MrBlack

They're screwed without Kane. With him they're bankrupt. Son already dropped off this year and I expect he'll hit the cliff next season. Maddison and Richarlison are a mid-table forward lineup. They're going backwards and will be a few years before they're back near the top. I'd love it if they don't sell Kane now. Turning down 70m for him is madness.

My concerns with signing a quality player in a position we're already strong in are to do with the fact we have FFP spending limits. That money then can't be spent in a position where we need a quality player more. I'd rather we spent 100m on a second striker and got that right, than 40m on Torres and 60m on a second striker that isn't our first choice. Obviously, money only goes so far to persuading a player to join. Maybe we've exhausted the really expensive first choices for those positions, and rather than over spend on a second choice we're striking while the irons hot on another player we see as the future of our defence. But part of my little concern is we revisit the second striker options later in the window to see what's evolved and if it transpires our first target now wants to come to us, but we can no longer afford them.... have we then hampered our season. Overall though, I trust Emery, and only have to look at what happened with Moreno to see that signing someone i didnt think we needed is probably more to do with me being wrong than Emery making the wrong call.

I agree. Looking back at it I still feel it needs some work, maybe more gold, maybe a slightly better shape, but it's in the right frame of being unique, but also not crazy, and actually meaning something to us. The lion was bigger and more detailed. That lion can then be used in isolation where we want to simplify the logo, maybe even on the shirt itself. Keep the full logo for other purposes, but as a shape that represents our foundation, it will never age. Feel like we're in a (still fairly sizable) minority on this though.

The sponsor is huge but I'd take a legitimate business like that over ours any day. Maybe if we get Europa League next season we can hope for a blue chip sponsor, but sadly they're out of our league at the moment, unless we are happy to take a massive drop in our sponsorship funding. As for the shirt, hard to go wrong with red and black, but I do wonder whats with all the random patterns appearing more than ever this season. They all just feel so arbitrary

This^ Mings should never have lost it in the first place, but now that he has, and they're both performing out their skin with their respective roles, I see zero reason to change it again. Giving mings the club captain role will be a good way to wrap the mistakes of the past up for good

I'm sure as a child they were banned from playing in uefa tournaments due to their decision to not play in their home nation's league. But then I recall Swansea played in Europe so guess if that ever was the case, uefa found a way to bend their rules to suit.

I'm not. Overrated and doesn't like villa so wouldn't come here even if we wanted to match what spurs offered

Brings back some memories that does...albeit hazy ones. Not too dissimilar to our own lion from the 70s (according to a source that may or may not be reputable)

I'd buy that... in the sale obviously.

Can't have a mostly claret background on our badge when we have a claret shirt though. In that scenario surely we just abandon the badge altogether and just have the lion. Gold lion on our claret and blue shirt Claret lion on our white away kit. Etc etc...

I'm expecting that Archer will be kept around this season to be added as an extra option in the early ECL stages, that effectively means he won't take up a space in the ECL squad as we've only got one or two others that qualify anyway. If we are seeking a goal to avoid going out against supposedly weaker opposition, I'd honestly back Archer to finish a chance better than Watkins. That's not to say I'd start him over Ollie in this games, but those throw off the dice calls might need someone like Cam. Assumes that the second striker we sign to replace Bailey means we aren't buying an out and out striker alongside then.

They will surely be posting another £1 balance sheet before the deadline. Whilst I wouldn't love the immediate impact on the club this would have, it would be great for the longer term. Let's hope they do get struck off.

It looks very nice, but makes me wonder what the background shown in the home kit release was. Also makes me wonder why we let them have two colours on our home kit. As if it isn't bad enough, they've given it two colours, neither of which are in the rest of the kit.

Why is anyone in the UK buying Chelsea players. They're not worth the money they're paying for them, and they're strengthening a rival by buying from them. It's ridiculous. There's better players out there for 60m United, leave Mount alone

Rules let you sign whatever length contract you want. But only 5 years of it will count in terms of the period you can amortise the purchase price over

Yeah, but that's hardly a negotiation that needs to" begin". It just happens. However, it was explained that the structure of the fee that meets the clause will need to be agreed, so guess that requires a level of negotiation.

Yes, maybe in the eyes of the general public. But in the eyes of the money of the world, big corporations, rival countries, etc... its seen as a country that hosted a world cup, in a very short turnaround, and was able to do so despite the logistical challenges. It's come out of it looking better than it went in to the people that matter to it.

I suspect it will end up being the best bit of business this whole window. The value over the course of his contract, and the ability to sell him in a few years time for pure FFP profit if that's what we want, is at its worst, great business. Alternatively he's become a world class midfielder that can push us on and we laugh at how are top 4 midfield cost us less than a Chukwuemeka.

I imagine uefa would be happy about this. Not blowing our own trumpet too much, but the risk of us knocking out one of the higher seeds would be one they'd be happy to avoid (without restoring to draw tampering). Also means a PL team definitely in the tournament. Would they be inclined to accept just a one year hiatus on exchange for all the dodgy things Juve have done though?

Fiorentina would be below us then? I'm not sure I follow the logic of it being a hint anyway. They are there, they're just in the wrong place, showing in QR2 page. Edit: they've corrected it also, now showing in the right place: https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaconferenceleague/clubs/

Those two posts make zero sense. Why would we be negotiating with Leeds if he has a clause in his contract? They're not going to accept any less than that, as its probably already below his actual value.

If the away one is similar to the background that was shown in the promo it could be very nice.

As long as he is leaving it doesn't matter. That connection with a club is a sign he cares. Let's get him into the villa family and loving us as much.

Looks like a cycling top

I think he's capable of playing DM for a PL team that doesn't get relegated. So if Luton sign him, they've done well. If they sign him for less than 5m they've done very well to get a player of his calibre. They won't get so lucky elsewhere on the pitch, but they'd be foolish if they don't meet our asking price on him... which I expect would be very reasonable considering his ability. You just know it will be one of those undisclosed transfers we never find out about.