Speculation January Transfer Speculation 2015

[paulfromsutton]

We're not scoring goals so we're bound to be linked with a ton of strikers, even though it's not exactly what we need. The people who make up these rumours don't usually do context.

Quite. If, and I do say if, we get anyone this window it won't be a striker in my opinion it will be a wide player and most likely on loan.

We could do with replacements for Gabby and Wiemann, if we are adopting this new possesion style football then they are virtually useless. They are good counter attack type players but asking them to make clever runs in and around the box when when we are having possesion is pointless, they are not intelligent enough to play that way and both lack any real technical abilty

I agree, the problem as always is money.

Wasn't it quoted (from somewhere) last summer that Randy would back Lambert financially in January?

Cheap platitudes though aren't they really - he might chuck £10m at us best case scenario. Meaning less in reality if as I fear we end up chucking £8m at Manyoo for Cleverly.

Its hardly the £50m this teams needs to make it even vaguely competitive though is it?

10m sounds about right to my calculations last summer.

50m is never going to happen we live in a world of FFP and you need to deal with that when it comes to your expectations

[Eames]

Could do a lot, lot worse than Danny Ings or Charlie Austin. People are utterly deluded - the reality is these days they are probably too good for us! Face it, we're not a big club in the eyes of anyone but ourselves. Please stop being so proud.

Ings and Austin are certainly not "too good" for us.... but the reality is that being English and half decent, I would imagine you wouldn't see much change from £30m for the pair of them, 

[paulfromsutton]

Keep delph & vlaar til end of season

Sign Sinclair in jan

Wait to get cleverly on a free

Sell benteke 45m, gabby, weiman & nzogbia should be about 50m to spend

In summer go for Townsend, dembele, Ings & Austin

Guzan

Hutton okore clark cissokho

Sanchez westwood

Townsend dembele Sinclair

Austin

Drugs are just bad.....mmmmkay.

I was thinking the same thing

[CannockVillan]

That may be the case but unfortunately we play with 11 defenders!

 

p.s. replying to the post regarding paying the bonuses and forgot to quote!

Edited January 6, 2015 by CannockVillan

[paulfromsutton]

We're not scoring goals so we're bound to be linked with a ton of strikers, even though it's not exactly what we need. The people who make up these rumours don't usually do context.

Quite. If, and I do say if, we get anyone this window it won't be a striker in my opinion it will be a wide player and most likely on loan.

We could do with replacements for Gabby and Wiemann, if we are adopting this new possesion style football then they are virtually useless. They are good counter attack type players but asking them to make clever runs in and around the box when when we are having possesion is pointless, they are not intelligent enough to play that way and both lack any real technical abilty

I agree, the problem as always is money.

Wasn't it quoted (from somewhere) last summer that Randy would back Lambert financially in January?

Cheap platitudes though aren't they really - he might chuck £10m at us best case scenario.

Its hardly the £50m this teams needs to make it even vaguely competitive though is it?

I don't think we're £50million away, we're a couple of players short from being a really good side (provided we're set up right), what needs addressing is the breakdown between midfield and attack.

Trouble is a lot of the players Paul has brought in he has taken a gamble on because largely with the money he had that's what he had to do. Some have worked out some havent. The players we need now to make a difference cant really be gambles they have to work and so that will cost both in terms of fees and wages , not 50M maybe but lets say it's two 9 or 10M players thats 20M. They'll want 3 year contracts I guess as a minimum on around 60K pw so there's another 9M each in basic wages before bonuses and signing on fees so for two qualityish players that we need you are talking 40M starter.

Fortunately you don't need to pay all the wages and bonuses up front...

Well with amortisation you kind of do and that counts under FFP regs

[lapal_fan]

If we were to sign, 2 £10m players, one in MC and one winger, we'd be in a much, much better shape.

 

As it stands we have 4 very good players (all my opinion) in Guzan, Okore (although young), Sanchez (probably a top 8 player) & Benteke (the world's his oyster).  The problem is that only 1 of them is likely to score goals on any regular basis.  We need a couple of supporting players, someone who can score us a few goals and look dangerous.  Currently, if you were a premier league defender, you'd look at us and be extremely cautious of Beneteke, you'd be weary of Gabby's pace, but you wouldn't fancy him to score most likely, and Wiemanns too busy helping out the midfield to really concern you.  All's this means, is that 2 or 3 defenders at any one time will be monitoring Benteke which gives us very little threat.  Our midfielders need to go past the strikers once in a while to give us the extra man and the extra ball  - I think a decent, powerful player (someone like Newcastles Sissoko for example) would give us a huge boost, occupy other defenders and make life easier for our other attacking players.

[Eames]

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're not scoring goals so we're bound to be linked with a ton of strikers, even though it's not exactly what we need. The people who make up these rumours don't usually do context.

Quite. If, and I do say if, we get anyone this window it won't be a striker in my opinion it will be a wide player and most likely on loan.

We could do with replacements for Gabby and Wiemann, if we are adopting this new possesion style football then they are virtually useless. They are good counter attack type players but asking them to make clever runs in and around the box when when we are having possesion is pointless, they are not intelligent enough to play that way and both lack any real technical abilty

I agree, the problem as always is money.

Wasn't it quoted (from somewhere) last summer that Randy would back Lambert financially in January?

Cheap platitudes though aren't they really - he might chuck £10m at us best case scenario. Meaning less in reality if as I fear we end up chucking £8m at Manyoo for Cleverly.

Its hardly the £50m this teams needs to make it even vaguely competitive though is it?

10m sounds about right to my calculations last summer.

50m is never going to happen we live in a world of FFP and you need to deal with that when it comes to your expectations

 

My expectations are fine thanks. 

 

I don't EXPECT £50m to be spent at all. I certainly don't demand it. Its pretty clear from my post that £50m is my assessment of how much this squad needs to be competitive.  

[omariqy]

I think we should improve our defensive players.  Someone like Berbatov or Ronaldinho perhaps?

[Bunnski]

Nevermind paying £10m for a player. We don't need to spend that much to fund superior wingers to Gabby and Weimann. I seen a fee of £2.5m quoted for the Sinclair deal. I'd say that is more realistic to the type of fee will be looking to spend.

[sharkyvilla]

Could do a lot, lot worse than Danny Ings or Charlie Austin. People are utterly deluded - the reality is these days they are probably too good for us! Face it, we're not a big club in the eyes of anyone but ourselves. Please stop being so proud.

Ings and Austin are certainly not "too good" for us.... but the reality is that being English and half decent, I would imagine you wouldn't see much change from £30m for the pair of them,

Ings is out of contract in the summer so it's not really the transfer fee that is the issue, but the wages and what he actually wants from his next move, whether it's regular playing time at a middle PL club or just whoever offers him the most money.

All I'm hoping for from this transfer window really is not to sign Cleverley, get Sinclair in on loan and a young player for a few million.

[omariqy]

Aston Villa is about Danny Ings' level. 

[AntrimBlack]

Could do a lot, lot worse than Danny Ings or Charlie Austin. People are utterly deluded - the reality is these days they are probably too good for us! Face it, we're not a big club in the eyes of anyone but ourselves. Please stop being so proud.

 

Never.

That is what carries me through the bad times.

Our history. Very few clubs have the history that we have. We should be proud.

[useless]

Whether or not Ings or Austin are good enough for us is really not the plot it's that we won't fork out the money to pay for them. .

Edited January 6, 2015 by useless

[gilbertoAVFC]

 

Could do a lot, lot worse than Danny Ings or Charlie Austin. People are utterly deluded - the reality is these days they are probably too good for us! Face it, we're not a big club in the eyes of anyone but ourselves. Please stop being so proud.

 

Never.

That is what carries me through the bad times.

Our history. Very few clubs have the history that we have. We should be proud.

 

 

And this is what holds us back as a club. Adapt your expectations to the reality of our situation or we will go the way of Forest.

 

What does history mean if we can't attract or keep hold of decent players? Absolutely nothing, and that is all it means to be a 'big club' in modern football. What relevance does our history have anymore? Villa fans do not "deserve" success because we used to be good. This attitude is embarrassing. Football is different today and big-time success is not viable for all but a handful of clubs. It is not possible to be anywhere near the club we were. So I'm afraid Danny Ings is all we'll be getting for now.

 

There are a lot of issues at the club that need resolving and perhaps sacking Lambert is a good idea (though it's not going to happen anytime soon), but it's not going to make us much better than we are until we have investment. Please accept this.

[lapal_fan]

History means ruck all when you're career is only 10-15 years from beginning to end.

 

It's something for us to aspire to for sure, knowing that in the past we've won the biggest trophies - it's what sets us apart from teams like Hull, Crystal Palace maybe even Everton.

 

But if you were a player now, aged 25 and Villa offered you 25k a week for 4 years, or Newcastle, Sunderland, Stoke offered you 35k a week for 4 years, I doubt many would think "blimey, 30 years ago Villa won the European Cup!".

[gilbertoAVFC]

History means ruck all when you're career is only 10-15 years from beginning to end.

 

It's something for us to aspire to for sure, knowing that in the past we've won the biggest trophies - it's what sets us apart from teams like Hull, Crystal Palace maybe even Everton.

 

But if you were a player now, aged 25 and Villa offered you 25k a week for 4 years, or Newcastle, Sunderland, Stoke offered you 35k a week for 4 years, I doubt many would think "blimey, 30 years ago Villa won the European Cup!".

 

Precisely

[AntrimBlack]

 

History means ruck all when you're career is only 10-15 years from beginning to end.

 

It's something for us to aspire to for sure, knowing that in the past we've won the biggest trophies - it's what sets us apart from teams like Hull, Crystal Palace maybe even Everton.

 

But if you were a player now, aged 25 and Villa offered you 25k a week for 4 years, or Newcastle, Sunderland, Stoke offered you 35k a week for 4 years, I doubt many would think "blimey, 30 years ago Villa won the European Cup!".

 

Precisely

 

 

Sorry, guys, but in my opinion you do not quite get it. I agree that our history means little or nothing to anyone else, but it does, and should, mean a lot to us.

It makes us that little bit different, as you suggest, Lapal, and that can only be good.

Of course I do not think it will get us better players, but to suggest, as you do, Gilberto, that it holds us back, is just incorrect.

And it certainly will not sway modern players to join us, but any who do could not fail to feel that history.

[powell91]

There is no way we are going to be spending anymore than 3m this window which gives us **** all chance of signing anyone half decent so im not putting my hopes up.

[gilbertoAVFC]

 

 

History means ruck all when you're career is only 10-15 years from beginning to end.

 

It's something for us to aspire to for sure, knowing that in the past we've won the biggest trophies - it's what sets us apart from teams like Hull, Crystal Palace maybe even Everton.

 

But if you were a player now, aged 25 and Villa offered you 25k a week for 4 years, or Newcastle, Sunderland, Stoke offered you 35k a week for 4 years, I doubt many would think "blimey, 30 years ago Villa won the European Cup!".

 

Precisely

 

 

Sorry, guys, but in my opinion you do not quite get it. I agree that our history means little or nothing to anyone else, but it does, and should, mean a lot to us.

It makes us that little bit different, as you suggest, Lapal, and that can only be good.

Of course I do not think it will get us better players, but to suggest, as you do, Gilberto, that it holds us back, is just incorrect.

And it certainly will not sway modern players to join us, but any who do could not fail to feel that history.

 

 

I get it, I'm just sick of it. Players feel it only because it's rammed down their throats by fans that expect more from players than they are capable of. It's not necessarily a good thing that they feel the history, it's undeserved and unnecessary pressure. You wonder why we've been on the backs of all of our managers in recent years and turned on them easily? Because expectations are too high. Why is this? History!

 

It holds us back because a lot of fans (not necessarily you), still expect us to maintain the standards previously set, which is obviously not possible. Nowhere near possible in fact, when your best players leave every season, which previously wasn't the case.

 

There's nothing wrong in being proud of past glories as long as it doesn't negatively impact the club currently, which I believe it does.

[lapal_fan]

 

 

History means ruck all when you're career is only 10-15 years from beginning to end.

 

It's something for us to aspire to for sure, knowing that in the past we've won the biggest trophies - it's what sets us apart from teams like Hull, Crystal Palace maybe even Everton.

 

But if you were a player now, aged 25 and Villa offered you 25k a week for 4 years, or Newcastle, Sunderland, Stoke offered you 35k a week for 4 years, I doubt many would think "blimey, 30 years ago Villa won the European Cup!".

 

Precisely

 

 

Sorry, guys, but in my opinion you do not quite get it. I agree that our history means little or nothing to anyone else, but it does, and should, mean a lot to us.

It makes us that little bit different, as you suggest, Lapal, and that can only be good.

Of course I do not think it will get us better players, but to suggest, as you do, Gilberto, that it holds us back, is just incorrect.

And it certainly will not sway modern players to join us, but any who do could not fail to feel that history.

 

 

Oh I get it, we can be proud of it (although on a personal level, I wasn't even alive when we won anything more than 2 league cups), and I agree that when a player joins and looks around Bodymoor then undoubtedly the pictures would fire you up somewhat, but if it's between looking at a clubs history and an extra 1 grand a week (i'm talking about two similar clubs here (11th/12th place if you want)) - then the extra 1k over 4 years would win - MOST LIKELY.