong. And if they only listen to their own supporters, I don't think they will learn either.

From their fans perspective they were afraid of getting kicked out of or leaving domestic football. Thats why their banners said things like: "We want our cold nights in Stoke".

From other club's fans I think it was fear of having an even bigger financial gap between them and the rest. 

But I didn't hear anyone actually was angry on behalf of UEFA and their Champions League. Nobody liked the ESL, but I think it was for different reasons. I doubt their fans would be extremly upset by competing in the Premier League with a £200m annual advantage. I might not be applauding that Villa were to receive £200m per year for playing in some sort of European League they would automatically qualify for. But I would't go out in the streets to protest against it either.

I think both the six breakaway clubs and the rest of the league just need to be prepared to let go. The breakaway clubs just need to understand that a business where they spend money they haven't earned yet to stay ahead of everyone else just isn't sustainable. Like everyone else they need to build a great team, have a great team and rebuild another great team. They can't be on top always. It's like that monkey trap where the monkey puts a hand in a jar, grab the food and is trapped. Because it doesn't have the mental capacity to understand that all it has to do is to open it's hand, release the food and be free.

And the same is also true for the other 14 clubs. If they are prepared to actually kick those other clubs out of the Premier League if they go and join another league, then those clubs will never leave. Because leaving the Premier League might be short term financial satisfaction. But long term it will be a disaster to alle these clubs to not play in their domestic leagues. Their threath is that they bring money to the table for everyone by being big clubs, and by leaving that money is lost, The domestic fans of other clubs will enjoy some Premier League instead and over time foreign fans will just support other clubs instead. The other 14 just need to realise that these clubs leaving the Premier League is a non credible threath. 

2 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

The only 2 things I agree with the breakaway 12 is that wages are  generally unsustainable and the proposed CL reforms are not going to improve audience figures by having more pointless group matches. 

It's like the old balance of terror. If club A buy a player for £50m, then club B need a £60m player. And when there are enough clubs to cover the entire alphabet many times, then obviously the result is that money flow through these clubs like prune juice.

It's a problem that in itself is easy to solve. Limit the spending through a wage cap. Problem is that they don't want that solution as it means competition is open for everyone. So we have FFP which will limit spending with a link to the turnover. Which means big clubs can spend more than small. With the SL it will boost their turnover, make them sustainable and make them untouchable. Within FFP.

It reminds me very much of the empathy gap monoply game experiment. 

They will be back, so action is required now. Now it's 14 clubs vs 6 clubs. Next time it could be 12 vs 8 or 10 vs 10. They will share with as few as possible, but as many as necessary.

52 minutes ago, Zatman said:

yes he lives on a different planet, how dare the other clubs not overspend and lose money 

Well, he is himself the very reason why football isn't sustainable. Spending money you don't have over a long period of time isn't sustainable. But we should probably take some responsibility as well. After all, Aston Villa started this by paying what must have been a massive amount (£100) for making Willie Groves the most expensive player in the world back in 1893. 

Transfer fees have changed througout Europe over the last couple of decades. But not so much. If you look at each league's Top 10 most expensive transfers of all times, many were done a long time ago. The inflation in transfer prices is something that only has happened at the very top. It is expensive to go all the way to the very top of the pyramid of football. But it's probably even more expensive to remain there. Real Madrid broke the transfer record in 2000 by signing Figo. And then it wasn't until Man United bought Pogba that Real didn't have the most expensive player in the world. 

They are not a victim here, this is something they have brought on themselves. If they want to be a sustainable business, then buying Galacticos isn't the way to do it.

They were among the first clubs to start spending money they didn't have. And by doing that they pushed everyone else into doing the same. The inflated transfer prices is a direct result of not only Real as a club, but a result of Pèrez own personal choice of strategy. And he doesn't even go after the real scavengers. Go after the agent who take all the money out of football. Go after the players salaries. After all, they are the ones that actually take money out of football. Transfer fees are just money floating between clubs. It doesn't disappear from football, it just change ownership. But do the best players really need to earn £200k per week, or could they survive on just £100k? 

Ultimatly it is so simple. Sustainablity is decided by the relationship between money coming in and money going out. If income can't go up, expenses must go down. If you can't have more money, you need to spend less money. And that's probably what they should be discussing in their cartel meetings, instead of how they can grab money that belong to other.