Jump to content

Summer Speculation 2015


lexicon

Recommended Posts

Seriously Sky how much longer are you going to talk about De Gea? He's going no where Madrid and Manure **** up he is staying at Manure!!!! **** me that saga is so boring

The only interesting thing about it is its highlighting what a load of bollocks ballague talks, changed his tune about four times today already

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that his move to Real Madrid has fallen through, does anyone fancy a cheeky bid for de gea now that he isn't going to Real Madrid any more because his move to Real Madrid is off?

He isn't moving to Real Madrid any more so maybe we should.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A new link from the BBC:

 

 

Aston Villa have made an inquiry about signing Liverpool's Portuguese defender Tiago Ilori. Ilori, who joined Liverpool from Sporting Lisbon in a £7m deal in September 2013, has been out on loan at Grenada CF in La Liga and and Bordeaux in France after failing to secure first-team football at Anfield. It remains to be seen whether Villa pursue a loan or permanent deal for the 22-year-old who has also been attracting interest from Sunderland - or if he wishes to stay at Liverpool and fight his way into manager Brendan Rodgers' plans.

 

He was pretty good at the U21 Euros this summer, not sure how many CB's we need thou

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky keep repeating Crystal Palace's reported opinion that our bid for Gayle was "stupid".

 

This is an ill-mannered and ill-judged comment and, despair as I often do about AVFC, I am pretty sure we would never be undignified enough to allow a comment like that ride the airwaves.

 

:angry:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A new link from the BBC:

 

 

Aston Villa have made an inquiry about signing Liverpool's Portuguese defender Tiago Ilori. Ilori, who joined Liverpool from Sporting Lisbon in a £7m deal in September 2013, has been out on loan at Grenada CF in La Liga and and Bordeaux in France after failing to secure first-team football at Anfield. It remains to be seen whether Villa pursue a loan or permanent deal for the 22-year-old who has also been attracting interest from Sunderland - or if he wishes to stay at Liverpool and fight his way into manager Brendan Rodgers' plans.

 

He was pretty good at the U21 Euros this summer, not sure how many CB's we need thou

 

Having watched our first few games this season, I'd say lots of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky keep repeating Crystal Palace's reported opinion that our bid for Gayle was "stupid".

This is an ill-mannered and ill-judged comment and, despair as I often do about AVFC, I am pretty sure we would never be undignified enough to allow a comment like that ride the airwaves.

:angry:

Agree, it's doing your washing in public, obviously telling the world that he's available but they want silly money for him, absolutely no need for it, £1.5m as a loan fee is far from stupid IMO (if that's believable anyway)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be the only one that thinks Gayle would be a decent signing, he has the same sort of attributes as Berahino (sp?) (I acknowledge he's not as good) which I think would work well with our current personnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky keep repeating Crystal Palace's reported opinion that our bid for Gayle was "stupid".

This is an ill-mannered and ill-judged comment and, despair as I often do about AVFC, I am pretty sure we would never be undignified enough to allow a comment like that ride the airwaves.

:angry:

Agree, it's doing your washing in public, obviously telling the world that he's available but they want silly money for him, absolutely no need for it, £1.5m as a loan fee is far from stupid IMO (if that's believable anyway)

We only do facials in public apparently!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I have a feeling this net spend issue is going to rumble on.

Big money came in for two players. Two players who formed an integral part of the team last year, the money that was spent beyond that brought in,m,whatever the clauses and wages on top, has been pitiful.

There's no change in the chairman's approach. Fair play to Sherwood for deploying the money so well and improving a great many areas of the team but there has been no investment. Imagine if we would've kept Benteke and Delph. We might've been lucky to just get Adama and Richards.

I'm not in the business of getting on the chairman's back, i don't see the point. It needs pointing out, though.

Had we not sold Delph and Benteke we might still have spent £55m

You can't honestly believe that?

 

No I don't.

 

But the point is we have no idea how much we'd have spent if we didn't sell Benteke and Delph. We could quite easily have spent £20m and we'd have a net spend of £20m.

 

But we'd have bought less players and spent less money.

 

The assumption people are making is that we have only spent ANY money because we got money from selling Benteke and Delph.

There's no way any of us know that is the case.

 

Maybe we had a budget of £20m and Lerner has allowed Sherwood to spend the proceeds of Delph and Benteke on top of that?

Maybe we had a budget of £30m and Lerner has held back some of the Delph and Benteke proceeds?

Maybe we had a budget of nothing and Sherwood was told to only spend the money we've generated from sales?

 

Who knows?

But football doesn't work in lump sums of cash up front. There isn't a pot of £50 million that empties and fills up as Sherwood spends money and sells players.

 

We've signed eleven players, soon to be 12 this window. We've spent £55 million.

It's a huge amount of business regardless of how much money we received.

 

We don't know that that's all Sherwood is allowed to spend. If the chairman has £20m available maybe Sherwood isn't just spunking it for the sake of it? Maybe Lerner is waiting to see how the team does before allowing Sherwood to spend every penny he has in the transfer budget?

 

 

There are dozens of scenarios. We are obsessed with spending every single penny the club has available straight away.

it's ridiculous

 

 

Okay, I agree with this, but I don't think you did your argument any favours by speculating that we might have had £55m to spend with no outgoings, a scenario which we can literally just write as off as untrue without actually being Randy Lerner or whatever. 

 

I explained my point.

 

I don't believe we would have. But the point is we don't know what net spend would have been without those sales.

 

I HIGHLY doubt that, had we sold no players this summer, we'd have a net spend of zero.

That's the point I'm making.

 

Looking at net spend without context is pointless.

 

 

If we'd had no money coming in and net spend was zero, then that would be an awful scenario.

If we'd sold Benteke for £100m and had a net spend of zero then it's an ENTIRELY different situation.

 

It's all about context.

 

If you'd told me before any business that we'd have a net spend of zero then I'd have been worried.

If you'd told me it we'd have spent £55million and signed 12 players in order to get that net spend then I wouldn't.

 

 

And what I'm saying is, that you didn't make that point very clearly in the first place, and didn't help explain it by proferring the ridiculous suggestion that we might have spent £55m without selling anyone, which absolutely everyone knows isn't true. I just don't agree that our hypothetical budget with no outgoings is some great imponderable that we can only wildly guess at - it would have been between £0m and £20m, the same as every other transfer window under Lerner since Bent arrived. 

 

On 'net spend', I agree with you, it's not a reliable metric at all. We wouldn't have had a better transfer window if we had simply paid £10m more for Jordan Ayew, which is what net spend proponents seem to think. The way to judge the transfer window is by looking at the holes in the squad. We still have a gaping hole up front, and that's all that matters. 

 

EDIT: Sorry, that first paragraph comes off quite aggressively, which isn't what I intended. I'm not looking to start a fight. I'm just trying to say, I agree with your general point, but I think you confused me and some other commenters with the £55m comment. 

Edited by HanoiVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â