Jump to content

John McGinn


PompeyVillan

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hippo said:

What's the point of a £100m+ spend..to help us stay in the division ...then selling a player which decreases our chances of staying in the division.

Only way he goes if he wants/asks to leave.

If you reinvest all the money from the sale in more players?

I do get that we need stability as we rebuild, and selling another core player will be disruptive. However, I think people are getting very mixed up here between "selling players" and "being a selling club".

A "selling club" is a club that sells players and uses that money to stay financially viable, or to pay its owners and shareholders. Even if it sells at a profit, it doesn't progress.

On the other hand, if you sell an overpriced player and reinvest most of the profit in your squad (e.g. Coutinho sale financed Van Dijk and Oxlade-Chamberlain at break even) then that's just good business, and any club at any level should do that, including the big boys.

With the possible exceptions of Messi and Ronaldo, there is no such thing as a player who shouldn't be sold at any price. I can't believe there are people here saying they wouldn't sell McGinn for £150m in this window. Are you deluded? Our record signing is £22m! We could buy seven Tyrone Mings with £150m, and still have a bit left over!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

If you reinvest all the money from the sale in more players?

I do get that we need stability as we rebuild, and selling another core player will be disruptive. However, I think people are getting very mixed up here between "selling players" and "being a selling club".

A "selling club" is a club that sells players and uses that money to stay financially viable, or to pay its owners and shareholders. Even if it sells at a profit, it doesn't progress.

On the other hand, if you sell an overpriced player and reinvest most of the profit in your squad (e.g. Coutinho sale financed Van Dijk and Oxlade-Chamberlain at break even) then that's just good business, and any club at any level should do that, including the big boys.

With the possible exceptions of Messi and Ronaldo, there is no such thing as a player who shouldn't be sold at any price. I can't believe there are people here saying they wouldn't sell McGinn for £150m in this window. Are you deluded? Our record signing is £22m! We could buy seven Tyrone Mings with £150m, and still have a bit left over!

" A bird in the hand..." " If it aint broke..." clichés spring to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AJ said:

" A bird in the hand..." " If it aint broke..." clichés spring to mind.

I don't think "a bird in the hand" applies because if someone gives us £150m for John McGinn, we have that £150m in our hands. It's not like we're just gambling on some promise.

As for "if it ain't broke" - you're right, McGinn ain't broke, but in most positions in the pitch we are "broke". If we lost McGinn, but replaced him with a GK, CB and striker each of Champions League quality, would you question the logic of those transfers?

Bear in mind I'm talking here about offloading McGinn for £150m in this summer transfer window. Anyone who opposes that is IMO clinically insane.

Edit: sorry, unnecessarily rude.

Edited by KentVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

I question your understanding of those proverbs, then.

OK.

We all want Villa to be the best it can be. That is unquestionable. SJM is the right player, and more importantly he is our player, right now. Selling a player that is so good for Villa, and using the huge profits to replace him with one or many players will be a gamble. Examples are Spuds when they sold Bale. Manure when they bought Pogba ( Just to clarify, PP is a good player, just not a good player for Manyoo, hence risk). With Lerner, we also went down that road several times, and it mostly never went well.

We will win more games with McGinn in the team. Whoever we replace him with, well, roll the dice. Also, if it was a choice between Villa making huge profits or being successful on the pitch, I know what I would rather, and I don't think I would be alone.

So yeah, those proverbs. " A McGinn in the hand..." If Villa aint broke...", they do spring to mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 weeks ago or whenever it was first mooted, my reaction was that we couldn't turn down £50m for any player not named Jack Grealish. It fits the model I've wanted us to follow for so long, the one that turned Spurs into title contenders and Champions League finalists. 

However on reflection it would be an awful idea right now. We're not yet in the position to reinvest that money into better players. I mean potentially of course we could sign 20 John McGinn's, but the odds of hitting on just one are so vast and our need for the actual John McGinn we already have so great that it doesn't bear thinking about. 

So my answer is no. It's too late, he's too important. We need to establish ourselves before we begin the churn, so **** off for now and ask me again in 10 months or so, when we might be laughing at such a derisory offer. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AJ said:

OK.

We all want Villa to be the best it can be. That is unquestionable. SJM is the right player, and more importantly he is our player, right now. Selling a player that is so good for Villa, and using the huge profits to replace him with one or many players will be a gamble. Examples are Spuds when they sold Bale. Manure when they bought Pogba ( Just to clarify, PP is a good player, just not a good player for Manyoo, hence risk). With Lerner, we also went down that road several times, and it mostly never went well.

We will win more games with McGinn in the team. Whoever we replace him with, well, roll the dice. Also, if it was a choice between Villa making huge profits or being successful on the pitch, I know what I would rather, and I don't think I would be alone.

So yeah, those proverbs. " A McGinn in the hand..." If Villa aint broke...", they do spring to mind.

I love McGinn, but relying on him to deliver in the Premier League is a bigger gamble than buying a £50m GK, a £50m CB and a £50m striker, with our current scouting setup.

Just to be clear, I'm agreeing that we shouldn't sell him for £50m, as per the bullshit Nixon story. I was just picking up on someone else saying that they wouldn't even get rid of him for £150m.

I'm worried that the our fans are going to turn against our owners at some point when they do make the sensible decision to sell a popular player, because another club have come in with a silly offer. Sometimes a buyer offers you a crazy price, and you just have to take it.

The proverb I would use is: "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I love McGinn, but relying on him to deliver in the Premier League is a bigger gamble than buying a £50m GK, a £50m CB and a £50m striker, with our current scouting setup.

Just to be clear, I'm agreeing that we shouldn't sell him for £50m, as per the bullshit Nixon story. I was just picking up on someone else saying that they wouldn't even get rid of him for £150m.

I'm worried that the our fans are going to turn against our owners at some point when they do make the sensible decision to sell a popular player, because another club have come in with a silly offer. Sometimes a buyer offers you a crazy price, and you just have to take it.

The proverb I would use is: "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

Fair enough. 50 mill would definitely be out of the question. But, unless you are on the board, would 150 million really make a difference to you or me? With that money, would we do a ManU/Pogba, or Chelsea/Torres? I disagree strongly with what you are saying that using money from a big sale is less of a risk than relying on what we have, as it has shown many times how it can go pear shaped.

" Don't look a gift McGinn in the mouth." Nobody could catch him and peel his lips back anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

I love McGinn, but relying on him to deliver in the Premier League is a bigger gamble than buying a £50m GK, a £50m CB and a £50m striker, with our current scouting setup.

Just to be clear, I'm agreeing that we shouldn't sell him for £50m, as per the bullshit Nixon story. I was just picking up on someone else saying that they wouldn't even get rid of him for £150m.

I'm worried that the our fans are going to turn against our owners at some point when they do make the sensible decision to sell a popular player, because another club have come in with a silly offer. Sometimes a buyer offers you a crazy price, and you just have to take it.

The proverb I would use is: "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

What will our intention be? Can we afford wages for this kind of players? 

I don't its the greatest idea to buy 3 players with 150 yet. Let alone the timing isn't there. Look at the striker that Barcodes just got. From someone who knows about football he you've got the better deal in Wesley than Barcodes and Spammers. I can't say I knew about any of the three before they came to the PL.

I think when we start paying 50m, we'd be challenging for Europe by then. 

No one will pay 150m for McGinn but if he was that worth then another season might keep his value or even increase it more.

The 50m won't mean a lot as we've already paid more than the double and probably spend triple that. 

Having a good season, we will definitely sell one or two of our team. Something like what Palace are doing. Bisaka for 50m and wether Zaha will get them 80m or should he stay. 

I guess we will have around 50m every season to spend, apart from what we sell (assuming we're midtable, but if we've done like what Dingles has done then things will be much different).

The scouting network aren't trying to find anyone above 25m. Actually only two hit the 20m. All others were below that.

The scouting team need to start figuring the backup plans during the season once the club know they're going to sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

At the expense of who? There has only been Wesley and Davis with one of them being injured. If there was a lot of competition in that position he wouldn’t play, e.g. Tshbola.

That’s true. We need to sign a striker!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

6 weeks ago or whenever it was first mooted, my reaction was that we couldn't turn down £50m for any player not named Jack Grealish. It fits the model I've wanted us to follow for so long, the one that turned Spurs into title contenders and Champions League finalists. 

However on reflection it would be an awful idea right now. We're not yet in the position to reinvest that money into better players. I mean potentially of course we could sign 20 John McGinn's, but the odds of hitting on just one are so vast and our need for the actual John McGinn we already have so great that it doesn't bear thinking about. 

So my answer is no. It's too late, he's too important. We need to establish ourselves before we begin the churn, so **** off for now and ask me again in 10 months or so, when we might be laughing at such a derisory offer. 

Beautiful, love it lol..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want success, screw the crazy offers anywhere along the line for our players from now and till the end of time unless our owners are struggling to make money to keep Villa afloat. If it's a players time to go because of age, isn't pulling his weight or some sort of career crisis changer has taken affect which I understand, other than that he's a Villa player. Screw making money unless it really needs to be made.

What can't people get about that above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Said it before and I'll say it again.

I don't believe the link.

But if anyone thinks we'd be turning down £50m for John McGinn then they're kidding themselves, imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Farlz said:

Not that we're going to sell McGinn but I wouldn't accept any offer for him. £50m or more I don't care, might be stupid but to me he's priceless. He can do everything. 

However we perform I'm certain that McGinn himself is going to have a great year. 

It's inevitable he'll leave at some point. Certainly has the ability to play for a Champions League club, which we're unlikely to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Said it before and I'll say it again.

I don't believe the link.

But if anyone thinks we'd be turning down £50m for John McGinn then they're kidding themselves, imo.

adding to that, they're also kidding themselves if they think anyone's offering 50m for a player who's had one good season in the championship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

adding to that, they're also kidding themselves if they think anyone's offering 50m for a player who's had one good season in the championship

Well Longstaff is valued at about the same and he 's played something like 10 games in the PL and is still injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Said it before and I'll say it again.

I don't believe the link.

But if anyone thinks we'd be turning down £50m for John McGinn then they're kidding themselves, imo.

I agree the link is shite but I don't think NasWes would keel over at that opening bid imo. 

If you have little toerags like Pogba are expected to go for over £100m then it's fair to say SJM is worth somewhere inbetween the two without being unrealistic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

I agree the link is shite but I don't think NasWes would keel over at that opening bid imo. 

If you have little toerags like Pogba are expected to go for over £100m then it's fair to say SJM is worth somewhere inbetween the two without being unrealistic.

That is absolutely being unrealistic.

I'm not saying we would accept the first bid immediately.

But if a club like Man Utd was genuinely offering in the region of £50m for McGinn then he would be out the door. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

That is absolutely being unrealistic.

I'm not saying we would accept the first bid immediately.

But if a club like Man Utd was genuinely offering in the region of £50m for McGinn then he would be out the door. 

Seen it before, we will see it again. I love John but I have no doubt even if we held firm in our "not a selling club" mantra he will be forcing a move, his agent will be forcing a move and he would be right to do so. We won't be paying £200k a week salaries.

 

Nevertheless if the right bid comes in we are a selling club, we have always been a selling club, we will likely always be a selling club. I think some people get a bit carried away. We are not a big club anymore, but hopefully are on our way back to some sort of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â