Tammy Abraham

[CroydonDebruyne]

14 hours ago, Dave-R said:

Do you not feel that Arsenal chiefs are not doing enough to keep Arsenal a competing team? When I visited Arsenal Mania forum I got that impression from alot of fans in that is what they are feeling

I'm in the minority but I'm generally Ok with the Kroenke's management. They've spent a reasonable amount of money recently (and will spend big this summer it looks like), the problem is more who we've spent on.

The real issue is the people they put in charge. There are big question marks over Edu so the next season or two will be crucial. 

If we got rid of the Kroenkes I would be worried about who comes in. I don't want some oligarch pumping money into the club like Chelsea or City. 

 

 

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, CroydonDebruyne said:

I'm in the minority but I'm generally Ok with the Kroenke's management. They've spent a reasonable amount of money recently (and will spend big this summer it looks like), the problem is more who we've spent on.

The real issue is the people they put in charge. There are big question marks over Edu so the next season or two will be crucial. 

If we got rid of the Kroenkes I would be worried about who comes in. I don't want some oligarch pumping money into the club like Chelsea or City. 

 

 

We’ve spent relatively big in the past but without structure, a proper plan or a great deal of football intelligence. I think you’re probably right to be worried. I doubt things will ever get so bad for you as they did for us, but the pattern of poor decision making certainly has some similarities. 

[nick76]

Anyway….back on topic.  If Chelsea have this loan to buy, we should be all over that.

[Dave-R]

2 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Anyway….back on topic.  If Chelsea have this loan to buy, we should be all over that.

Yes agreed, Tammy should easy be a priority if a loan to buy is an option for clubs who want him from Chelsea.

I see it as even more of a reason if the rumours on the net are true about Davis going out to loan to Stoke.

Let's get TamTam as second striker so we don't have any trouble scoring goals fromthat position.

[nick76]

6 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

Yes agreed, Tammy should easy be a priority if a loan to buy is an option for clubs who want him from Chelsea.

I see it as even more of a reason if the rumours on the net are true about Davis going out to loan to Stoke.

Let's get TamTam as second striker so we don't have any trouble scoring goals fromthat position.

Yep we got a little insight in the second half of Walsall of the difference without Ollie.  Some of chances Tammy would’ve snapped up.

[Awol]

It’s a funny one. At the end of last season I really wanted Tammy here and Watkins moving out to LF. I now agree with the many posters who said that was a cretinous idea and he’s completely the wrong signing.

Good luck to him at Arsenal but there’s no role for him at Villa as long as Ollie is at the club. 

[nick76]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

Watkins moving out to LF.

Who has said he should be?

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

I now agree with the many posters who said that was a cretinous idea and he’s completely the wrong signing.

You know that wasn’t reason a lot of us wanted to sign him.

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

Good luck to him at Arsenal but there’s no role for him at Villa as long as Ollie is at the club. 

You realise we need more than 11 players?  It’s not instead of Ollie, it’s as well as Ollie.

[Dave-R]

1 minute ago, nick76 said:

Yep we got a little insight in the second half of Walsall of the difference without Ollie.  Some of chances Tammy would’ve snapped up.

It's frightening it is when Wesley and Davis played to how not right they are for us any longer. 

My son is a Wesley fan, loves him to bits and in alot of ways I do to but he was one of pitarchs signings wasn't he and an over costly one at that to. Now given my lad likes Wesley I gave him an option of Wesley and Davis or Tammy as a second at villa next season. My lad turned around and said all day Tammy because he can be trusted to keep things moving in the right direction, contribute and the goals will carry on going into the net, he's not wrong.

Let's say for an example Tammy was bought for 50 million Nick, yes unlikely but let's just vision it for a moment. Do you think anyone of our fans is going to question that price if he takes over from Watkins (for whatever reason) and score some goals aiding the squad gaining entry to Europe? Not one chance in hell, he would be an Hero.

[Awol]

10 minutes ago, nick76 said:

You realise we need more than 11 players?  It’s not instead of Ollie, it’s as well as Ollie.

Yes, but spending a club record amount on a player who won’t be first choice isn’t a sensible thing, imo. Alvarez makes far more sense financially and from a development point of view, and I also think Wes deserves a chance. 

I rate Tammy, but not as highly as Ollie. We’re not playing 4-4-2 and Tammy won’t want to sit in the bench, so in a world of finite funds I’d rather the money was spent elsewhere. 

[thabucks]

5 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

Let's say for an example Tammy was bought for 50 million Nick, yes unlikely but let's just vision it for a moment. Do you think anyone of our fans is going to question that price if he takes over from Watkins (for whatever reason) and score some goals aiding the squad gaining entry to Europe? Not one chance in hell, he would be an Hero.

I’m in the definite no to Tammy camp but I first and foremost I support the club - players are transient. Would happily admit I was wrong about Tammy if that were indeed the case and he came in and smashed my expectations. I don’t see that he is capable of improving us at the sums involved right now. But very happy to be proved wrong! 

[Dave-R]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

It’s a funny one. At the end of last season I really wanted Tammy here and Watkins moving out to LF. I now agree with the many posters who said that was a cretinous idea and he’s completely the wrong signing.

Good luck to him at Arsenal but there’s no role for him at Villa as long as Ollie is at the club. 

That's not true at all, about there is no role for him at villa while Watkins is at Villa. Well okay on that idea we should just go ahead and have no backups whatsoever. You and others with this idea Watkins can run all season and there won't be any complications is a complete daft thing to say. For one you had to off seen how much Watkins were running on empty as we hit the half way mark, unless I was drunk or I'd had a good concoction of something lol. A club at that level cant expect a star forward, your main forward to run all season long it's not fair on the player and the only reason we did it was because of how unreliable our backups were and are and what little options we had to give Watkins rest. Remember the more your body gets tired the longer you run the risk to major injury.

Our existing Backups are useless for a start, couldn't do anything against Walsall and I'm sure we're going to see more of it against Stoke, especially if Stoke play better than Walsall did.

This whole thinking that we do not need anyone besides Watkins is the crazy type of thinking that bought everyone to be shocked the moment Grealish was injured last season. Everyone all of a sudden realised way to late that once Grealish was put out of the game for half a season that we'd struggle and we had no one who could pick up the slack, hence why our season derailed to a midtable finish and Buendia is signed this window. So this window things are as blatent as what happened with Grealish. We have a chance to sort it out before the window closes. I just can't figure it out why some of you can't see the problem that lies in front of your eyes. that if Watkins is out for whatever reason (and there are many a reason that could make Watkins unavailable) and the goals stop flowing in the net then we won't win games and we certainly don't end up with a decent position or more (Europe). Tammy makes sense to go bring in and it makes even more sense if it's a loan to buy option. There is alot more chance of Tammy continuing on Watkins work than there is Wesley and Davis. The Chiefs at Villa should be pulling that move off to make sure the correct players are there or risk seasons and you can't get that time back if don't plan for it.. Were now in a phaze of strengthening the squad and we have to strengthen our back ups options to Watkins.

It would be the strangest and most crazy thing if we do not buy better options than Wesley and Davis. Sure it may not even be Tammy who comes in the end but at least it would be someone. However for price Tammy is probably going to be the best risk to take to ensure that the job continues on in that department.

[nick76]

13 minutes ago, Awol said:

Yes, but spending a club record amount on a player who won’t be first choice isn’t a sensible thing, imo. Alvarez makes far more sense financially and from a development point of view, and I also think Wes deserves a chance. 

I rate Tammy, but not as highly as Ollie. We’re not playing 4-4-2 and Tammy won’t want to sit in the bench, so in a world of finite funds I’d rather the money was spent elsewhere. 

1) You don’t know he’d be a club record, there are various figures going around

2) First choice? Again you are just thinking of 11 players and not thinking of the squad game of circumstances at beginning of the game or during a game.

3) Alvarez? Based on what that he’s just cheaper.  Seems a talent but incredibly high risk, he may not adapt, settle or anything.  If you are talking financially then a massive risk compared to a very low risk is not financially sound.  One is a massive gamble, the other more money is fairly certain, it’s like a ten quid on a 10/1 or twenty quid on 2/2.

4) I never said 442.  Tammy will be fighting for a shirt at any club he goes to

5) I respect (but disagree with) your view of not buying him but I think your reasons are flawed.

[Awol]

1 minute ago, Dave-R said:

That's not true at all, about there is no role for him at villa while Watkins is at Villa. Well okay on that idea we should just go ahead and have no backups whatsoever. You and others with this idea Watkins can run all season and there won't be any complications is a complete daft thing to say. For one you had to off seen how much Watkins were running on empty as we hit the half way mark, unless I was drunk or I'd had a good concoction of something lol. A club at that level cant expect a star forward, your main forward to run all season long it's not fair on the player and the only reason we did it was because of how unreliable our backups were and are and what little options we had to give Watkins rest. Remember the more your body gets tired the longer you run the risk to major injury.

Our existing Backups are useless for a start, couldn't do anything against Walsall and I'm sure we're going to see more of it against Stoke, especially if Stoke play better than Walsall did.

This whole thinking that we do not need anyone besides Watkins is the crazy type of thinking that bought everyone to be shocked the moment Grealish was injured last season. Everyone all of a sudden realised way to late that once Grealish was put out of the game for half a season that we'd struggle and we had no one who could pick up the slack, hence why our season derailed to a midtable finish and Buendia is signed this window. So this window things are as blatent as what happened with Grealish. We have a chance to sort it out before the window closes. I just can't figure it out why some of you can't see the problem that lies in front of your eyes. that if Watkins is out for whatever reason (and there are many a reason that could make Watkins unavailable) and the goals stop flowing in the net then we won't win games and we certainly don't end up with a decent position or more (Europe). Tammy makes sense to go bring in and it makes even more sense if it's a loan to buy option. There is alot more chance of Tammy continuing on Watkins work than there is Wesley and Davis. The Chiefs at Villa should be pulling that move off to make sure the correct players are there or risk seasons and you can't get that time back if don't plan for it.. Were now in a phaze of strengthening the squad and we have to strengthen our back ups options to Watkins.

It would be the strangest and most crazy thing if we do not buy better options than Wesley and Davis. Sure it may not even be Tammy who comes in the end but at least it would be someone. However for price Tammy is probably going to be the best risk to take to ensure that the job continues on in that department.

I disagree. 

[Phil Silvers]

And they're off.......

Edited July 24, 2021 by Phil Silvers

[nick76]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

I disagree. 

Why?

[sne]

6 minutes ago, Phil Silvers said:

And they're off.......

[Awol]

1 minute ago, nick76 said:

1) You don’t know he’d be a club record, there are various figures going around

2) First choice? Again you are just thinking of 11 players and not thinking of the squad game of circumstances at beginning of the game or during a game.

3) Alvarez? Based on what that he’s just cheaper.  Seems a talent but incredibly high risk, he may not adapt, settle or anything.  If you are talking financially then a massive risk compared to a very low risk is not financially sound.  One is a massive gamble, the other more money is fairly certain, it’s like a ten quid on a 10/1 or twenty quid on 2/2.

4) I never said 442.  Tammy will be fighting for a shirt at any club he goes to

5) I respect (but disagree with) your view of not buying him but I think your reasons are flawed.

I’m not thinking of just XI players. Wes should be given a chance, imo. No he didn’t look like prime Drogba against Walsall, but let’s remember what he’s coming back from - and he still got an assist. 

Alvarez is a risk in the way any player from overseas is, but he’s also younger, a massive talent with a very high ceiling and if we could get him I’d like to. 

I don’t think Tammy would come without some assurances of game time and see answer above about giving Wes a chance.

We have limited funds, I’d rather see them spent on another wide forward and a first choice DM, but reasonable people can make a different case. 

[nick76]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

I’m not thinking of just XI players. Wes should be given a chance, imo. No he didn’t look like prime Drogba against Walsall, but let’s remember what he’s coming back from - and he still got an assist. 

Alvarez is a risk in the way any player from overseas is, but he’s also younger, a massive talent with a very high ceiling and if we could get him I’d like to. 

I don’t think Tammy would come without some assurances of game time and see answer above about giving Wes a chance.

We have limited funds, I’d rather see them spent on another wide forward and a first choice DM, but reasonable people can make a different case. 

Ok thanks, I don’t agree with most of what you have said but fair enough.

[Dave-R]

22 minutes ago, Awol said:

Yes, but spending a club record amount on a player who won’t be first choice isn’t a sensible thing, imo. Alvarez makes far more sense financially and from a development point of view, and I also think Wes deserves a chance. 

I rate Tammy, but not as highly as Ollie. We’re not playing 4-4-2 and Tammy won’t want to sit in the bench, so in a world of finite funds I’d rather the money was spent elsewhere. 

Nobody knows what Tammy will go for and people need to stop saying Tammy would be a club record amount, we just don't know what Chelsea are willing to sell Tammy at. I personally think it would be between 20 and 35 million but again I don't know myself.

I do love how people click on a Tammy article, see all this info and choose to believe certain bits of info but drowned out the rest and call it rubbish. It's like people believe there's not a chance in hell he's going to come to Villa (that's fine) but then there's abit saying he will cost 40 million or he'd break Villa record and that person say oh that bit must be true. Then comes the next part lol where someone says to themselves I'll just go over to VT and quote that over and over to the guys who want Tammy at the club because I don't want him. The arguement around here is this magical 40 million that somehow Chelsea are going to make a club pay for Tammy, alot of got it intothere head that because the media state this number that that's what a clubs going to be paying not lower nor higher which the figure could be.

[Dave-R]

37 minutes ago, thabucks said:

I’m in the definite no to Tammy camp but I first and foremost I support the club - players are transient. Would happily admit I was wrong about Tammy if that were indeed the case and he came in and smashed my expectations. I don’t see that he is capable of improving us at the sums involved right now. But very happy to be proved wrong! 

Well at least you admit it and thankyou for giving your opinion of how you would be to that situation if Tammy came in and raised the bar above what people think he can.

I have no doubts in my mind Bucks that we need to improve our backups, I do believe Tammy is an answer, yes there are more out there than besides Tammy but I would like him to be given the task because id feel comfortable with him and Watkins charging at the opposition.