John McGinn

[terrytini]

15 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

Spot on, except for the bit about me playing X Box. I’m not sure you’re aware of my old fart Luddite credentials or how desperately I hold on to them as some sort of comfort blanket. Either that or as a badge of honour .

As another old fart I can heartily recommend playing the X Box both to escape the world but more crucially to help recall what is was like when one used to actually do things !

[TRO]

40 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Actually I agree. I think they want to do a “ Man City”.

I think they are two wealthy guys who want some fun, and want to mix in the circles success will bring. Where you and I might play an X Box game of FIFA or whatever they are doing it for real. I don’t think they are in it for money. I don’t think they’d bother.

I suppose when I said “ probably limited” I was suggesting what would generally be considered more likely.....but yes, actually I agree with you,

They might not be in it for the money in the sense you mean....but business men are in the business of making money.

It would be a sleight on their acumen and subsequently character if they just Haemorrhaged money at Villa and bankrolled everything, that was only ever short term.....I guess the c£170 mill first instalment of success is enough to whet their appetite.

They will always be there for us financially, but will want us to punch our own weight at the same time.....and I guess we want that too, who wants to rely on a sugar daddy, who tires of putting his hand in his pocket.

Edited June 30, 2019 by TRO

[DaveAV1]

4 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

So they are both highly biased towards Villa and simultaneously highly biased against Villa?

They’re both drawn like moths to the flame, but can do nothing but offer disdain once the heat becomes too much. 

[TRO]

9 minutes ago, terrytini said:

As another old fart I can heartily recommend playing the X Box both to escape the world but more crucially to help recall what is was like when one used to actually do things !

As another old fart, I just past the time on VT.

....I know Brownie points when I see them.

Edited June 30, 2019 by TRO

[Lichfield Dean]

Anyway, and I know this is a totally pointless question, but did anybody hear what Talksport had to say and was it worth it?

[TheStagMan]

17 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Anyway, and I know this is a totally pointless question, but did anybody hear what Talksport had to say and was it worth it?

No, but the chances are it wasn't 

[HolteExile]

1 hour ago, terrytini said:

Actually I agree. I think they want to do a “ Man City”.

I think they are two wealthy guys who want some fun, and want to mix in the circles success will bring. Where you and I might play an X Box game of FIFA or whatever they are doing it for real. I don’t think they are in it for money. I don’t think they’d bother.

I suppose when I said “ probably limited” I was suggesting what would generally be considered more likely.....but yes, actually I agree with you,

If that's the case, we'd probably be targeting better players than Kalvin Phillips and Adam Webster. 

[Dodgyknees]

26 minutes ago, HolteExile said:

If that's the case, we'd probably be targeting better players than Kalvin Phillips and Adam Webster. 

Baby steps

[Brumstopdogs]

 

 

[VillaChris]

2 hours ago, terrytini said:

Actually I agree. I think they want to do a “ Man City”.

I think they are two wealthy guys who want some fun, and want to mix in the circles success will bring. Where you and I might play an X Box game of FIFA or whatever they are doing it for real. I don’t think they are in it for money. I don’t think they’d bother.

I suppose when I said “ probably limited” I was suggesting what would generally be considered more likely.....but yes, actually I agree with you,

To be a "Man. City" we need to start becoming more aggressive in our transfer dealings imo, maybe it's a year too early but when you look at Man. City's rise within a year they were coming to us and signing Gareth Barry. They also signed Lescott from Everton who was key defender from them. Then the next summer they signed Milner from us, Yaya Toure from Barca and David Silva from Valencia who'd just won the World cup. Then in 2011 Kun Aguero etc.

So every summer there was progression in terms of level of player signed. At no point did Man. City just decided to sign half the championship team of the year.

Have to say I've been a little bemused by our links so far but maybe I'm thinking too far ahead as prime objective is to stay up of course.

However to establish ourselves in top 4 you need a much more top level transfer approach, something we never had at time of spending huge amounts in the Lerner era. Carew was only real example of going to top european club and signing regular CL player and that seemed to be by accident.

We actually did it more in the later Ellis years, signing Laursen, Bouma and Baros all regular internationals and CL players.

In two years time I wonder if we'll be at a level say to sign a Ruben Neves if he's still at Wolves or a Sigurdsson at Everton, maybe we've already missed the boat on those.

[a m ole]

1 hour ago, Brumstopdogs said:

 

 

Confirmed: not served by the real salt bae so he’s not Utd level yet.

[terrytini]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

They might not be in it for the money in the sense you mean....but business men are in the business of making money.

It would be a sleight on their acumen and subsequently character if they just Haemorrhaged money at Villa and bankrolled everything, that was only ever short term.....I guess the c£170 mill first instalment of success is enough to whet their appetite.

They will always be there for us financially, but will want us to punch our own weight at the same time.....and I guess we want that too, who wants to rely on a sugar daddy, who tires of putting his hand in his pocket.

I disagree. 

Businessmen are in the business of making money, when they are in business.

Doesnt stop them having a hobby.

And I didn’t mention haemorrhage of money - there’s no reason why massive investment should involve that, if done well.

[terrytini]

2 hours ago, HolteExile said:

If that's the case, we'd probably be targeting better players than Kalvin Phillips and Adam Webster. 

That doesn’t follow necessarily.

For man6 reasons, which I’m sure you don’t need me to waste my time pointing out, not the least of which is the fact that you still can only go for players who will come to you. And we aren’t a top Club yet.

[HolteExile]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

They might not be in it for the money in the sense you mean....but business men are in the business of making money.

It would be a sleight on their acumen and subsequently character if they just Haemorrhaged money at Villa and bankrolled everything, that was only ever short term.....I guess the c£170 mill first instalment of success is enough to whet their appetite.

They will always be there for us financially, but will want us to punch our own weight at the same time.....and I guess we want that too, who wants to rely on a sugar daddy, who tires of putting his hand in his pocket.

One of the first things I read from them on taking over is that they want the club to be self sustainable. So unless they get dizzy hobnobbng it with the Oligarchs and all the rest in the top flight, I don't think we'll be doing a Citeh anytime soon. 

[terrytini]

7 minutes ago, HolteExile said:

One of the first things I read from them on taking over is that they want the club to be self sustainable. So unless they get dizzy hobnobbng it with the Oligarchs and all the rest in the top flight, I don't think we'll be doing a Citeh anytime soon. 

Man City have made a profit every year for the last 4 years.

Its not a particularly novel concept to think the way to make the most money is to be one of the best.

[HolteExile]

And how about for every year prior to that since 2008? 

In Citeh's case, if they turn a profit now I'm sure the owners won't mind. 

But the main motivation was (and still is) very expensive marketing for Abu Dhabi. And to stick it up to the other Gulf states. 

[limpid]

Can this thread move back to the topic please. There are other threads to talk about the owners.

[maqroll]

1 hour ago, VillaChris said:

Have to say I've been a little bemused by our links so far but maybe I'm thinking too far ahead as prime objective is to stay up of course.

 

Early days still. That said, I get the impression that Dean and co. are trying to assemble not only a squad, but an ethos, so buying players who might think they want to use us as a stepping stone might not be a top priority. They'll want to sign players who will want to stay and grow the project. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

I love John McGinn and think he will go on to be a bit of a legend if he's here long term, but if somebody wanted to pay £50m for him right now I'd drive him there myself. Theoretically that buys you 15 John McGinn's.

That is the model we should be following. Not selling to line the owners pocket, but selling to reinvest, retool, selling to get better. 

That said nobody is paying £50m for John McGinn. 

[terrytini]

37 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I love John McGinn and think he will go on to be a bit of a legend if he's here long term, but if somebody wanted to pay £50m for him right now I'd drive him there myself. Theoretically that buys you 15 John McGinn's.

That is the model we should be following. Not selling to line the owners pocket, but selling to reinvest, retool, selling to get better. 

That said nobody is paying £50m for John McGinn. 

One John McGinn IS 15 John Mcginns.