Silent_Bob

20 minutes ago, sparrow1988 said:

This account was right about the home and away kits so there might be something to this.

Maybe two moves on the way. Of course it's a vague tweet but the part about leaks to the press is interesting.

Maybe he can tweet more spesific about which part of the press that actually received the leak?

4 minutes ago, Adam2003 said:

On the positive side we aren’t going to be integrating about 10 of them - more like 3 or 4 who can come in gradually in some cases. I want signings but actually we are in a way better position than last summer whatever.

True. We played OK at the start of last season. The team itself is not that bad, but lack of depth was what almost sent us down.

53 minutes ago, sidcow said:

According Sky Sports we are preparing a bid. 

I assume we need to design some kind of poster to hand over.  Maybe we put the bid to them by the media of song and dance so rehearsals are ongoing. 

I really don't understand why the bidding process needs to be so complicated.  Wouldn't it be just so much easier if we just phoned them and said "How about £18m for Watkins? What? No we can't pay £30m, £20m tops........... Oh OK £22m it is then" 

It would speed the whole thing up by so much with very very little preparation time. All you would need to do then is know what your maximum price to pay it. 

I can't be alone in thinking this? They wouldn't even need to decorate the float or anything then. 

One thing is the decision making process I think.

I doubt one single individual has the authority to spend £20m just like that.

I would not be surprised if what you're saying is going on. Which means we would know what it would take to buy 10-20 different players. We probably do.

Then there is a discussion internally on which combo we should choose. Is it striker 1 at £25m and winger 1 at £20m? Or is it striker 2 at £30m and winger 2 at £15m? This is the considering swooping phase.

Then again those deals that we know, we probably know just ballpark figures. If they are willing to sell at £25m, we put in a formal offer on £22m.  This is the phase where we are preparing bids and other clubs are bracing themselves.

Having said that, I really would appreciate if someone took the time and made a flow chart of these phases. 

1 minute ago, Wainy316 said:

Quick look on Blue Moon and some of the City fans seem keen for him to develop another year with us.

Let’s hope that’s where Pep go for advise.

19 minutes ago, hippo said:

And the probability of him saying to city "nah" ......

Best hope and still probable that city won't want him back just yet.

That probablity depends on what he think it the best move for him. A squad player in a top club or a certain starter in what we hope is a mid table club next season.

But I agree, the best chance lies in City not being a real option for him. 

So this can be anything. It can be just clickbait bullshit, it can be City leaking a rumour of taking him back so we pay them some extra to get rid of a clause they won't use anyway. Or they could actually want him back.

I can see this being them trying to get something for nothing. Or they could use it to secure a move for Jack. Who knows.

Losing Luiz and Grealish wouldn't be the best start of this transfer window though... 

2 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

It’s all speculation. I don’t see City buying him back. He just doesn’t fit their structure. Relax guys. 

I can't see it either. Although a very good player, I can't really see him being good enough for a team aiming for 100 points next season.

20 minutes ago, Nigel said:

He cant

He can, unless he has signed a contract with City before coming here for this eventuality.

He has a £25m buy out clause exclusive to City. But we can only guarantee that their offer will be accepted. Not that he wants to join them.

2 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Maybe we should try and get Robbie Keane in permanently. 

Offer 11/12's of whatever the asking price might be these days, and see what happens.

I think we, like everyone else, has a budget.

Right now I think everyone is trying to test the market. Is a player valued at £20m in a normal market still valued at £20m? Or is it less? 

As it's still early I think selling clubs are still holding out for £20m for their players. But what will they do in September, if no bids matching that value has been received? 

It usually start at the very top. If Man U buy Grealish for £80m, then our willingness to pay a little more his replacement increases. Their willingness/abilty to increase from, let's say £60m to £80m migh depend on the Sancho deal. If they spend too much on him, they can't afford it. If they don't get him, they move on to their next target. And so on. Will we buy Benrahma for £25m now? Maybe not. Will we do it, if we've got £80m more in our pocket and the season is about to start? Much more likely.

So things will start to happen once UCL and UEL finish. 

Norwegian right back, Elabdellaoui, has confirmed he’s leaving Olympiacos. Think we were linked with him last summer,...

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

Seriously, nearly two weeks in to the window and not one proper link, let alone a signing.....

The suspense is nearly as bad as the relegation fight stress......

Well, it's just very recently that I've stopped worrying about VAR giving West Ham a late penalty so I think I can manage to wait a little bit more. 

After all, as the window slams shut in October, I think we've got plenty of time. Once UCL and UEL is finished, I think we will see more movement. I think we will see similar behaviour this window as all others. That quite a lot of the business is done right up until deadline day. So there's still much time for us to the usual considering bids, preparing bids, table them, and so on.

But of course I want us to do our business early. We don't want clubs like Brentford to have to brace themselves for months for our bids.

23 minutes ago, TRO said:

No one is proposing Rejects, from Top Teams.....that is an interpretation of a falsehood.

The players being suggested are fringe players, who are frustrated at a lack of game time, trying to push out world class players.

These same players are in and around an environment of serial winners, with the spin off of listening to world class managers and their strategies for success.

They are trusted to play when called up on in highly motivated teams that breed intensity and drive and a thirst to win.

They are anything but Rejects.....thats a poor interpretation.

was Danny Ings a reject?

I hope we don't sign rejects from top teams, like we have done before. Ireland, Lescott, Richards and so on. I didn't say that was a proposal from you or anyone else.

If we buy a young fringe players we are doing what I hope, buying players on their way up. Which means I don't care that much where they come from. If it's from Liverpool reserves, Brentford, Norwich, Sunderland, the Swiss league or whereever.

Origi though is a player I hope we avoid. Not good enough to be a regular at Liverpool, but would still cost quite a lot. And coming here for the wrong reason, not good enough to play for Liverpool and on his way down. Villa wouldn't be a stepping stone for him to go back into the top teams. Rather a stepping stone on his way back to Belgium. If he, or similar players, come here it's not because they have a thirst to win. Then they would stay and fight for their place.

Not sure what we can expect this summer in terms of spending. I think we should focus on the squad, rather than go for the big £40-50m signings. For me it's more the lack of squad depth rather than the lack of exeptional players that almost sent us straight back to the Championship.

And that's not very surprising, because if we look at what we brought in. We must have spent half of the money on a CB that was already at the club, a GK that was very necessary and a striker that we hoped would be as good as the one that we had on loan. Then we kept a couple of other loan players and brought in 4-5 budget players from Europe.

But it wasn't down to not having a team that weren't good enough. It was down to not having a squad that was good enough. That, and missing players that would allow us to dominate games against lower half teams. 

I hope we go for a mix of up and coming players at sensible prices, such as Eze. And some solid, but not spectacluar sensible priced PL players that we think will might contribute, such as Josh King and others. And then go for some players abroad. All the players we brought in last year will now have some PL experience. Which means a couple of players from abroad won't have to hit the ground running

I think what's between us and a solid, mid table finish is lack of depth. If we can achieve that with players with their best years still ahead of them, I think 21/22 is when we should go for just a couple of big signings. 

3 hours ago, DJ_Villain said:

Ciro Immobile?

Haven't seen him play. Does he do a lot of running?

Why do so many seem to think we’ve signed bad players?

When we went down we also har a lot of foreign players that didn’t perform. But most of them have done quite well since then. 

We did what we had to last summer. A lot of money went to buy players that were already here. The rest was spent on players with potential. If we stay up I think most of them will improve.

New teammates, new league, new country. It takes some time to adjust. 

Michael Boulding was crap. But he was a great talent. In tennis though.

And what about the 'Next Pelè' - Nii Lamptey. Crap here, but great in Championship Manager.

11 hours ago, PaulC said:

Yes the more deadly a virus the easier it is to contain 

Very true.

Covid-19 is a virus that doesn't do serious harm to most people, yet lethal enough to be ignored. 

Players getting infected will by 99.9% likelyhood survive it if they were normal people. But what it can do to elite athlets is unknown. It's easy to see that it might do some permanent damange on the lungs. It probably won't kill them, but it can do serious damage to their careers. Having just 80% lung capacity, either permanent or semipermanent is probably enough to end a career at the highest level.

Young people also tend to get very light symptoms, which means if tests aren't accurate enough they might play football at the highest level while infected. Could mean nothing, could put them in greater danger for more serious illness and/or death. Nobody knows.

1 minute ago, VillaChris said:

Problem remains winter though with the annual flu season. Simply can't see many people wanting to be out and about then given what we're going through currently.

Probably true, but there won't be a vaccine ready for quite some time. Which means we need to learn to live with this virus wether we like it or not.

3 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Hopefully this virus doesn't turn more aggressive and i truly believe both seasons can be finished. All eyes will be set on the Bundesliga on Saturday.

Highly unlikely. A virus wants to reproduce and to survive. A virus killing it's host won't survive. Which means more contagious and less lethal are the most likely mutations..

38 minutes ago, abdulaziz1 said:

Ofcourse,

But it’s not as if relegating us will save the world. It’s neither legal nor essential, we need to push them to not relegate us as that won’t change the world situation anyway.

The board need to be sure how to get most benefit for the club, as every business owner is doing. Yes we should not contradict with principals, our club already announced a great things about helping the community. But we need to fight to not be an unjustified victim because PL authorities not giving a ** about the weaker teams.

It's essential for Sky/BT as otherwise the remaining 92 games are without meaning. Which means people won't pay to watch. Same reason why promotions are essential for the Championship.

Getting the TV money is essential for clubs who don't buy their players with cash only. When installments for players already bought are due, they will need that cash. 

This is a great opportunity for us as long as we stay in the PL. 

14 hours ago, midian said:

Noway you can hand Liverpool the title and relegate us,they havent won the league yet and we arent relegated yet all ifs and buts,has to be null and void only way it should be sorted.

The relegation on a PPG average is a threath by the PL to get clubs currently in the bottom 3 to accept to fall in line and accept finishing the season. Relegations is a demand from Sky/BT, as otherwise the 92 games left would have no real importance and not a good TV product.

Relegation on a PPG average hasn't been discussed if the season is voided , at least not officially, as an alternative. Because everything the PL has been discussing is how the season can be finished. They haven't been discussing what will happen if they have to void the season.

Which means it's not the PL that's pushing relegations. Should the government decide that PL football can't resume early enough for them to finishing the season, that's a whole new situation.

It would allow PL to claim force majeure vs Sky/BT and EFL and relegating clubs on a PPG is not within the PL rules. In their rules (rule C.1) the season is two games, home and away, vs all other teams. It doesn't say anything on what will happen if a season is voided. Which means they will only relegate if that's the least expensive outcome, meaning EFL will sue PL for more money that the three clubs relegated on a PPG average is suing them for.

The situation in the Championship is that no clubs currently have won promotion and no clubs are anywhere near. Which means a club like Leeds can't sue the PL, because they would need to prove that without reasonable doubt that they would have won enough games to ensure they got promoted. If the PL can't resume, then neither can the Championship. The EFL can, on the other side, sue the PL if they unilaterally decide not to accept promotions. But it's very hard to see how there is any major economical consequence for the EFL which clubs are in their league.

Which again makes a good situation for a settlement between the EFL and the PL. The EFL get the parachute money and that's it. If the PL is taken to court by clubs unfairly relegated, then those clubs will win. It won't happen overnight, so we will play in the Championship next season. But PL would then be responsible for lost revenue and would need to compensate that, and probably promote us as well should we win. I doubt they would be interested in that just so they can please EFL. When they have a very solid case if they don't. 

36 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I agree with most you said but even sweetening with extra cash I wouldnt take.  Look at how many teams have got relegated and never got back.  Long term financials could be huge and 3 years stuck in the Championship is not a long time, we were there that long....how long have Leeds, Forest and teams like that have been.  Additionally the gulf in quality and money between PL and Championship is growing every season.

Well, it depends on perspective I think. No, we shouldn't sell our place in the PL: That's not what I meant.

Two months ago we were heading for relegation with just a normal parachute payment. I think whatever comes out of this we should get more than that.

Best thing for us is to stay in this division after 38 games. It means a new season in the PL and all the cash.
Second best thing for us is to stay in the division after 28 games. It means a new season in the PL, but less cash.

As our best option isn't risk free, it's easy to go for the second best. But I think we should use the situation to make sure we get the best out of it, regardless of what's decided.

I believe the PL will just choose the least expensive option. I do not for a minute believe they actually care if clubs are relegated or not. The only reason why they want relegations is because of money. If TV money isn't coming without relegations, then there will be relegations.

If TV money isn't coming because government doesn't allow football to start soon enough, then I think PL would rather be sued by EFL than three clubs relegated on PPG. 

By using common sense this season should be voided, no relegations, no champion, no nothing.. But if money is more important than common sense, then let's grab as much money as possible. 

3 hours ago, villalad21 said:

You want to be relegated mate? Because that's what is likely to happen. They'll do points average per game.

Finishing the season is our best chance surviving in the league.

This is a rather complex situation with lot's of conflicting interests. 

• All PL clubs want the TV money.
• Some PL clubs, bottum 6-7-8, are probably ok with not getting the money if it means no relegations.
• Those outside the relegation zone on a PPG average are probably ok with voiding the season, with relegations.They don't want a restart with relegations.
• Those inside the relegations zone on a PPG average only want the season voided if it means no relegations. They would rather play than accept relegation.
• Many clubs do not really want to play, but will play if they have to to get the money. 
• Players are sceptical and probably don't want to play if they can choose. Some will probably refuse.
• Refs are sceptical and probably don't want to go to work if they can choose. Some will probably refuse.
• All the TV companies around the world would probably be happy if they didn't have to pay for what everyone understands will not be Premier League
• In the end it isn't the clubs, but the government that decides on if, when and how they can start. 
• The EFL want their clubs promoted.
• At some point in time there will be 2020/21-season. This situation can't drag on forever.

So I'm not sure finishing the season is our best chance of survival, it just depends on who's doing what and when. If they get OK to restart July 15th, it's probably too late. The league as a whole will think it's in their best interest to void the season and focus on 2020/21.We haven't been against playing (as long as it's safe), we're not relegated and this is force majeure for the Premier League.

They don't have to accept promotions because the league hasn't been able to finish due to government regulations (3rd party, out of their hands). PL to be sued by EFL if clubs aren't promoted, PL to be sued by relegated clubs if relegated on a PPG average. Will probably go for being sued by EFL, as no clubs have been promoted to the PL and don't have a strong case. Just hand over the parachute money to EFL as a compensation and let them sort out how it's distributed.

If PL get's the green light to play in time to finish this season and we're against it and refusing to play, then it's something else.
PL can threaten to relegate on a PPG average, but it's a non credible threath. Relegating on PPG means season voided, and no TV money. PL to be sued by relegated clubs on top of this. Nobody wants this scenario.

So the best thing for us is the season can only start when it's too late. Then it has to be voided, but not by the PL:

Clubs relegated should, at the very least, not be relegated with just normal parachute payments. I'm quite sure the PL would make a deal with substantial extra payments as a settlement for not being sued by clubs relegated unfairly.

Relegated clubs suing PL will win. Rule C1 says that all clubs should play each other twice (home and away= and based on their final league position clubs are relegated (rule C15). To be able to meet rule C1 all clubs must agree that they accept a neutral ground as their home ground for their home games. Which is what we currently won't do. But we could agree to if the PL puts enough extra cash in it to sweeten the deal for clubs relegated..

So this, lilke most other things, can be solved by money.

Our objectives should be to finish the season as a normal season, but only if it can be done through fair a competition. It's difficult to see how.

If the season can't be finished that way, but they still would like to complete it just to get the money, then we should accept only as long as we're not in danger of going down.

If that's not possible, we should at the very least make sure that those clubs that do go down have more than just the normal parachute payments. Which means those that actually go down should have full PL money for 2020/21 and parachute payments to kick in from 2021/22 should they still be in the Championship. 

This is a farce. I'm quite sure that the TV companies will be quite happy for the league not to resume, because it saves them a lot of money. Which means they will put unrealistic demands on the PL, which in turn is desperate to get that cash and will try everything they can to actually meet those demands, regardless of what. 

We should be able to get something out of the situation regardless I think. I think a financial package that will give the relegated teams a huge advantage in the Championship 2020/21 is the least that needs to be on the table for the bottom clubs to even consider to play. The PPG and relegation is of course something they can scare the bottom clubs with, but it's not a credible threath as it also means that the season is voided and £1b is lost.