Summer transfer window 2021

[alreadyexists]

1 hour ago, est1874 said:

DANKS! 

Can he play DM?

DANKS doesn’t play DM, the opposition don’t enter out half when DANKS is around

[romavillan]

15 minutes ago, sne said:

Was League 1 but yeah, be delighted obviously if Raikhy could step in a be a PL quality player next season. Would expect it to be a couple years away yet thou otherwise I think the club would have sent him to a Championship club.

Not sure if he's signed a new contract yet? The old one expires next summer.

Signed new contract this summer I think, not sure how long for. Punjabi Villans had a photo of the signing I think a while back. 

[Lord Willard]

Spending will slowly cease up which is absolutely fine by me.

We are investing heavily into youth and sooner or later they will eventually need game time and prove that they are good enough. I still think that system is still 2-3 years away from working.

I was hoping for 1/2 first team players to keep us improving till then. 

 

[CVByrne]

22 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Since promotion we have clearly punched above our revenue weight with transfers (we had no choice if we wanted to be competitive). The 3 year table you have here shows it.

 

Although Premier League FFP is not a big concern to us anymore (for a while at least following JG sale), our growing wage bill will be a stumbling block to any huge spending next summer imo. We are likely to see maybe 1/2 big additions, not 5 like we have seen in previous years.

I am going to post financial summary of our transfer window in the FFP thread later on this week.

 

 

 

I think there are a few ways to handle the wage bill issue which is coming over the next couple of year. Firstly is with increased revenue, we've got new kit and shirt sponsor deals to agree next summer. The next is two pronged. Firstly we are in general signing younger players who are getting their first big Premiership contract this means we aren't paying them triple figures per week. The second is by maintaining a smaller first team squad supplemented by our academy. Chukwuemeka for example will likely sign a 5 year deal in a few weeks when he turns 18 on something like 10k per week ( I think Ramsey's new deal was £7,500 pw). 

So when you average up our wage bill we have players like Buendia, Bailey etc.. on long deals but not on triple figure salaries and we've "underpaid" in relation to their contributions academy players like JPB, Ramsey, Chuk and then the experienced Prem players who when they signed their contract extensions the increased wages is offset by the remaining amortisation being spread over the length of the new contract.

I cannot think of a financially better way to run a football club like Aston Villa. The two biggest issues that plague teams are first team players who are on Prem wages and not contributing on the pitch for the club. Managerial changes where they want to make wholesale changes to the existing squad. 

 

I do think the board are smart in aiming to post a big Grealish filled profit number for this season as the start of a new 3 year cycle for the club

Edited September 1, 2021 by CVByrne

[Czarnikjak]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The second is by maintaining a smaller first team squad supplemented by our academy. Chukwuemeka for example will likely sign a 5 year deal in a few weeks when he turns 18 on something like 10k per week ( I think Ramsey's new deal was £7,500 pw). 

Good post with good points made.

I have tried to advocate that our squad needs to be a "lean but mean" machine with no bloat, to allow us to compete on wage front with higher revenue clubs.

People keep talking about bringing more depth, that's where our young players need to step in. There's an obvious risk to this approach, but it has a big potential reward.

We are in a good position now with our squad, probably the best position we have been in for decades, the so called dead wood is minimal.

[Delphinho123]

58 minutes ago, Made In Aston said:

People forget that Luiz is only 23. Grealish didn't really kick on until he got to that age and I don't think Dougie will be any different. He has shown quality in bursts and it is now about greater consistency and taking on more responsibility. I think he will have a good season and we will see more of his post lockdown form going forward. 

If, and it’s a big if, he performs as well as he did in those 8 or so games after project restart, I think we can improve on our league position from last season. 

Unfortunately, the most recent data set are his performances last year so I’m not holding out too much hope. He is young though so hopefully consistency comes with age! 

[Delphinho123]

23 minutes ago, Lord Willard said:

Spending will slowly cease up which is absolutely fine by me.

We are investing heavily into youth and sooner or later they will eventually need game time and prove that they are good enough. I still think that system is still 2-3 years away from working.

I was hoping for 1/2 first team players to keep us improving till then. 

 

This. 100%.

Im totally fine with relying on youth and complimenting it with 1 or 2 players every summer but I don’t think we’re there yet. 

This golden generation are probably 2/3 years away from being ready to be PL starters (at best) - Ramsey, Chuk, Kessler etc. You have to remember that a players prime tends to be between the ages of 26-30. With that being the case, Carney is 9 years away from his prime..

I think we’ve left ourselves light this season, but also I can see the benefit of saving money and holding out for certain players. 

[KevinRichardsonsMoustache]

34 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You can go to the FFP thread to see how the accounting actually works and why net spend is essentially irrelevant and you'll learn why the line in bold is incorrect

A simple crash course from tifo is here. 

 

I found this v useful, indeed. Seeing the figures laid out like this clarifies things.

This is probably the wrong thread for my comment, but the concept of amortisation of players as part of FFP is bananas, isn’t it? I mean FFP was notionally at least about balancing the books but this type of calculus is about fudging the figures so you don’t impinge on the new rules, but you’re riding roughshod over the spirit of them.

I know comparing humdrum finances with the multibillion pound world of football is problematic but indulge me: I say to my gf that I’m getting, I don’t know, a BMW M5. She goes mental at the sticker price. But I tell her that I intend to spread the cost over a few years, thereby reducing the burden. I then show her that I will sell the car in maybe two years, avoiding all of those pesky fuel charges, new car wax, and the new tyres I’ll have to buy. By such calculus, I’m actually making money by buying this car. The fallacy is that, emboldened by getting away with it, the next car I buy will be even more expensive, any saving I pretend to make are absorbed by the new shiny car, and I kick the can further down the road. 
 

It’s almost like the rules were deliberately written to avoid state regulation of football (‘look how responsible we are now’), without changing anything about the game (‘we’re Real Madrid and we want to buy players for massive amounts of money). Imagine that! 
 

Meanwhile, the Super League clubs are still behaving the same way as before and SkySports et al are giving it the Daffy Duck gif because we’re all back on the gravy train. A big club really needs to go bankrupt - and totally die - for us to wake up.

[Czarnikjak]

3 minutes ago, KevinRichardsonsMoustache said:

I found this v useful, indeed. Seeing the figures laid out like this clarifies things.

This is probably the wrong thread for my comment, but the concept of amortisation of players as part of FFP is bananas, isn’t it? I mean FFP was notionally at least about balancing the books but this type of calculus is about fudging the figures so you don’t impinge on the new rules, but you’re riding roughshod over the spirit of them.

I know comparing humdrum finances with the multibillion pound world of football is problematic but indulge me: I say to my gf that I’m getting, I don’t know, a BMW M5. She goes mental at the sticker price. But I tell her that I intend to spread the cost over a few years, thereby reducing the burden. I then show her that I will sell the car in maybe two years, avoiding all of those pesky fuel charges, new car wax, and the new tyres I’ll have to buy. By such calculus, I’m actually making money by buying this car. The fallacy is that, emboldened by getting away with it, the next car I buy will be even more expensive, any saving I pretend to make are absorbed by the new shiny car, and I kick the can further down the road. 
 

It’s almost like the rules were deliberately written to avoid state regulation of football (‘look how responsible we are now’), without changing anything about the game (‘we’re Real Madrid and we want to buy players for massive amounts of money). Imagine that! 
 

Meanwhile, the Super League clubs are still behaving the same way as before and SkySports et al are giving it the Daffy Duck gif because we’re all back on the gravy train. A big club really needs to go bankrupt - and totally die - for us to wake up.

Amortisation concept is not unique to football, it's standard accounting practise for all businesses.

As to the question if it should be used for FFP purposes? Who knows, I don't think there's a good and fair way to implement FFP.

UEFA seems to be moving to abandon it now and go for Salary Cap. Depending on the implementation details of this proposal, it could prove to be even more skewed towards the top clubs that the current model.

[barry'sboots]

17 hours ago, Keyblade said:

I think either people haven't been following Danny Ings in the last couple of years or it just hasn't sunk in yet. This would have been a meltdown signing for Spurs let alone Villa. After Kane, Lukaku and Salah (jury's still out on if Vardy has finally declined or not), he's the best striker in the league.

I think there are a couple of issues with the Ings signing.  

1. It was done on the same day that Jack's sale was announced and was kind of lost; and, more importantly for me,

2. We have Watkins and it is unclear how the two will play together - not sure 4-4-2 works with our squad; don't want to push Ollie back out wide etc..

He is clearly a top "9" but I disagree with your rankings as I would have Ollie ahead of Ings - whilst Ings is a really good finisher, Ollie is more mobile/dynamic and brings more to the table for me.

I think most of us wanted a second option BUT probably would have been more comfortable with, or more expectant of, a younger player that would have been prepared to come and sit behind Ollie as second choice and would have allowed us to keep the same shape that has really been Smith's hallmark.

I see that Edouard moved last night to Palace for £14m.  That was the one that I wanted and was linked with us last summer at £30-40m!

Ings is obviously here now and we will hope that he can be a 20 goals + a season striker.  It will be interesting to see how Smith fits them both in.  Again, this is an issue for me as I am not sure that Smith is capable of tactically flexing to facilitate this but we will see over the coming months.

[hippo]

58 minutes ago, Lord Willard said:

Spending will slowly cease up which is absolutely fine by me.

We are investing heavily into youth and sooner or later they will eventually need game time and prove that they are good enough. I still think that system is still 2-3 years away from working.

I was hoping for 1/2 first team players to keep us improving till then. 

 

Why don't all clubs do this then ? Why do £100m players even exist ? If everybody can achieve the same thing by investing £6m or so in a youth policy .

Sadly only 1 , 2 or maybe even none of the current young hot shots will cut it in the PL .

 

[Delphinho123]

20 minutes ago, barry'sboots said:

I think there are a couple of issues with the Ings signing.  

1. It was done on the same day that Jack's sale was announced and was kind of lost; and, more importantly for me,

2. We have Watkins and it is unclear how the two will play together - not sure 4-4-2 works with our squad; don't want to push Ollie back out wide etc..

He is clearly a top "9" but I disagree with your rankings as I would have Ollie ahead of Ings - whilst Ings is a really good finisher, Ollie is more mobile/dynamic and brings more to the table for me.

I think most of us wanted a second option BUT probably would have been more comfortable with, or more expectant of, a younger player that would have been prepared to come and sit behind Ollie as second choice and would have allowed us to keep the same shape that has really been Smith's hallmark.

I see that Edouard moved last night to Palace for £14m.  That was the one that I wanted and was linked with us last summer at £30-40m!

Ings is obviously here now and we will hope that he can be a 20 goals + a season striker.  It will be interesting to see how Smith fits them both in.  Again, this is an issue for me as I am not sure that Smith is capable of tactically flexing to facilitate this but we will see over the coming months.

I'd have preferred to spend the Ings money on a quality no.10 to be honest.

The argument against of course is that Watkins has been injured at the start of the season and we need a quality replacement. For the remainder of the season however, I have no idea how Smith plans on fitting Ings and Watkins in the same team. The idea that we'll play a 4-4-2 when we've never played it before and we're very weak in central midfield is lost on me - I just can't see how we can play anything other than a 4-3-3 with our current squad and the balance throughout. With that being the case, Smith might have to leave one of Ings or Watkins out, an idea nobody is comfortable with.

We've signed some very good players, but the balance is off. We haven't actually brought a left winger to replace Grealish. Whether we like it or not, both Buendia and Bailey both prefer to play on the right. 

It looks a little slapdash.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Delphinho123

[ChicagoVillan1983]

1 hour ago, Lord Willard said:

Spending will slowly cease up which is absolutely fine by me.

We are investing heavily into youth and sooner or later they will eventually need game time and prove that they are good enough. I still think that system is still 2-3 years away from working.

I was hoping for 1/2 first team players to keep us improving till then. 

 

You should be happy then - we got 3...

[thunderball]

6 hours ago, CVByrne said:

In a little over 12 months 

Martinez, Cash, Watkins, Traore, Sanson, Ings, Buendia, Bailey, Young and Tuanzabe have joined the club. Not to mention Ramsey, JPB and Chukwuemeka have joined the squad from the academy. 

The only two players of note to leave have been Grealish and Heaton. 

We will be able to leap Leicester, West Ham and Everton properly in the next two seasons. We can hope for Arsenal troubles to remain and progress this club into a Top 6 side and win a trophy. 

I personally love the steady progression, the superb transfer business and most of all the investment in the Academy. 

I'd go along with this. I guess I was hoodwinked into thinking we were being fast tracked by super ambitious billionaire owners, bit maybe Jack departing made them rethink the timescale - we could have built around him whereas now we are looking at players stepping up. I think come season's end we will be happier and will see a solidity that hasnt been there since early MON era, and even that team was built on the here-and-now rather than any continuity plan or growth. We are still in very good hands. 

[CarryOnVilla]

2 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

A very good point. I was unimpressed with Luiz last year but he has the chance again now to really show he can develop into a top player. I was impressed with his performance against Brentford, but he needs to play like that more often. He has the horrible job of receiving the ball under pressure with his back to the opposition and popping it off to another Villa player. I think it's the toughest position to play in many respects. Good deep lying playmakers are scarce. I really hope Luiz has a super season and we then compliment him next Summer with a player to play alongside him.

If he has a bad season though, we as a team will struggle. A lot depends on how well he plays. I have no doubt if he doesn't perform then he'll be moved on next year. Potential is great but we can't wait forever for him to realise it. In many respects, after a poor season just gone, he is quite lucky, with the owners we have, that he hasn't been replaced by one or two players that play in that position.

The same can be said for a lot of our midfielders. McGinn and Sanson need to show they can step up without Grealish and dominate games otherwise you can guarantee the next area of the team that is upgraded will be the midfield. 

I think it’s safe to say, that we all feel dougies time here on the whole has been underwhelming. In large, I don’t think it’s completely his fault. Smith’s tactics often leave him exposed on his own in the middle when Villa are facing a counter. Also, it’s near impossible to be a good DLP in the premier league, with the speed and press many teams use.

He also has some personal issues to get over. I believe how he had a buy back clause as part of his transfer, he’s always thought Villa as a stepping stone club for him. So that in mind, he’s reluctant to learn the language (for Smith’s sake) as well as a new role for Villa. Now the clause is gone, I’m hoping he actively tries harder to be a better Villa team player and become a full fat DM and earn his next step move or stays and helps Villa in their next big step to European football.  

Edited September 1, 2021 by CarryOnVilla

[CVByrne]

1 hour ago, Czarnikjak said:

Good post with good points made.

I have tried to advocate that our squad needs to be a "lean but mean" machine with no bloat, to allow us to compete on wage front with higher revenue clubs.

People keep talking about bringing more depth, that's where our young players need to step in. There's an obvious risk to this approach, but it has a big potential reward.

We are in a good position now with our squad, probably the best position we have been in for decades, the so called dead wood is minimal.

If you factor in Europe and the two domestic cups. We can say there are about 50+ games a season we should be aiming to play in on average. We should have the lean but mean squad where we've 23 players say. You can spread on avg the starts with that squad 30 to 35 games and 15 to 20 games for each player "first team" and "back up". That's before we factor in sub appearances. You want to have every player playing at least 10+ games a season. This means the whole squad feel a togetherness and valued 

[thunderball]

1 hour ago, Lord Willard said:

Spending will slowly cease up which is absolutely fine by me.

We are investing heavily into youth and sooner or later they will eventually need game time and prove that they are good enough. I still think that system is still 2-3 years away from working.

I was hoping for 1/2 first team players to keep us improving till then. 

 

When you watch the Academy/U21/U23 they all play the same, they are slicker as a team than our first 11 which gives me hope, they always know where their team mates will be. They only lack experience. Once these young guys get into the team I honestly think we will improve (once they have some senior experience). I genuinely think we are very solidly set up for a 4-5 years, so if we sell some of them or existing seniors and buy some exceptional individuals, we will improve over time. 

It shoudlnt be lost on us that Philogene-Bidace playing for the 1st team this season is like us buying [say £15m] a young but very good winger/forward this window. He is still developing but can do some damage, and having watched him closely last night, he got through some defensive work too, so he has that discipline, its not all showboating. I would honestly say he might oust AEG for a start or 1st choice sub very shortly.

Edited September 1, 2021 by thunderball

[CVByrne]

49 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

Amortisation concept is not unique to football, it's standard accounting practise for all businesses.

As to the question if it should be used for FFP purposes? Who knows, I don't think there's a good and fair way to implement FFP.

UEFA seems to be moving to abandon it now and go for Salary Cap. Depending on the implementation details of this proposal, it could prove to be even more skewed towards the top clubs that the current model.

 

I find the best way to describe this as buying a delivery tuck to run a delivery business. You spend initial capital on the truck but it is an asset. You think the truck will last 10 years and so the amount you paid is spread over the 10 years. So year by year the asset which is a second hand truck drops in value and that's accounted for in your financial accounts. The idea is that the asset depreciates over time. If after 3 years you then sell the asset you've "lost" 3 years of the initial 10 the Truck was to be useful for so 30% of it's value is gone and 70% is left. This is when the sale price of the asset and the book value of the asset meet. Say the truck was 100k initiall, it's now "worth" 70k in book value but you sell it for 80k. You made a 10k profit

In a way this it kind of true for footballers. They have a finite time boxed value but if you're smart you work the system in your favour. Develop your own players so there is no amortisation only wages and sign young players who's value you aim to actually increase not decrease over the life of the contract. 

[Made In Aston]

2 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

Although Premier League FFP is not a big concern to us anymore (for a while at least following JG sale), our growing wage bill will be a stumbling block to any huge spending next summer imo. We are likely to see maybe 1/2 big additions, not 5 like we have seen in previous years.

Its probably one of the main reasons we didn't make any more additions after Ings. We still have 1 year of championship revenue contributing to FFP so are somewhat restricted. Also, apart from Grealish, we haven't had many outgoings, so the wage bill is still high. Ings alone is on similar money to Grealish and loan outgoings are unlikely to be on anywhere near a 100% wage contribution basis.

Thankfully we haven't changed managers and chose to fill gaps in the squad with high potential u23 players. This has kept us just within FFP limits I believe. 

[DaveAV1]

7 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

and have you ever heard John McGinn speak? Can't understand a word of it 

Being married to a Highland lass and now living in The Highlands I’m fortunate to be able to pick up the odd word but the wife translates most of it for me. I’ve been up here for four years, so we need to cut Dougie some slack for a few years yet.