useless Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 We're the greatest club in the world and Ings and Austin aren't pretty enough to play for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 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. I do not think our expectations are based on our history, I just think they are what any club in our position would have. I actually think our fans are very patient and surprisingly understanding. But I do not think our history has a negative impact, so we will just have to disagree on that one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 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 Capitalising the salary payments, nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Is that wrong Richard? I was reliably informed it counts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 You're talking the salaries and wages ? Revenue expenditure ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The fee is amortized over the contract and the wages are written down as wages usually are (weekly/monthly) when paid, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Yep. http://tomkinstimes.com/2014/07/ffp-and-the-amortisation-of-suarez/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Real Madrid handle transfers in the best way. When they buy someone they purchase 50% of the players rights. So they make so much money back from that player from other contracts that he has. Makes sense really. That money can then go against the outlay for the player they just purchased for each year of his contract. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Real Madrid handle transfers in the best way. When they buy someone they purchase 50% of the players rights. So they make so much money back from that player from other contracts that he has. Makes sense really. That money can then go against the outlay for the player they just purchased for each year of his contract. Pretty sure that would only work when you are signing the best players in the world. Doubt there are any kids in China wearing Villa shirts with Delph on the back. Good policy for them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villanwesty88 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Abou Diaby anyone? Might be available for a loan you never know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Never fit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 No thanks has he ever managed to string together a run of games without being injured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 We've only got one more domestic loan left to use (unless we sign Cleverley permanently) so using it up on a player that is perennially injured probably isn't the best idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Abou Diaby - a professional hospital patient who's career has been blighted by appearances for Arsenal 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villanwesty88 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 It would be a gamble but if he stayed fit he's miles better than any of our midfielders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 It would be a gamble but if he stayed fit he's miles better than any of our midfielders XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 http://utv.vo.llnwd.net/o16/talkSPORT/ben/chris/talksport/temp/diaby.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Long term I'd like us to try and set up in the same way Chelsea do. Before I get shot down, I know it is a stretch to imagine and we won't have anywhere near the same quality, but I think Mourinho's philosophy is quite similar to Lambert's ideals (not necessarily what he feels we have been capable of playing in the past) of a narrow midfield playing through the centre, everyone tracking back. Here's the comparison... Costa Benteke Hazard --- Oscar --- Willian Delph --- Cole --- Cleverly Fabregas --- Matic Westwood --- Sanchez Azpilicueta -- Terry -- Cahill -- Ivanovic Cissoko -- Vlaar -- Okore -- Hutton Cortouis Guzan Now as I said it is a stretch and for sure the 3 behind the striker are way off being (1) as good or (2) as suited, but given that Delph could be off and Cleverly might be rethought, for me thats the area of the pitch and type of player we should be investing in, that hard working mobile style of AM rather than out and out wingers. Thoughts? Costa Benteke = compairable Hazard --- Oscar --- Willian Delph --- Cole --- Cleverly = a Joke Fabregas --- Matic Westwood --- Sanchez = Sanchez eventually Azpilicueta -- Terry -- Cahill -- Ivanovic Cissoko -- Vlaar -- Okore -- Hutton = Only Okore Cortouis Guzan = Compairable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The fee is amortized over the contract and the wages are written down as wages usually are (weekly/monthly) when paid, no? Yea that's right I must have had a brain fart. So 8m over 4 years loss of 2m a year correct? What happens then though that's the bit that confuses me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Real Madrid handle transfers in the best way. When they buy someone they purchase 50% of the players rights. So they make so much money back from that player from other contracts that he has. Makes sense really. That money can then go against the outlay for the player they just purchased for each year of his contract. I really don't get all this discussion. If Lerner wanted to fund a transfer spending spree - he could - The fact that he doesn't is the problem - not FFP, Amortisation, capitalisation, how much profit we make - Lerner doesn't want to fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts