Tyrone Mings

[Enda]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

If Bournemouth said we had to sign him no matter what for 17.5m at end of season then I think club did right choice considering his injury record. But if it was a option of 17.5m then I think club made a mistake.

As you say the extra 6.5m could be clauses we never pay for example if he gets a England call up. That may never happen.

If the club turned an option down, then Bournemouth were almost certainly asking us to pay for the privilege. Otherwise why would we turn it down?

[thabucks]

I’m calling bullshit .... there is no way we would of negotiated a weird matching clause if we could of had of had fixed fee clause... now an obligation to buy is a different matter given his injury record and not knowing what league we would be in. Clickbait horse shit imo .... there is no way a villa insider would leak a story even if it was true... unless it came from Dr fraudster ...nothing to see here move on. When did football insider become the bastion of truth .... there main goal is revenue generation .  

Edited July 9, 2019 by thabucks

[useless]

That story about us refusing to have a buy-out-clause in the Mings loan is almost definitely untrue, before he joined Purslow publicly stated that we wanted all our loans to have options to buy, so we would have been trying to insert one in the Mings loan.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, dubbs said:

Blimey the work experience kid has been let loose in our social media department hasn't he 

Nope. It’s just most of our fans have a sense of humour

[Stevo985]

Why would we turn down an option?

assuming it wasn’t an obligation, I don’t see any downside to having an option to buy in there. 

[Guest av1]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Why would we turn down an option?

assuming it wasn’t an obligation, I don’t see any downside to having an option to buy in there. 

Agreed. I doubt very much we would have turned down an option to buy. IMO the "option" would have been:

i) 6 month loan at we'll talk in the summer

ii) 6 month loan and then you WILL gives us £17m to make it permanent.

There is no way we could have agreed to that without knowing what League we would be in, so although it may have resulted in us paying a few quid more, the first option would have been our only option. 

[bannedfromHandV]

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Why would we turn down an option?

assuming it wasn’t an obligation, I don’t see any downside to having an option to buy in there. 

Because that option may have been for say, £15M but we didn't know which division we'd be in and at the point we signed Mings, staying in the Championship would have looked quite likely, so agreeing a fee and a signing could have been reckless.

Bournemouth would have looked for some degree of probability in in it otherwise why would they bother? Maybe it would have been based on us paying more for the initial loan fee or something but if we now know anything it's that Bournemouth wouldn't have given us much if any leeway

Edited July 9, 2019 by bannedfromHandV

[alreadyexists]

I’m pretty sure that the loan to buy clause is nonsense. It would’ve been reported back in Jan, usually anyway.

[osmark86]

not sure if this has been posted, but me likey:

https://www.thesportsman.com/articles/opinion-tyrone-mings-should-be-joining-manchester-united-rather-than-aston-villa

Quote

SIMON LILLICRAP [snicker, snicker mod edit]

.....This piece is not a criticism of Aston Villa or Tyrone Mings, who proved to be a match made in heaven as the two combined to deliver promotion in unlikely circumstances last term. However, Manchester United should have been in for the 26-year-old during this window as they hunt for a defender who is able to dominate, influence and restore calm to their back-line. Given that the asking price for fellow Englishman Harry Maguire is now £90m, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer could have done a lot worse than spend a fraction of that outlay on Mings. 

Mark my words, this time next year Tyrone Mings will have become one of the top centre-backs in the Premier League and be worth more than £40m.

His impression on the Villains last season was nothing short of sensational. He joined them in late January, with the club lying in tenth place in the Championship and with play-off hopes fading. There was one obvious reason why Dean Smith’s side were struggling and Mings was brought in to solve their defensive issues. At the time of his signing, only two Championship sides had conceded more than Aston Villa (46) in their opening 29 games....

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by blandy
extract added

[TrentVilla]

47 minutes ago, useless said:

That story about us refusing to have a buy-out-clause in the Mings loan is almost definitely untrue, before he joined Purslow publicly stated that we wanted all our loans to have options to buy, so we would have been trying to insert one in the Mings loan.

I’ve very good reason to believe it is true, someone I trust implicitly on these things told me about it recently.

It wasn’t an option to buy though it was a commitment to buy and I don’t think we financially could have committed to that when promotion looked so unlikely.

Had we failed to go up this summer would have been a horrific cost cutting exercise and exodus of players. 

Min fairness to Purslow I think agreeing in January to buy Mings in the summer would have been wreckless. That is without even getting into the question marks about his fitness.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and a mistake is only when you make the wrong decision at the time. If you make a decision at the time for the right reasons and it turns out not to be the best decision that isn’t a mistake. That’s my view anyway.

[useless]

Well a obligation to buy is different from an 'option' to buy which is what O'Rourke said in his article. Refusing an obligation was probably the sensible thing to do.

[TrentVilla]

5 minutes ago, useless said:

Well a obligation to buy is different from an 'option' to buy which is what O'Rourke said in his article. Refusing an obligation was probably the sensible thing to do.

I believe O’Rourke is wrong but I can’t obviously be sure.

[Mark Albrighton]

8 minutes ago, useless said:

Well a obligation to buy is different from an 'option' to buy which is what O'Rourke said in his article. Refusing an obligation was probably the sensible thing to do.

I think the wording is to be deliberately suggestive. 

When he says we had “an option” to buy him for £17m, I reckon he means we had a chance to buy him for that much. But it would have been an obligation.

That’s my guess anyway, we’ve had options to buy in our loan deals for Hause & El Ghazi. Seems unusual we would turn down a similar option to replace it with a fairly opaque “matching option”.

They just want to cause more clicks on the article. We’re paying £20m, which may rise to £26m, but he says we’re paying £9m more than we could have done because it’s the bigger number.

Edited July 9, 2019 by Shropshire Lad

[BG_Villa_Fan]

I like him but that price is crazy. Hopefully he lives up to it. Welcome.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Because that option may have been for say, £15M but we didn't know which division we'd be in and at the point we signed Mings, staying in the Championship would have looked quite likely, so agreeing a fee and a signing could have been reckless.

Bournemouth would have looked for some degree of probability in in it otherwise why would they bother? Maybe it would have been based on us paying more for the initial loan fee or something but if we now know anything it's that Bournemouth wouldn't have given us much if any leeway

I assumed an option wasn’t an obligation. So if we’d stayed in the championship we could have not taken it up and let him go back. 

If there was an obligation attached then I absolutely see why we wouldn’t take it. 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

I’ve very good reason to believe it is true, someone I trust implicitly on these things told me about it recently.

It wasn’t an option to buy though it was a commitment to buy and I don’t think we financially could have committed to that when promotion looked so unlikely.

Had we failed to go up this summer would have been a horrific cost cutting exercise and exodus of players. 

Min fairness to Purslow I think agreeing in January to buy Mings in the summer would have been wreckless. That is without even getting into the question marks about his fitness.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and a mistake is only when you make the wrong decision at the time. If you make a decision at the time for the right reasons and it turns out not to be the best decision that isn’t a mistake. That’s my view anyway.

I think purslow was right if that was the scenario. It would have been mad to have spent 17m without guarantee of promotion. We would be in huge trouble

It wasn't that bad a deal then if we only paid 3m more know with all the pl money.

[MaVilla]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

I’ve very good reason to believe it is true, someone I trust implicitly on these things told me about it recently.

It wasn’t an option to buy though it was a commitment to buy and I don’t think we financially could have committed to that when promotion looked so unlikely.

Had we failed to go up this summer would have been a horrific cost cutting exercise and exodus of players. 

Min fairness to Purslow I think agreeing in January to buy Mings in the summer would have been wreckless. That is without even getting into the question marks about his fitness.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and a mistake is only when you make the wrong decision at the time. If you make a decision at the time for the right reasons and it turns out not to be the best decision that isn’t a mistake. That’s my view anyway.

If that is the case I completely agree that a requirement to buy would have been a terrible idea.

If we hadn't got promoted we would have been Stuck with a 17m? Forced purchase in the championship without any further parachute payments, could have put us in a mess, we did the right thing imo.

Look at Leeds, they had better get promoted this season as they have a mandatory 15.5m purchase on Costa.

Yes we paid more on Mings now, but we are a prem team and can afford it, much wiser than tying ourselves up with the risk of a near 20m purchase while still in the champ.

[sparrow1988]

1 hour ago, osmark86 said:

not sure if this has been posted, but me likey:

https://www.thesportsman.com/articles/opinion-tyrone-mings-should-be-joining-manchester-united-rather-than-aston-villa

Let's hope this guy is right.

FWIW I think that Mings will become very important here.

[briny_ear]

Judging by the amount of social media coverage of this from the club, I’m getting the feeling they see this as our big signing of the summer. 

Maybe that’s wrong and it’s just the social media team getting carried away. I hope so because, while it’s obviously good to see Mings signing up, we probably need a couple more, maybe of people with a fuller track record of success at pl or similar level. 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

I’ve very good reason to believe it is true, someone I trust implicitly on these things told me about it recently.

 

Weird that you didn’t mention it until it had been reported in the press though