Ethan Ampadu

[Junxs]

59 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Calm down. 

I didn’t say anything about believing THIS. 

I just said I find it hard to believe we’ll never loan a player again. I think people are taking it a bit too literally. 

I'm perfectly calm thank you. People are taking it literally because it's from the horses mouth. I really don't understand why you would doubt it? Especially just 2 weeks after it was said. It would look a bit foolish if he went back on his words so soon. 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Junxs said:

I'm perfectly calm thank you. People are taking it literally because it's from the horses mouth. I really don't understand why you would doubt it? Especially just 2 weeks after it was said. It would look a bit foolish if he went back on his words so soon. 

K

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, Junxs said:

I'm perfectly calm thank you. People are taking it literally because it's from the horses mouth. I really don't understand why you would doubt it? Especially just 2 weeks after it was said. It would look a bit foolish if he went back on his words so soon. 

Well, at least part of the reason people are doubting 'we won't loan a player' is that some people on the previous page appear to be saying that that isn't what was said? (I haven't seen the video, so if anybody has a link and we can see what was said, that would obviously be ideal). 

[Guest av1]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, at least part of the reason people are doubting 'we won't loan a player' is that some people on the previous page appear to be saying that that isn't what was said? (I haven't seen the video, so if anybody has a link and we can see what was said, that would obviously be ideal). 

15 mins 30s in. 

 

 

[useless]

15:26

other players we've talked about some of

15:28

them are our players and we don't like

15:29

that as a model going forward we want

15:31

our own players Dean's improve players

15:34

this year that we don't own and now much

15:37

more valuable when they when they joined

15:38

us and other clubs are going to benefit

15:40

from that and if we try to buy them

15:42

they're almost gonna say you improve

15:43

them and now pay more for them well

15:45

that's a terrible business model we're

15:47

not gonna be doing that in the future

15:48

you can you can that's on the record

 

[BG_Villa_Fan]

2 hours ago, PieFacE said:

Well he didn't say we wouldn't loan players again, he said we would only loan players with a view to buy. Which is completely understandable. 

I can't see a pre-determined buyout clause to ever be in the selling club's interest. It's like selling a played but getting the money a year later, however if he fails to impress you get him back. No way would I want Villa to send players on loan with such options and I do not see too many teams willing to follow this model.

Purslow's comments shouldn't be taken literally, I agree. It's more like a statement that Villa will no longer be pushovers. However, it wouldn't be prudent to completely deny loaning players. It's a way to get talent that is superior and wouldn't otherwise be able to attract. 

[Thug]

On 16/06/2019 at 16:53, BG_Villa_Fan said:

I can't see a pre-determined buyout clause to ever be in the selling club's interest. It's like selling a played but getting the money a year later, however if he fails to impress you get him back. No way would I want Villa to send players on loan with such options and I do not see too many teams willing to follow this model.

Purslow's comments shouldn't be taken literally, I agree. It's more like a statement that Villa will no longer be pushovers. However, it wouldn't be prudent to completely deny loaning players. It's a way to get talent that is superior and wouldn't otherwise be able to attract. 

Totally disagree

 

when a club has a player they wish to offload, they are more than happy to agree to these terms. See El Ghazi and Hause.

When u want a player gone, you want him gone.  I’d be delighted to loan out Hogan to someone and agree that they can have him for £5m at the end of the loan. Worst case scenario they will have paid a significant portion (if not all) of his wages for one year.  Best case scenario he does well and they take up an option to buy him for £5m.  If he scores 30 goals for them, good for him and good for them - because he wouldn’t do that for us regardless.

[Ponky]

I think if we DO loan anyone it will be very late in the window if some of our targets have not materialised and we have obvious gaps in the squad. 

[Lions&Dragons]

This seems to have turned into a will we / won't we loan anyone this season discussion, but to get back on topic regarding young Ampadu as a Welsh Villan I would be more than happy to see him getting regular game time at the top level,  I think he would fit in well in the defensive midfielder role, could see him giving Jack a few assists throughout the season!

He's had a few injury spells and was subbed off against Hungary last week holding his back, he didn't start against Croatia as his fitness was questionable then also, however when he came on he totally changed the game.  I think he is more than capable to cover his lack of experience playing prem football week in week out  though if he can stay fit.

Guess it now depends on Sarri's successor as to what happens to him next season.

 

[Lions&Dragons]

https://twitter.com/Wideoverload/status/1137739128819392512

didn't know how to embed this so here's link to a tweet of his coverage in Croatia

Edited June 18, 2019 by Lions&Dragons
couldn't get embed to work

[DevonVilla]

I watched Ethan come through the ranks at Exeter City and we've followed his progress closely.

He's mature beyond his years, has a fantastic footballing brain and is a born leader.

He's a fantastic player, can play in several positions and if he gets a run of first team games, will be a great asset be it at Chelsea or Villa.

 

[BG_Villa_Fan]

4 hours ago, Thug said:

Totally disagree

 

when a club has a player they wish to offload, they are more than happy to agree to these terms. See El Ghazi and Hause.

When u want a player gone, you want him gone.  I’d be delighted to loan out Hogan to someone and agree that they can have him for £5m at the end of the loan. Worst case scenario they will have paid a significant portion (if not all) of his wages for one year.  Best case scenario he does well and they take up an option to buy him for £5m.  If he scores 30 goals for them, good for him and good for them - because he wouldn’t do that for us regardless.

El Ghazi and Hause being complete bargains for Villa is exactly the counter argument - it’s a terrible business model for the selling team.

In your example with Hogan the set price would likely be much lower, however even at 5 mil if he scores a ton of goals then his value will skyrocket while Villa would have no chance but to accept a cut price deal. This is poor asset management at its finest. And in case he’s bad they just send him back to Villa. Again, not in the interest of the selling team.

But the idea behind possible loans for Villa would more likely be about young up and coming players like Tammy and Axel, that Villa would otherwise be unable to attract. There’s no way it’s ever in the interest of Chelsea and Man U to agree to a set fee at the end of such loans, just like it wouldn’t be in Villa’s interest to send, say Green, on loan to a championship team with a pre-arranged fee.

[Thug]

6 hours ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

El Ghazi and Hause being complete bargains for Villa is exactly the counter argument - it’s a terrible business model for the selling team.

In your example with Hogan the set price would likely be much lower, however even at 5 mil if he scores a ton of goals then his value will skyrocket while Villa would have no chance but to accept a cut price deal. This is poor asset management at its finest. And in case he’s bad they just send him back to Villa. Again, not in the interest of the selling team.

But the idea behind possible loans for Villa would more likely be about young up and coming players like Tammy and Axel, that Villa would otherwise be unable to attract. There’s no way it’s ever in the interest of Chelsea and Man U to agree to a set fee at the end of such loans, just like it wouldn’t be in Villa’s interest to send, say Green, on loan to a championship team with a pre-arranged fee.

Again, I disagree.

Right now we have an unusable asset.  It is costing us money (his wages).  We are not likely to be able to command any decent fee for him.  You state ‘the set fee would likely be much lower’ - which is the point you’re misunderstanding.  No, the fee would NOT likely be much lower.  His current value is much lower. The idea of the loan is to help BOTH clubs.

Let us say Hogans current value, given his wages and form, is £2m.  Probably even less considering that no one is willing to match his wages, and he has no desire to take a wage cut - meaning that he has no incentive to make a move. I’d argue that we couldn’t even give him away for free right now due to this fact.  Basically we have an asset that is costing us money, and is unsellable.

Along comes some club willing to loan him. They say that they’re willing to take a punt on him, but want to loan him first.  However, if he does well for them, they want a cut price deal. 

We have 2 options now:

1) say ‘no **** way. That’s poor asset management at it’s finest. We’re not stupid. We’re gonna keep him, keep paying his wages until his contract runs out. Now go away and leave us alone.’

2) Agree that he can go to this club on a loan deal, but at the end of this deal, they have an option to buy him - not for the £2m we would accept now, but for £5m. 

If he does poorly, they won’t buy him, but will have paid his wages and a loan fee for 1 year.

If he does brilliant for them scores 20 goals, they will pay £5m for him, grabbing an absolute bargain, but we would have made £3m more than what we were originally prepared to accept.

if he does ‘ok’, they want him, but don’t want to pay £5m, then he’d have been in the shop window for someone else to make an offer.

ANY one of the above scenarios is infinitely better than option 1.

 

Purslow is making the point that we should have insisted on an option to buy clause.  Let’s say if there was a £18 million clause for Mings - May have sounded ridiculous at the time - and Bournemouth would more than likely have agreed at that time... but we wouldn’t be playing games with the fee right now.

Even a seemingly ridiculous clause is better than no clause, and that is what we NEED in any loan deal.

So you’re wrong (IMO).  Poor asset management at its finest is allowing said asset to rot in our reserves.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Thug
Spelling

[BG_Villa_Fan]

^ Why are you only looking at it from the perspective of loaning out a player the club doesn’t want and neither would anyone else? We’d be looking to loan the likes of Tammy and Axel, who’d easily have many suitors if available, not someone like Phil Jones, for example. There’s no way the selling team would be OK with a preset fee.

Would you like Villa to loan Green, O’Hare, etc with such options? 

[Dodgyknees]

8 hours ago, DevonVilla said:

I watched Ethan come through the ranks at Exeter City and we've followed his progress closely.

He's mature beyond his years, has a fantastic footballing brain and is a born leader.

He's a fantastic player, can play in several positions and if he gets a run of first team games, will be a great asset be it at Chelsea or Villa.

 

I was talking to somebody who played with him at youth level, recently. Said pretty much the same.

[Villarocker]

On 15/06/2019 at 21:17, sir_gary_cahill said:

Have you seen him play live? If so, for who? (Ampadu)

I watched him in a live game on TV for Wales where he started the game as DM and moved to CB during the game and he was brilliant. I couldn't believe his age when they mentioned it on TV, it was as if he'd been playing Pro football for 10 years!

Edited June 18, 2019 by villarocker

[Thug]

1 hour ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

^ Why are you only looking at it from the perspective of loaning out a player the club doesn’t want and neither would anyone else?

Errrr.... because you wrote this, maybe?

8 hours ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

In your example with Hogan the set price would likely be much lower, however even at 5 mil if he scores a ton of goals then his value will skyrocket while Villa would have no chance but to accept a cut price deal. This is poor asset management at its finest. And in case he’s bad they just send him back to Villa. Again, not in the interest of the selling team.

 

8 hours ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

El Ghazi and Hause being complete bargains for Villa is exactly the counter argument - it’s a terrible business model for the selling team.

No, it's not.  They don't want, or need them any more.  They want them gone.  Now they're gone.  Everyone is happy.

Hause would still be in Wolves reserves.  Collecting wages.

8 hours ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

But the idea behind possible loans for Villa would more likely be about young up and coming players like Tammy and Axel, that Villa would otherwise be unable to attract.

Yes maybe when we were in the championship, but not going forwards.  There is no need to be developing other teams players for them.  For every Abraham, there is a Maupay.  We paid a fee for Abraham, paid his wages,  gave him an opportunity to score 20+ goals, gained experience, added £20m to his price tag, and sent him back to Chelsea.

Brentford bought Maupay for peanuts, scored 20+ goals, added £20m to his value, and he's still their asset.

You want to take about poor asset management? 

8 hours ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

But the idea behind possible loans for Villa would more likely be about young up and coming players like Tammy and Axel, that Villa would otherwise be unable to attract.

If we were never going to be able to have them, then we shouldn't be improving them for other teams. That's Purslow's point.

 

8 hours ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

There’s no way it’s ever in the interest of Chelsea and Man U to agree to a set fee at the end of such loans

Then we don't loan them.  Simple. 

Only when clubs like us stop doing the dirty work for the big clubs like Man Utd and Chelsea, will these clubs stop hoarding players, and will young players stop signing for them or demanding moves.

1 hour ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

There’s no way the selling team would be OK with a preset fee.

Would you like Villa to loan Green, O’Hare, etc with such options? 

Depends on the fee.  If someone said they'd loan Green with a preset fee of £30m then yes.  If they said £1m, then no.  Obviously. 

 

 

 

[AvfcRigo82]

On 16/06/2019 at 14:37, Junxs said:

Maybe because they were his exact words, said an in video interview on the official site?

It you rather believe the words of a random journalist then go ahead

 

On 16/06/2019 at 14:57, Stevo985 said:

Calm down. 

I didn’t say anything about believing THIS. 

I just said I find it hard to believe we’ll never loan a player again. I think people are taking it a bit too literally. 

To sum it up as there is alot of lost in translation events occuring...

We will NOT be going down the loan route of just loaning someone again with no benefit to us as it is a bad business model and we the club, see no benefit of it.

However,.. if we are going to venture off down the Loan route in the future for someone it will be 99.9% certain there will be a clause inserted that allows us to make the deal permanent if we wish to at the end of the loan.

There will be loans again.. just with clauses this time.

[AshVilla]

If it were a loan to buy with a clause say get him for 15 - 20m at the end of it i'd be all for it.

I doubt it though.

[Junxs]

^ No lost in translation for me mate, I'm all for loaning if there is a set purchase price that comes with it (and understood it as such). Just don't think Chelsea would allow it with this player so there is no truth to this rumour as far as I'm concerned.