January transfer (we need a whole new team) window 2019

[KenjiOgiwara]

6 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

I like Cahill. Gutted when we lost him.  But experienced and OLD.  is not the way forward.   At season end we lose Axel.  We need long term-ism.  

In football.  33 is old.  (Except GK)

I agree to extent, but experienced players can be important as well. I normally am dead against these sort of signings as it offers no long term thinking and little resale value from player development. I was probably one of the few who didn't like the idea of Terry signing. I was proved wrong, and I think Cahill would be another pretty astute signing.

[John]

12 hours ago, rodders0223 said:

but then we would have to watch Scotland.

Nobody wants to watch **** Scotland.

A good point there were plenty of empty seats last night so a few Scots clearly agreed but it was worth watching. James Forrest of Celtic took the eye with his well taken hat-trick but our target looked solid enough at the back.

[alreadyexists]

7 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

I like Cahill. Gutted when we lost him.  But experienced and OLD.  is not the way forward.   At season end we lose Axel.  We need long term-ism.  

In football.  33 is old.  (Except GK)

I think what is old in football is likely to start shifting with this generation of players. Years ago when they all smoked and ate chips they played until 30s, but now they’re all in oxygen tents eating protein gels and stuff, and with super fitness regimes so I think that will mean that players in this and the next generation will play for a bit longer. Could be wrong but I think that will be the case.

[KenjiOgiwara]

18 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

I think what is old in football is likely to start shifting with this generation of players. Years ago when they all smoked and ate chips they played until 30s, but now they’re all in oxygen tents eating protein gels and stuff, and with super fitness regimes so I think that will mean that players in this and the next generation will play for a bit longer. Could be wrong but I think that will be the case.

It's not really the aerobic fitness that is a problem. It's knees, anchles, wear and tear. You can't fix that no matter what you do. I've stopped playing football completely myself at the age of 34, and while it's hard to compare someone like me in football to Cahill, it's no coincidence I think that I start having problems with injuries and my body in the age where most footballers retire. 

[romavillan]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

It's not really the aerobic fitness that is a problem. It's knees, anchles, wear and tear. You can't fix that no matter what you do. I've stopped playing football completely myself at the age of 34, and while it's hard to compare someone like me in football to Cahill, it's no coincidence I think that I start having problems with injuries and my body in the age where most footballers retire. 

Not that long ago a player getting to 30-32 had had it. Now it's much nearer 40 than 30 for anyone who avoids serious injury. I'd say Cahill has 2 or 3 years in him at least. More at lower levels than the prem if he doesn't get badly knobbled.

[romavillan]

In general though, yes old and experienced is not the way forward for us, as a rule. BUT, a few who've been there seen it done and won it in the group, especially if we're going for (finally) younger talent as being the main body of the squad is a really good thing.

[villalad21]

2 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I agree to extent, but experienced players can be important as well.

Experience is overrated. 

We had lots of experience last season in the prem and got relegated

 

[Raver50032]

1 hour ago, alreadyexists said:

I think what is old in football is likely to start shifting with this generation of players. Years ago when they all smoked and ate chips they played until 30s, but now they’re all in oxygen tents eating protein gels and stuff, and with super fitness regimes so I think that will mean that players in this and the next generation will play for a bit longer. Could be wrong but I think that will be the case.

I still read all of your posts with the voice of Alan Partridge in my head as I read. PMSL... Fantastic.

[AvfcRigo82]

18 hours ago, Junxs said:

Gary Cahill, our defence is so vulnerable (in terms of cover) he's 32 - not an old man. 61 England caps and still in his prime!

Get him on loan

No brainer for me

This

17 hours ago, sne said:

I think a 6 month loan

Fully understand why he would want a longer deal but I'm done with long contracts to 30+ players, even someone like Cahill.

And this.

 

10 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Yes, you would think it would be a loan but that was my very point we can't keep loaning players. We can't keep borrowing rather than building, we can't keep looking for quick fixes. It just isn't sustainable.

Last season we sold Baker and used most of the money from his sale paying the wages Samba. I know it wasn't as simple as that but its a reasonable line to draw between the two I think. I accept Samba wasn't on loan but its just another example of short term thinking.

Yes Snodgrass was great for us, Bolasie might be, Terry was immense. But sooner or later we have to do better, we have to build, we have to become sustainable and I think that process needs to start sooner rather than later. It should have started when we got relegated as I was saying at the time rather than the frankly reckless gamble we embarked upon.

Say we loan Cahill. What wages is on on? I'd imagine its circa £100k a week, Chelsea might sub some of that but we would still be paying what £80k a week like we are for Bolasie. That just isn't sustainable and I think it would be reckless.

You say "if we have the money to spend and find a long term guy we want then by all means sign him" but my point is we don't have the money to keep doing otherwise. 

I'm not advocating spending £10m on McKenna, I've never seen him play. But if we can go and get a player like McGinn for under £3m then I'm hopeful we can find a CB out there to sign and develop that will improve us and improve with us rather than cost us a load of wages and be gone in the summer. I'm not saying its easy to find or secure players like this but surely it should be the aim rather than continuing the way we have to date.

I agree with you we need a LB, I don't agree we need a RB or more options on the flanks, we may need a new keeper. I absolutely think we need a CB though.

At this moment in time Trent I think it is the more sensible route to go down given our position, not just in the league but as a club as a whole atleast until we get back to the Premier League.

It would make more sense to do it this way for now and it also puts the club in control of the situation, rather than the situation controlling the club. (Micah Richards)

Yeah it may look like short term thinking but given our situation I think it's the more logical approach for now and that's the hand we have been dealt to play with for now it seems.

So far the loans we have this season have worked out fine thus far (except GK) and whilst we are loaning we are also slowly recovering whilst rebuilding, again not just as a team but as a club from top to bottom.

I think the main rebuilding process will be able to properly get underway once we return to the Premier League and are in a more lucrative position if you will to really go for it and build something.

Gary Cahill on loan would be a good option right now imo and a sensible approach and here's why;

-He will perhaps be on something like £100-120k a week at Chelsea and I would agree we would fit 70-80% of that for wages.

-An ex-villan and has always kept himself tidy on and off the pitch and has gone on to much better things in his career. He has gained a wealth of experience and right now Villa need that inabundance if we are to mount a challenge this season.

- I think the chance to work with JT once again could be an attraction for him and could be a pulling factor that would work in our favour.

-It's a better approach to sign him for 6 months than to take the unsustainable approach of signing him or someone else for the sake of it on a 3 year deal for even more wages and a signing on fee, (for us to return to the Premier League and they're deemed not good enough or whatever and yet we will be stuck with them for the next 2 years collecting a wage, taking up a space in the team and no resale value on them).

 

Of McKenna, I cannot really comment on him not knowing much about him, but I've read that Rangers and a couple of other clubs have been interested in him, however if he is of highly rated and a decent player then he could be a gem if the wages are right and signed on a long term deal.

As mentioned, our John McGinn and Andy Robertson of Liverpool is another good example of good buys from the SPL and this would be a good example of someone that we could sign on a long term deal as it also equates to a long term build rather than a short term quality stop gap.

 

9 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

I like Cahill. Gutted when we lost him.  But experienced and OLD.  is not the way forward.   At season end we lose Axel.  We need long term-ism.  

In football.  33 is old.  (Except GK)

Cahill would fit right now. It would be a 6 month deal and that bit of quality we need right now as well as numbers in the defence. All day long.

Once we return to the PL then we will be in a better position for long term-ism and be able to build something properly.

We are in no position right now to be signing players that involve transfer fees, agent fees, signing on fees, and high weekly wages over a long period cause of our FFP recovery.

I would take an 80k pw Cahill for 6 months (£1.6m - £2m approx) than a player on a contract that could cost us well over £30m over the space of 3 years.

We simply cannot afford this approach or gamble right now as it is what led us to the very crap that we have just spent the last 3 years trying to recover from.

 

Let's continue to build and improve slowly, steadily and astutely rather than stupid, needless and recklessly.

[HolteExile]

Wonder if the Harold Moukoudi deal would be worth revisiting. He came over in August and was impressed with the  infrastructure at the club. 

But left after chatting to Bruce because their ideas about football differed.  Not sure if that was because Bruce didn't even want him and the directive was coming from boardroom level or what. There were a few players signed last summer who didn't exactly fit the profile of usual Bruce signings. 

[KenjiOgiwara]

3 hours ago, romavillan said:

Not that long ago a player getting to 30-32 had had it. Now it's much nearer 40 than 30 for anyone who avoids serious injury. I'd say Cahill has 2 or 3 years in him at least. More at lower levels than the prem if he doesn't get badly knobbled.

Not so sure about that. From my memory football players have been going strong the same amount of time since the dawn of time. Pele played until his late 30s IIRC. It's always been 30-40 depending on luck and genetics. Aerobic condition and nutrition doesn't have a whole lot to do with it IMO. 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

18 minutes ago, HolteExile said:

Wonder if the Harold Moukoudi deal would be worth revisiting. He came over in August and was impressed with the  infrastructure at the club. 

But left after chatting to Bruce because their ideas about football differed.  Not sure if that was because Bruce didn't even want him and the directive was coming from boardroom level or what. There were a few players signed last summer who didn't exactly fit the profile of usual Bruce signings. 

Read an article the other day about targets we missed out on, and their progress etc.

Seems he is doing very well.

Definitely worth revisiting.

[sne]

18 minutes ago, HolteExile said:

Wonder if the Harold Moukoudi deal would be worth revisiting. He came over in August and was impressed with the  infrastructure at the club. 

But left after chatting to Bruce because their ideas about football differed.  Not sure if that was because Bruce didn't even want him and the directive was coming from boardroom level or what. There were a few players signed last summer who didn't exactly fit the profile of usual Bruce signings. 

Out of contract in the summer as well.

Quote

Could Aston Villa managerial change make reported summer target Harold Moukoudi a more viable option?

Harold Moukoudi has shone in Ligue 2 for Le Havre but Aston ViIlla failed to bring him to the Championship in the summer transfer window.

Harold Moukoudi left no one in any doubts about why he decided to turn down a move to Aston Villa before the August transfer deadline.

According to The Mirror, Villa wanted to sign the 20-year-old Le Havre defender on loan with a view to a £10 million deal. But, speaking to Francebleu, Moukoudi indicated that the rather direct style of play employed by manager Steve Bruce put him off a move to the Midlands.

“Aston Villa? I had the feeling that their football and ours were not the same. I went there to hear what the coach had to say to me. I took the time to think and I chose to stay in France.”

Now, Moukoudi is renowned in France for his modern, ball-playing style – attributes that may have been compromised had he joined an Aston Villa team who were hardly among the Championship’s most free-flowing teams.

But, heading towards the January transfer window, the fact that Villa have replaced Bruce with Dean Smith should only stand them in good stead if a move for Moukoudi is still on the cards – and it should be given their lack of centre-back options.

Smith, in stark contrast to Bruce, is famed for his free-flowing style with plenty of emphasis placed on playing out from the back. This would suit the 20-year-old Moukoudi down to the ground, and that’s without mentioning the whole host of young players who have come on leaps and bounds under the former Brentford boss.

Moukoudi, who is still playing Ligue 2 football with Le Havre, is out of contract in the summer of 2019 so maybe a cut-price deal is on the cards.

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/11/15/do-aston-villas-chances-of-signing-harold-moukoudi-look-better-t/

[AvfcRigo82]

I would welcome this move if all parties can agree this time. 

[Thug]

On the Cahill subject

Wasn't one of the best central defenders we ever had signed when he was in his 30's, had knackered knees, but still went on to have more than 300 appearances for us?

Just sayin'.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Building a young team only makes sense if we are in the division we prefer to be in. But why would we want a squad of young Championship players on long term contracts if we are promoted? 

 

[sir_gary_cahill]

3 minutes ago, Silent_Bob said:

Building a young team only makes sense if we are in the division we prefer to be in. But why would we want a squad of young Championship players on long term contracts if we are promoted? 

 

The likes of McGinn? I’m all for it

[sne]

21 minutes ago, sir_gary_cahill said:

The likes of McGinn? I’m all for it

McGinn is 25.

Not over hill but hardly a youngster either.

Edited November 21, 2018 by sne

[TrentVilla]

2 hours ago, Thug said:

On the Cahill subject

Wasn't one of the best central defenders we ever had signed when he was in his 30's, had knackered knees, but still went on to have more than 300 appearances for us?

Just sayin'.

 

Yes. But we signed him not borrowed him and we could afford his wages without FFP issues.

So not really the same situation.

[sir_gary_cahill]

1 hour ago, sne said:

McGinn is 25.

Not over hill but hardly a youngster either.

He’s 24, in my opinion, that’s still young