Carney Chukwuemeka

[hippo]

32 minutes ago, IrishVilla10 said:

Played much more than Tim last season, and is a year younger. And Tim was happy to sign 

Don't see what that proves tbh. Carney (imo) doesn't think he is going to get enough games soon enough.

Maybe that doesn't worry TI or TI sees things differently.

But If think if CC thought he was going to get a run of games he would sign. All IMO of course.

[Vive_La_Villa]

54 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Has sanson? 

What do we pay el ghazi a player we don't play and dont want? 

What do we pay Hause the 5th choice CB who won't play this season? 

We pay chuk less? 

Whats his role going to be? 5th or 6th choice CM looking to make 15 to 20 appearances in all comps largely from the bench maybe start 5 games, we pay him accordingly based on the wage structure of the squad, not based on his age or "earned" 

If he plays more than sanson then why should he expect to "earn" around half of what sanson does? 

He doesn’t expect it by the sounds of it. Doesn’t mean he will get what he wants though. 

He may not even get a better contract offer this summer or next. Who knows?

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Vive_La_Villa

[Vive_La_Villa]

4 minutes ago, hippo said:

Don't see what that proves tbh. Carney (imo) doesn't think he is going to get enough games soon enough.

Maybe that doesn't worry TI or TI sees things differently.

But If think if CC thought he was going to get a run of games he would sign. All IMO of course.

@villa4europe thinks it’s the opposite of this, feels he deserves more money considering how much he plays / or will play. 

I personally think it’ a a money thing rather than minutes. Church’s and spreading the word ain’t cheap! 

[duke313]

49 minutes ago, hippo said:

I really think game time is the issue.

 

There is no proof he’s asking for money, likewise there is no proof he’s asking for game time. 

[hippo]

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

There is no proof he’s asking for money, likewise there is no proof he’s asking for game time. 

Of course. (I did say imo)

If Carney gets to be playing first team football in the prem or somewhere comparable - then the big money will surely follow in due course.

Easy for me to say (I'm not 18 !!!!!) - the better players grasp the above.

On the other hand he's one bad tackle away from it all coming crashing down.

 

[duke313]

Just now, hippo said:

Of course. (I did say imo)

If Carney gets to be playing first team football in the prem or somewhere comparable - then the big money will surely follow in due course.

Easy for me to say (I'm not 18 !!!!!) - the better players grasp the above.

On the other hand he's one bad tackle away from it all coming crashing down.

 

I just meant there are people suggesting it’s for money, others suggesting it’s game time. Truth is we don’t know, could be either, or both, or neither. We don’t know, and it’s all just guesswork.

[zak]

48 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

How many games will the 3 of them play next season? 

El Ghazi £40k a week for potentially 0

Sanson £50k a week, last year made 10 appearances

Throw in Hause £25k a week, last season 7 appearances

Chuk last season 12 appearances 

Why would he not want paying closer to players that he plays more games than? Why pay based on age rather than appearances? Why pay based on what you consider his performance rating to be rather than appearances? 

Pay him based on his role in the squad 

Right but using Samson for example, they are suggesting he was put on £50k a week because he was considered a top player when bought. Villa wouldn't value Sanson's performances as £50k. Also, Chuk was worse than terrible Sanson in his appearance last year according to most fans, there's nothing to say they would be better this year.

Chuks role in the squad currently is not a starter and shouldnt be paid that way.

 

If he was 27 would he have got the 12 appearances? Or are villa giving him game time to help his progress? Does his performances deserve 12 appearances.

[villa4europe]

5 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

@villa4europe thinks it’s the opposite of this, feels he deserves more money considering how much he plays / or will play. 

I personally think it’ a a money thing rather than minutes. Church’s and spreading the word ain’t cheap! 

I think the 2 go hand in hand, the money would show what his role is and that the games will come

I'd never say pay him £50k a week and then send him out on loan or pay him £50k a week and then give him 3 games next season 

Gerrard should map out the planned usage for him next year and then the salary should fit 

If he is 8th choice then the money should reflect that, if he's 4th or 5th choice then likewise - but no promises or guarantees of anything, the money shows the confidence the club has in the player not a handshake or a promise on 10 starts or any of that bollocks 

[avfc1982am]

10 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Has sanson? 

What do we pay el ghazi a player we don't play and dont want? 

What do we pay Hause the 5th choice CB who won't play this season? 

We pay chuk less? 

Whats his role going to be? 5th or 6th choice CM looking to make 15 to 20 appearances in all comps largely from the bench maybe start 5 games, we pay him accordingly based on the wage structure of the squad, not based on his age or "earned" 

If he plays more than sanson then why should he expect to "earn" around half of what sanson does? 

Because the club paid a rather large fee to bring Sanson here as a senior pro with top level experience. Same with Anwar, more than earnt his status and wages for his performances in the first team regardless of whether he is surplus to requirements now. Carney is still a relative novice and a kid. 

Personally I think we should be wage capping what the kids can earn anyway. I think the club should have some sort of structure(if we don't already) whereby the kids coming through the youth system have to hit a certain amount of games at senior level before getting the big bucks. That way there is no grey area, the youngsters know what they need to do and there can be no groaning as it is club policy. 

The idea that we should be paying the kids that are yet to prove themselves at senior level as much as senior pros that have been in the game several years at the highest level is silly imo. You start setting up situations where the kids are earning before they've actually earnt it and your in trouble. I've got 2 grads partially under my wing. Bright, hardworking and no doubt at some point will go on to earn decent money as they do much of the same work as senior staff. In some cases their work is better than others but they still have much to learn and until they graduate they will continue to earn less than more experienced and qualified staff. If my organisation started paying them ridiculous amounts in order to hold on to them though based on potential they'd have a mutiny on their hands and lose staff more important at this point in time. 

I see this situation as being very similar. Carney although promising is still a grad, nothing more. Get into a position whereby you've got x amount of games behind you, push senior players out the way full time and eventually earn the money. As others have alluded to....There is also the possibility the lad got game time last season over established players to try and convince him this is the place for him. Not necessarily because he is currently better than the senior players in the squad. I wouldn't be happy about that if true as I see it as poor management not that I'm saying that's what happened but it could be. If this was the case you could argue that pampering to his needs for a period to make him feel good doesn't automatically make his worth comparable to someone with more experience at this moment in time.  

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

Just now, duke313 said:

I just meant there are people suggesting it’s for money, others suggesting it’s game time. Truth is we don’t know, could be either, or both, or neither. We don’t know, and it’s all just guesswork.

If it was for game time would he risk a year of no senior football though ?

[TRO]

10 hours ago, CVByrne said:

I assume an outsized say is coming from who is representing him right now. They will be in line for usually 10-15% of the total contract value. As they aren't proper representation from a professional they don't have multiple clients and thus multiple income streams. This is the only opportunity they will get to make a big chunk of money off Carney. So the normal way is agents know with young players there are improved contract offers than come with improved on pitch performances as the player gets more salary and the club protects their investment. That's why a contract when a player turns 18 isn't that important and the agent would advise the player as much.

The people representing Carney likely know they will only get one chance at a cut of money from Carney as he will get professional agents sooner or later as he himself grows up and gets talking to his teammates and friends etc. So to these people (his Dad or his Church or family friend or whoever) the size of the contract he signs now is absolutely critical to their own interests.

 

ignorance is clearly not bliss......more fool him, if he has poor representation.

[villaslash]

1 hour ago, CarryOnVilla said:

And not a pun to bulk it out… seems fishy 

Call me when number of pages on Villatalk surpasses number of minutes played…getting close

[villa4europe]

7 minutes ago, zak said:

Right but using Samson for example, they are suggesting he was put on £50k a week because he was considered a top player when bought. Villa wouldn't value Sanson's performances as £50k. Also, Chuk was worse than terrible Sanson in his appearance last year according to most fans, there's nothing to say they would be better this year.

Chuks role in the squad currently is not a starter and shouldnt be paid that way.

 

If he was 27 would he have got the 12 appearances? Or are villa giving him game time to help his progress? Does his performances deserve 12 appearances.

His agent won't use fan performance ratings when negotiating a contract... 

And it sounds like because we over pay sanson we shouldn't pay chuk the same 

Again that's not what his agent is going to argue 

The only games because we are trying to develop him rather than on merit is the sounder argument 

[macandally]

1 hour ago, thabucks said:

I wonder how much cut the Church will take off him and expect him to donate monthly.
 

They know they’ve got a generational talent & cash cow and will maximise the return for themselves in the name of Jesus… 

The Church will never be poor, Religion comes with a price 

[hippo]

I've heard he's not signing until he gets reassurances about villa park installing a facility whereby beer fills from the bottom of a glass.

Seems perfectly reasonable concern to me.

[TRO]

20 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

Because the club paid a rather large fee to bring Sanson here as a senior pro with top level experience. Same with Anwar, more than earnt his status and wages for his performances in the first team regardless of whether he is surplus to requirements now. Carney is still a relative novice and a kid. 

Personally I think we should be wage capping what the kids can earn anyway. I think the club should have some sort of structure(if we don't already) whereby the kids coming through the youth system have to hit a certain amount of games at senior level before getting the big bucks. That way there is no grey area, the youngsters know what they need to do and there can be no groaning as it is club policy. 

The idea that we should be paying the kids that are yet to prove themselves at senior level as much as senior pros that have been in the game several years at the highest level is silly imo. You start setting up situations where the kids are earning before they've actually earnt it and your in trouble. I've got 2 grads partially under my wing. Bright, hardworking and no doubt at some point will go on to earn decent money as they do much of the same work as senior staff. In some cases their work is better than others but they still have much to learn and until they graduate they will continue to earn less than more experienced and qualified staff. If my organisation started paying them ridiculous amounts in order to hold on to them though based on potential they'd have a mutiny on their hands and lose staff more important at this point in time. 

I see this situation as being very similar. Carney although promising is still a grad, nothing more. Get into a position whereby you've got x amount of games behind you, push senior players out the way full time and eventually earn the money. As others have alluded to....There is also the possibility the lad got game time last season over established players to try and convince him this is the place for him. Not necessarily because he is currently better than the senior players in the squad. I wouldn't be happy about that if true as I see it as poor management not that I'm saying that's what happened but it could be. If this was the case you could argue that pampering to his needs for a period to make him feel good doesn't automatically make his worth comparable to someone with more experience at this moment in time.  

 

as you allude to the "instant gratification culture" is the danger.

I say earn your spurs.......and shut the **** up, until you do.

it makes for a resillient character, when you have earned it, and more self satisfying.

SG is being "cruel to be kind"..I hope he see's it that way.

[USA_Villa]

We won't play the lad, we put a $20M price tag his head, which no-one is going to pay, and we'll let him leave at the end of season for free. I don't see how this is good business.

[ozvilla28]

7 hours ago, duke313 said:

I just meant there are people suggesting it’s for money, others suggesting it’s game time. Truth is we don’t know, could be either, or both, or neither. We don’t know, and it’s all just guesswork.

It's got to be one or the other no doubt otherwise what is this stallup.

[Vancvillan]

1 hour ago, USA_Villa said:

We won't play the lad, we put a $20M price tag his head, which no-one is going to pay, and we'll let him leave at the end of season for free. I don't see how this is good business.

Is that $20m from a Talk Sport exclusive? If so, there's something I need to tell you about them and you may want to sit down.

Assuming it's true (and that requires giving them Christ-like benefit of the doubt), it's not ideal but what's the better strategy?

 

1. Sell him for peanuts now and we set a precedent. We're clearly going to be bringing a lot of talent through our academy, better if we establish the boundaries now.

2. Play him and hope he signs? We'd be developing a player for someone else, or at least developing someone who has shown no commitment to the club.

I don't see a better option.

[jacksonho]

As excited as I get about youth, at the end of the day, if they aren't willing to commit to our offer then I just say let the terms of the agreement run out. I know there are legalities with youth contracts but essentially the contract he is on was agreed by both parties with the risk on both sides. If he has said he isn't signing a new contract no matter what, or only at a price we don't believe he is worth then as a business decision we shouldn't invest anymore resources into an asset which the life is going to expire at the end of the year. I'm sure we didn't enter the contract thinking that where we are now was not a potential outcome. I believe that he is probably 2-3 years away from being a starter, he isn't forcing anyone in the team out immediately. If all goes as planned, in 3 years time we will be in Europe, higher up the table and attracting better quality players anyway.