Ross Barkley

[villa89]

4 hours ago, lexicon said:

No credible source either way, so a bit strange to say that it 'doesn't sound right at all.' It's entirely possible.

But there is a credible source, TrentVilla wrote in this thread before the deal happened that it was very likely and Chelsea would be subsiding his wages. Seems to me he was spot on. The media/twitter nobodies are just guessing at the numbers.

[QldVilla]

21 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

There's a stark difference between a squad building policy which revolves around loan players, such as the one he inherited, and signing a current England international on loan to compliment a squad in the second year of the PL. I actually can't remember exactly how Purslow phrased it tbh, but I would much rather our CEO tweak his thinking in the face of evidence than be dogmatic, as I said. 

Maybe if asked about it now he would tell you why we have taken the view that one or two loan signings ain't that bad after all. Wouldn't you rather have all the information at hand before you get annoyed? Because signing Ross Barkley on loan is hardly an existential threat to the future of the club. 

Aside - we don't actually know whether we have an option. 

Rather than making assumptions that I’m annoyed, actually undertake some research, confirm what was said and comment from a position being informed.

The comments were made and all I stated was obviously that the policy had changed.

 

[QldVilla]

21 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

If you don't think repeatedly expressing your irritation about the 'issue' is complaining, you must be incredibly depressing company.

That would be the conclusion of someone out of their depth and not understanding the context of the comment.

[YouUnastanFren]

2 minutes ago, QldVilla said:

That would be the conclusion of someone out of their depth and not understanding the context of the comment.

Can anyone be out of their depth discussing football on the internet? It's the shallowest pool known to man.

[Sam-AVFC]

2 hours ago, QldVilla said:

That would be the conclusion of someone out of their depth and not understanding the context of the comment.

You think altogether too highly of yourself. 

[ender4]

On 01/10/2020 at 11:49, Phil Silvers said:

 

If we do well and he was super good then we have no problem with the fee or wages, we should be operating at a higher level financially by then, it won't take long me thinks, but I'm far from the expert on this topic, others here might offer a better explanation if we were to finish say 5-7, 8-12 ? 

Well its about £2 million per position, so if we finished 7th rather than 17th, that's an extra £20 million that can be spent on wages/transfer fees.

It would also help in negotiating the next shirt sponsorship, plus other random sponsorships, so maybe a couple million boost there per year.

 

So if Barkley is costing us say £10m for the year, and he improves us by 5 positions, in effect he cost us nothing.  (very simplified i know)

[The Fun Factory]

Looking forward to see how it is all going to work. Jack, Ross, Super John ,and Dougie looks on paper a very good midfield.

[Danishlad]

2 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Looking forward to see how it is all going to work. Jack, Ross, Super John ,and Dougie looks on paper a very good midfield.

Better than Nakamba, Lansbury and Ramsey??

[ender4]

2 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Looking forward to see how it is all going to work. Jack, Ross, Super John ,and Dougie looks on paper a very good midfield.

With Rashica on the RW and Watkins up front 

[Delphinho123]

3 hours ago, ender4 said:

With Rashica on the RW and Watkins up front 

Don’t, because it so could have been. 

[GENTLEMAN]

13 hours ago, QldVilla said:

Rather than making assumptions that I’m annoyed, actually undertake some research, confirm what was said and comment from a position being informed.

The comments were made and all I stated was obviously that the policy had changed.

 

Alright calm down...Jeez

[soezetoc]

So what's the consensus on whether he starts or off the bench against Liverpool.  

I suspect he will come off the bench given CH goal against Fulham. 

Dean seems to ease new players in.

I personally would play him from the off.

[Kiwivillan]

2 minutes ago, soezetoc said:

I suspect he will come off the bench given CH goal against Fulham. 

I hope Dean remembers we were 1-0 up against Liverpool when Conor subbed on in 73rd minute. 

[Greenfly]

11 minutes ago, soezetoc said:

So what's the consensus on whether he starts or off the bench against Liverpool.  

I suspect he will come off the bench given CH goal against Fulham. 

Dean seems to ease new players in.

I personally would play him from the off.

Sub him on at 60. He'll be chomping at the bit by then, and he'll run on and smash the **** out of them for the hell of it.

It's written in the stars.

[MrBlack]

It would be incredibly harsh to drop CH for the Liverpool match,  after the goal in our last game, but it would be totally the right decision from the perspective of that one game. Conor will offer very little against Liverpool as we will have very little of the ball, unless he puts in a performance that we have not yet seen from him in the PL. But dropping him after a goal could seriously impact his morale and confidence, that may not be in our interests long term this season. 

Despite that,  i'd still start Barkley and bring Conor on if we're behind with 20 minutes to go. Try and manage the fallout by starting Conor in other games (although the Leicester game may not be any better for him either),  but totally understand if that isn't what Dean does.

 

[KentVillan]

As much as I love Conor Hourihane, he is not well suited to teams like Liverpool where you're constantly battling for possession. I think Barkley should start.

I'd also understand if DS decided to start Conor and bring Barkley off the bench though. I like the way DS rewards good performances from week to week, and doesn't pick players on reputation. Keeps all the players on their toes.

[zab6359]

2 hours ago, soezetoc said:

So what's the consensus on whether he starts or off the bench against Liverpool.  

I suspect he will come off the bench given CH goal against Fulham. 

Dean seems to ease new players in.

I personally would play him from the off.

DS had said he's fully fit and ready to go so I'd be disappointed if he didn't start. 

[abdulaziz1]

2 hours ago, Kiwivillan said:

I hope Dean remembers we were 1-0 up against Liverpool when Conor subbed on in 73rd minute. 

But I can remember him missing a goal which would have secured the draw atleast if not the win.

That said, I’m really happy with Hourihane being in the squad, he’s so useful and help us alot in terms of goals.

[Jas10]

 

[cheltenham_villa]

On 02/10/2020 at 10:24, QldVilla said:

Rather than making assumptions that I’m annoyed, actually undertake some research, confirm what was said and comment from a position being informed.

The comments were made and all I stated was obviously that the policy had changed.

 

I think a loan like this is very different, barkley is not a young player that chelsea are looking to see his development. No way back to chelsea for him. As long as we develop well, he plays a lot of games and he probably signs for us.