DakotaVilla

8 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

How many people at the club do you think would get the sack if we spent tens of millions on Bissouma, only for him to be convicted of sexual assault soon after.

I could see us doing this sort of thing under Dr Tony, but nowadays we are one of the most professionally run clubs in the country.

I just don’t think anyone at the club would be that stupid unless they know something about the case that we don’t.

 

We’d obviously only buy him if that’s an extremely unlikely outcome. He was in a packed club ….it’s apparent that this is not a Adam Johnson/Mendy level case already. 

17 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said:

Actually just to add balance, they aren’t dragging it out, getting from the point of allegation to a charging/no charging decision is a very lengthy process for a variety of reasons I won’t bore you with but it is still quite feasible that he could face no further action, maybe due to lack of evidence or just complete innocence. 

 

Exactly. He might just be completely innocent of all allegations. Won’t derail this thread further. 

1 hour ago, WallisFrizz said:

He may well be a sex offender but let’s use that as an an advantage to get him before the big boys come in??? 

At this stage he is innocent. It’s pointless to speculate either way but I’d be shocked if a club like Brighton are continuing to play him if it’s a truly egregious offence.

it’s absolutely something we should be looking to take advantage of if the due diligence indicates that there was no offence or even if it’s relatively minor or would you have rejected the opportunity to sign Neymar and Ronaldo - due to similar allegations they have faced -  in their prime for the same reason? 

This is the sharp end of elite sport. You don’t win any medals or trophies for being a lovely bunch of lads.

1 hour ago, WallisFrizz said:

I have no idea what he is alleged to have done but please can we show a bit of class, not minimise the ‘groping’ of women, remember that there is an alleged victim in this and not wish that it gets ‘smoothed over’ or that he gets a ‘slap on the wrist’ just so we can sign him.

If he faces no further action, I’m all for it but I do not want any body under investigation for, charged with or convicted of a sexual offence playing for this club and I would be ashamed of Villa if they moved for him before knowing the outcome of the investigation.

 At this stage Bissouma is innocent. It is for his accuser or the CPS to prove guilt. Very few people will know what actually happened but it appears that Brighton (a widely respected club) have done their due diligence and continued to allow him to play and he has been bailed and allowed to travel internationally freely.

He may well be guilty but if there is anything in this link the club would have done extensive back ground checks to see if he has any sort of similar behaviour in his past.

if the background checks don’t reveal anything then we absolutely should go all in to buy him now as the reality is that he will be going to one of the biggest clubs in the world if/when he is cleared. 

30 minutes ago, Eligius said:

I hope Leon turns into a great player for us, the way he said that this is the next step in his career sounds like it's just going to be a stepping stone.

That’s absolutely fine. We all know now that we can’t expect any loyalty from any footballer.

if he gets us into top 4 and then moves on for 80-100m he’ll have done his job. 

Just now, Steero113 said:

Maybe the fact that a football club actually made an offer for him.

The point is that he and his agent had already agreed personal terms with city months ago. They were just waiting for the bid to be accepted. 

1 minute ago, Mazrim said:

I know for a fact it wasn't "done" months ago. Also, how stupid are NSWE? Not very. So why offer terms to a player who has "gone".

So according to your sources what miraculously changed in the last few weeks?

2 minutes ago, Mazrim said:

It really wasn't.

So when his agent leaked to talksport and the daily mail that terms had been agreed during the euros that was incorrect?

Just now, Mazrim said:

The same. I honestly think the club thought there was a good chance of him staying. Otherwise it made no sense, and we do sense lately.

Grealish agreed terms with city months ago. This whole charade about training etc was about trying to get the best payment terms for city re the 100m. 

Just now, Tommo_b said:

Guessing everything must be in place now and it’s City just waiting on him to give the final go ahead and sign on the dotted line. 

Assume will happen in the next half hour, if doesn’t I think there’s still some serious conversations going on inside his head and with his family. 

Sorry to break it to you but he’s gone. 

3 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

I genuinely think even the owners, management and players were probably all taken by surprise.

It's one of the reasons it all feels so slimey to me.

I mean, they were all indicating he was going nowhere, and that the team was being built around him, even after seasons close.

They were fully mugged and Jack lied to all of them. Deal was done months ago. 

Unfortunately Jack’s the biggest clearing in the woods out of all of them - this deal was done many months ago. Only question was whether city would pay the 100m or not.

When does this move to other football?

His step father said that Bailey will be having some time off In Jamaica before joining up with the squad. He inferred that his grandmother is very ill.

If/when jack leaves I’m afraid it leaves the owners in a really poor light.

Failure to convince Jack to stay and a failure to have the strength to basically say no to a sale.

I could accept the above due to the reality of football but what I can’t accept is the complete and abject failure to prepare for this scenario by getting our business done first to avoid the grealish premium that’s basically going to turn the 100m into 80m - which is basically 1.5 Ben white’s in this market.

13 hours ago, Olof82Mellberg4 said:

What's your point?

He's still blatantly leaving

The point is that if there is no release clause and/or active public demand by Jack then it’s the owners decision to sell not Jack’s decision to leave.

Let’s deal in fact for a moment and not the ridiculous and embarrassing amount of bed wetting going on:

- is there a minimum release clause - highly unlikely because surely that would have been mentioned or met.

- has jack actively said he wants to leave? - no. 
 

It’s as simple as that folks. 

If there is no release clause why the hell would villa sell him for 75m or even 100m - even if jack secretly wanted to go?

if jack comes out publicly ala Kane then it becomes a different discussion but even then if there is no release clause we don’t HAVE to sell.

Also, it’s not a figment of media imagination. This is all down to leaks on the city and agent side, agents trying to get the best deal (whether jack stays or goes) and journos trying to get clicks. 

53 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said:

We clearly don’t otherwise we would have just done what Levy did and say no. In all of this, we’ve not once said “no, not happening, get lost”. It’s always been, we hope he’ll sign a new contract, we hope to build a team around him. If we’re at the negotiating table for a player we don’t want to sell, we don’t hold all the cards.

You can’t say no if no one has made a bid and where is the evidence that we’re negotiating with City?

As for Levy I’m glad that our owners nor Purslow aren’t playing to the crowd - we’re just getting on with our plans for the season. If I was going to bet money on any player going to City it would be Kane and not Jack.

So it appears in all of the leaks from the agent and from city there is no release fee, no ridiculous bid and no mention of Jack pushing for the move.

We appear to hold all the cards. 

Let’s cut through all the click bait and all the crap.

The simple question is whether there is a minimum release fee clause or not?

If there isn’t a clause then Jack stays unless City bid a truly ridiculous amount - which they won’t. 

If there is a clause then he’s probably gone unless we somehow sell him again on the project. 

On 19/07/2021 at 21:20, useless said:

The rumour seems to be that we're going to sign him and then loan him straight out to Newport County in League Two, which would seem strange as I'm not sure how a twenty one year old goes from playing at that level to be being good enough to play for us or good enough that we can sell him on for a worthwhile profit in a few years, it's possible of course but seems unlikely, if there's any truth to this story it feels like there must be more to it somehow...

 

Who is his agent and who else does he represent…..?