MadridVilla

-------------------------------Steer----------------------------

----Guilbert---Tuanzebe---Hause---Targett-----

---Nakamba---Chukwuemeka---Hourihane---

-------------El Ghazi---Wesley---JPB------------------

Definitely a good opportunity to rotate the squad and gain match fitness, after a disrupted preseason schedule. Apparently the biggest problem we'll face is the sea breeze that makes it a difficult task to travel there - supposedly it's more of a challenge than a cold Tuesday night in Stoke.

It's obviously a bigger game for Barrow than it is for us so I'm hoping we're not complacent - winning a cup could be the easiest route into Europe if the draw is kind. Fingers crossed for a smooth run into the next round without any casualties.

---------------Martinez------------------

Cash---Konsa---Mings---Young

--------Nakamba---McGinn--------

-----Bailey---Buendia---JPB------

-------------------Ings--------------------

Young in for Targett to deal with ASM, after he was taken to the cleaners by Sarr last week. I don't think Targett is a bad defender, but he didn't look match fit last weekend and Young is supposedly one of the fittest players in the squad.

Keep Nakamba and McGinn but really would like to see Luiz back as he's better in possession, and we will probably dominate possession at home against Bruce.

I'd give Philogene-Bidace a start after a really promising preseason and El Ghazi not exactly showing much last weekend. We're going to miss having Traore as he would be the obvious player to come into the starting XI.

Hopefully the full house at Villa Park can galvanise us and give us the home advantage we need to get a win tomorrow. 2-1 for me 

20 minutes ago, Midfielder said:

Man City's new third kit, below. Possibly one of the worst kits I have ever seen. Any City fan buying that, above their other kits at the same price needs an appointment with someone.

It looks so cheap, effortless and just plain nasty. This really is their 3rd kit, no wind up. Not even the club crest is on it.

  

This is the football shirt equivalent of stubbing your toe 

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha (breathe) hahahahahahahahahahahaha

It would make sense if we went to 3 CBs, maybe a 3-5-2 to play Ings and Watkins upfront together but still keep the numbers in midfield. But like everyone else it seems to be a strange link 

Been linked with Mario Hermoso from Atlético Madrid. He’s a good centre back, he played a fair bit last year in their title winning season. Atleti are my second team so I’d like to think I’ve seen him more than most on this forum, and he did well last season from what I remember. 
 

Thoughts?

Whenever I see the Salernitana captains armband I can’t help but think it looks exactly like a British Union of Fascists armband…

He's baaaaack

----------------Martinez-----------------

Cash---Konsa---Mings---Young

--------McGinn---Nakamba--------

---Bailey---Buendia---El Ghazi--

-----------------Watkins-----------------

Interesting first game, will be nice to see some of the new signings in action. With Ings and Watkins both top strikers it's hard to know whether they will rotate or both play - it will make it harder for the opposition to know what to expect as we were becoming predictable at times last year. Losing Grealish and bringing in new players does mean it will be a lot harder for oppositions to work us out before the game, but those tactics will be new to us as well.

"Hi Leo, yes we've just cleared the number 10 shirt for you, you're booked in at the Belfry hotel tomorrow evening" 

5 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

We’re complaining about City signing our best player when we’ve signed Norwich’s and going back for the second!  

I would laugh but I know how it feels and it’s bloody ‘orrible

1 minute ago, SuperTed said:

Yeah we’ve signed their best player I can’t see them rolling over for us to sign their second best player 

Agreed, it would look very bad on their part to sell both of their best players in the same summer to a club that, let's remember, finished below them only a few seasons ago. I can't see how they could justify that to the fans 

Well he's not as good as Buendia so paying more than £30m for him would be a bad deal for Villa. But it's Norwich's right to set whatever price they like for him, we're not entitled to take who we like at the drop of a hat (unlike a certain team in sky blue).

I think he's probably similar to how Jack was seen a few years ago, Norwich fans will wax lyrical about how good he is/will become, and opposition fans write him off as overrated. That's not to say he will follow in Jack's footsteps and become a superstar, but it also isn't totally unrealistic to think he could do really well in the Prem.

I can't say I've seen much of him so I've no idea how good he really is, but his assist from Norwich's game yesterday was pure class. Plus he has floppy hair, so he would fill our quota in that regard as well.

If Grealish doesn’t believe that Villa would be good enough to compete for trophies then we don’t want him anyway. We only want people at the club who believe and are committed to making it happen. 
 

Say what you like about Grealish being a Villa boy, but he’s given up on his boyhood club because he wants instant success with City. For me all the talk about Villa being his club and his home rings quite hollow. 
 

That said there will still be 11 men wearing the lion rampant on their shirt and they will always have our full support, no matter who they are. 

No hard feelings. I’ve got no doubts they will have moved heaven and earth to convince him to stay, so we can’t ask any more than that. 
 

Job now is to build a stronger team with that money, let’s see what they can do

With Grealish off I’m glad we have a ready-made leader to replace him as captain. The guy oozes class on and off the field, and he is a better role model than Jack. 

This is my guess at trying to make sense of the whole situation as it stands (not itk, just a guess):

City have put in a bid worth the release clause amount of £100m, but the two clubs can’t agree on the structure of that deal. City want to amortise the deal over a number of years, but Villa want money upfront to spend this summer on their targets to replace Jack. 
 

There is some deadline between the clubs for a deal to be agreed otherwise Villa won’t sanction a deal as they won’t have time to bring in replacements. So the longer this goes on, and Villa remain strong, the more likely Grealish stays. Either that or City budge and structure the deal with cash upfront, and the deal goes through. 
 

City won’t want to structure their deal with too much cash upfront because they won’t have a chance of signing Kane this summer. Even if they sell players it will be hard for them to impose the same structure that Villa want on multiple players. Given that Kane is now actively trying to push through a deal City don’t want to get burnt with a costly structure for Grealish and not managing to sign a wantaway Kane. 
 

Will Jack go? Maybe, it depends on the clubs agreeing a structure. But I would guess it would be City compromising so that we can get our replacements in, if it does happen. 

4 minutes ago, Okonokos said:

 

 

 

 

 

There. That's everything he's said from what I can make out.

Could be rubbish and he doesn't sound convinced himself but he called Traore and Barkley last summer so who knows?

Playing Devil’s advocate here so don’t pile on. But why are we preparing for both outcomes of Grealish staying or going, if Grealish is definitely signing a new deal?

As soon as this corner flag pic comes out it’s bad news

4 minutes ago, It's Your Round said:

https://twitter.com/City_Xtra/status/1421094360561692679?s=20

 

City Xtra (@City_Xtra) Tweeted: #ManCity have offered £90M plus Morgan Rogers (19) - valued at £10M - for Jack Grealish. Rogers would be open to a move to Villa Park, and is also wanted by Crystal Palace.

[via @RobDawsonESPN]

I can’t copy Tweets, clearly!

But who dafuq is Morgan Rogers?

We won't accept that, not enough e's in the club shop

Would SJM be moved to an attacking midfield role without Grealish I wonder? He's been quite successful in a more advanced role with Scotland, chipping in with a lot of goals last season

6 minutes ago, mikeyjavfc said:

Theoretically, if Grealish went for £120m and we reinvested all of that money - could 3 £40m players replace Grealish for us?

Yes - but arguably it’s not about replacing Grealish himself but his chances created, goals, assists, passing etc. It’s unlikely we can replace him with one player so we would need to upgrade on what we have to plug those gaps. 
 

We may sign someone who can create more chances than El Ghazi, someone else who can provide more goals etc. 
 

We can become a more balanced team without Jack and it will mean it’s less about opposition just tripling up on him like we’ve seen. 

Never thought City would bid 9 figures and to be honest, the fact they have says it’s curtains for Jack at Villa. They’ve met the supposed asking price so this is only going one way now.