Aaron Ramsey

[CVByrne]

40 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

How's that different from being on £20k at Burnley or still at Villa and Liverpool offer him £100k a week after a year but the owning club don't want to sell? Tough, that's the contract.

Why would someone agree a contract with a guaranteed amount of money to be paid? Because that's nice guaranteed money on the table regardless of how the career actually goes. Plus it could have all sorts of performance related increases already built in.

Exactly.

He is signing for Burnley, getting £40k a week let's say. We have a buy back clause of say £25m active next summer and summer after. In that we agree £70k a week 4 year contract if we activate it. 

So he gets a pay rise and PL football and if he does really well this season he can get another pay bump, sign on fee and return to his home club Villa. 

It's all guaranteed pay increases if he does well. It's a lucrative for him and works for both clubs. 

[fightoffyour]

56 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I’m guessing a couple mill tops, it’s certainly unlikely to be anywhere near close to double as suggested.

The conversation may have not even got there as with many negotiations in any type of business.  Maybe Burnley said they will only pay £12m maximum or that’s the max they are able to offer and thus we thought of inventive ways or options to increase the benefit for Villa and thus a buy back clause was added and a condition for us.   If we had stuck at say £15m then maybe a deal couldn’t have happened, as with any deal there are always likely to be compromises.

I seriously doubt that we would be entertaining selling him at all without the buyback clause. Maybe a Chuk-sized fee would be of interest, but it's a moot point really because no one bar perhaps Chelsea themselves would pay that much.

This is the crux of the argument between those who think it's a good deal and those who don't.

No one I don't think wants to see Aaron, or any of our other top prospects, leave. But he will only be leaving in a situation that is better for his development than staying and gives us the right to take him back if and when he is good enough for our first team.

And again, if it turns out that's not what the deal looks like I'll admit that the transfer policy is concerning and I'll be sad that we're losing Aaron. I just firmly believe the people in charge know what they're doing so I'm not concerned, rather I think it's a good move for all parties.

Edited August 6, 2023 by fightoffyour

[duke313]

I think we’re just used to more traditional loans in this country. Send X player out on loan, he does well, he comes back next season into first team.

This definitely has a Monchi feel to it. The Spanish seem to do this quite a bit, particularly Real Madrid. They sell their Castilla players and have buy back clauses in them, they do well they come back, they do bad, they don’t.

Casemiro and Carvajal both experienced this, and both went on to be Madrid legends.

AJ won’t be the last youth player we see this with.

 

[jacketspuds]

Realistically at what point would Ramsey actually get in the team and play enough games to develop to his potential?

There’s a long list of midfielders ahead of him in the pecking order, and a move like this could be brilliant for him.

We probably offered Burnley a loan but they want to get something more out of the deal as well.

If selling Ramsey allows us to bring in a player that can really help us push for Champions League football then it makes sense.

The buy back bit of the deal is key as well though

[Cizzler]

Selling one of our best youth prospects for £12m… Stinks if true. Reminds of the Cahill to Bolton deal tbh.

[nick76]

19 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

I seriously doubt that we would be entertaining selling him at all without the buyback clause. Maybe a Chuk-sized fee would be of interest, but it's a moot point really because no one bar perhaps Chelsea themselves would pay that much.

This is the crux of the argument between those who think it's a good deal and those who don't.

No one I don't think wants to see Aaron, or any of our other top prospects, leave. But he will only be leaving in a situation that is better for his development than staying and gives us the right to take him back if and when he is good enough for our first team.

And again, if it turns out that's not what the deal looks like I'll admit that the transfer policy is concerning and I'll be sad that we're losing Aaron. I just firmly believe the people in charge know what they're doing so I'm not concerned, rather I think it's a good move for all parties.

I agree mostly.  I do wonder if Emery doesn’t think he has a high ceiling but put a buy back clause in just in case or whether the buy back clause seems like a big deal for us fans because we (Villa) don’t normally do it but maybe the change is just standard contract clause for Monchi and they (Emery and Monchi) and we’ll look back in a few years and all our younger players that are sold will have buy back clauses and the uniqueness of this deal isn’t really unique.  I just think if Emery thought so much of AJ he wouldn’t be letting him go, he’s only 20.  Anyway we may never know.

[Villatillidie95]

Due to this FFP thing, a lot of clubs are doing this. Burnley paid £20 mil for James Trafford at city, as he is a youth team product its pure profit. over the life of a 5 year contract, 20 x 5 = 100 mil, enabled them to get gvardiol in. A lot of their fans would be happy with that, I think with us we have not experienced this type of thing happening at villa before and because we have an affinity with one of our own its tough to take, but due to the FFP thing its gonna happen more and more. Might even happen to archer, I hope not, but Monchi and FFP means we will have to face this with other prospects

[StewieGriffin]

7 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

Selling one of our best youth prospects for £12m… Stinks if true. Reminds of the Cahill to Bolton deal tbh.

Yes, but this is sort of the point...

Imagine if we'd put a buy back clause in that deal...

The difference is that Cahill was older and should have been a first choice player, not binned off because our blinkered manager preferred Zat Knight. Ramsey is greener than goose-shit and has 3 or 4 quality players ahead of him

[nick76]

2 minutes ago, StewieGriffin said:

Yes, but this is sort of the point...

Imagine if we'd put a buy back clause in that deal...

The difference is that Cahill was older and should have been a first choice player, not binned off because our blinkered manager preferred Zat Knight. Ramsey is greener than goose-shit and has 3 or 4 quality players ahead of him

We also have to remember that we have a very talented young midfield/attacking talent in the first team from Kamara (23), Luiz (25), JJ (22), Diaby (24) to name just a few that are streaks ahead of AJ and will be for years most likely.

[villa89]

17 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

Selling one of our best youth prospects for £12m… Stinks if true. Reminds of the Cahill to Bolton deal tbh.

Yeah, it's like last year when we sold chuck to Chelsea for £20m and he tore up the league and got on the team of the season...

[randy_69]

11 minutes ago, Villatillidie95 said:

Due to this FFP thing, a lot of clubs are doing this. Burnley paid £20 mil for James Trafford at city, as he is a youth team product its pure profit. over the life of a 5 year contract, 20 x 5 = 100 mil, enabled them to get gvardiol in. A lot of their fans would be happy with that, I think with us we have not experienced this type of thing happening at villa before and because we have an affinity with one of our own its tough to take, but due to the FFP thing its gonna happen more and more. Might even happen to archer, I hope not, but Monchi and FFP means we will have to face this with other prospects

£100 mill, that can’t be right surely? Length of contract means nothing to the selling club. So it would just be 20 mill profit when paid…or if the fee was paid over five years, it would be 4 mill profit each year…

[Villatillidie95]

6 minutes ago, randy_69 said:

£100 mill, that can’t be right surely? Length of contract means nothing to the selling club. So it would just be 20 mill profit when paid…or if the fee was paid over five years, it would be 4 mill profit each year…

im not sure how it works out myself, but based on what i have read online it seems to be the case that the fee is per year of the contract or something like that, there are posters who have explained it on the previous pages very well, i might very well be barking up the wrong tree entirely but basically the main point seems to be selling academy players regularly is a great way to fund purchases of players who can make an impact on the starting 11 right now

[StanBalaban]

11 minutes ago, randy_69 said:

£100 mill, that can’t be right surely? Length of contract means nothing to the selling club. So it would just be 20 mill profit when paid…or if the fee was paid over five years, it would be 4 mill profit each year…

It is right - it's called amortisation, but the example is highlighting a 5 year contract for Gvardiol. The contract of the player sold is immaterial.

If AJ is sold for 12m, as pure profit it would offset a 60m player incoming ona 5 year contract. It might not be quite a linear as that, but it gives us the gist.

Edited August 6, 2023 by StanBalaban

[Cizzler]

12 minutes ago, villa89 said:

Yeah, it's like last year when we sold chuck to Chelsea for £20m and he tore up the league and got on the team of the season...

I mean, he wouldn’t sign a new contract so I understood why the club cashed in on Chukwuemeka - I feel like the two deals are different, so don’t really get the comment.

Regardless, Chukwuemeka was 19 last year. Not sure anyone really expected him to “tear up the league”. He still made 14 Premier League appearances. 

He has a huge potential, and I think most people who’ve decided otherwise are likely quite bitter about the manner of his departure. Not sure there’s anyone in the Villa academy with his ceiling.

[Enda]

10 minutes ago, StanBalaban said:

If AJ is sold for 12m, as pure profit it would offset a 60m player incoming ona 5 year contract. It might not be quite a linear as that, but it gives us the gist.

But only this year. It would facilitate that purchase today but “paying for it” tomorrow would be a problem. We’d need to sell another AJ next year for £12m.

Anyway, this young man has zero minutes in the league and we’re getting £12m for him. With a buyback clause. It’s a complicated loan with little risk for us. We get the upside risk if his development blossoms, which is more likely with Burnley than being fourth choice with us. Great business.

[Cizzler]

33 minutes ago, StewieGriffin said:

has 3 or 4 quality players ahead of him

Does he? Who?

I’d be more on board if there was an agreed buy-back price and a pre-agreed contract - however, I can’t remember seeing that ever exercised in the PL.

[StanBalaban]

4 minutes ago, Enda said:

But only this year. It would facilitate that purchase today but “paying for it” tomorrow would be a problem. We’d need to sell another AJ next year for £12m.

Yep, that's right. Expect to see more of this as the club's loaning policy is geared towards FFP.

However, whilst there's no guarantees of course, it allows better players to come in to hopefully yield more success and commercial exposure -  bringing in more followers and revenue.

[thunderball]

32 minutes ago, randy_69 said:

£100 mill, that can’t be right surely? Length of contract means nothing to the selling club. So it would just be 20 mill profit when paid…or if the fee was paid over five years, it would be 4 mill profit each year…

I get what @Villatillidie95 is describing: as a youth product, there is no purchase capital being amortised, so it’s £20m straight profit. Man City use this receipt immediately to leverage a much bigger acquisition with very little immediate FFP impact as it’s amortised over a longer period. It’s £20m in and £20m straight out with nil impact ( other than wages).

It seems that’s a similar issue with Ferran Torres, Barcelona want €30m now, not in stage payments, as that covers off his accounting liability and doesn’t present a loss for FFP. Maybe that’s why we are selling AJ?

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by thunderball

[StanBalaban]

3 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

Does he? Who?

I’d be more on board if there was an agreed buy-back price and a pre-agreed contract - however, I can’t remember seeing that ever exercised in the PL.

There have been a small number that have been discussed in the public domain, and I'm sure many others that we know little about.

The fact that so few get exercised might indicate just how difficult it is to go from "potential" to "ready" at a top team. And it would largely be top teams that can do this, as why would any great talent agree to go back to a club that's perennially average, or worse, after proving themselves on their "loan" away?

 

[chrisvilla4]

Head and heart this one. Head says it's a decent deal where everyone comes out with something. If he tears it up he can come home in a few years, older and wiser.