Summer Transfer Window 2022

[CVByrne]

8 hours ago, paul514 said:

Neither, as much as I didn't want to sign Danny Ings as I feel he is the wrong type of player for our side he is a good striker and I fail to see how we are going to get someone to sign for us of equal or greater quality.

I truly believe Ings was sold that Watkins will play as a wide forward for him to sign for us.

Nah, I'm sure the plan for Ings and Axel was the switch to 3 5 2. The "tactcal flexibility" that Deano wanted from us to make us more unpredictable. Ings plays the second striker role so on paper fit well with a lead the line player who runs the channels in Watkins. 

[CVByrne]

I feel Ings is here to stay for 2 reasons. The first is that he's a reliable pro and our team level doesn't drop with him playing in CF. He's a great finisher and he won't ever kick up a fuss if he has to bide his time and compete for minutes on the pitch. The second is that he's not a saleable asset (unless possibly Newcastle want some instant success). This is because we need a bid of 17m+ and a team to match his 120k a week salary for us to break even on him. If the solution is to then get a CF who takes Watkins place in the team that will probably unsettle Watkins, who wants to be playing football at his prime age and that then becomes an issue.

If the plan is a new CF better than Watkins/Ings. Then it makes more sense to keep Ings and sell Watkins. With Archer the understudy. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by CVByrne
change typo does to doesn't

[Delphinho123]

18 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I feel Ings is here to stay for 2 reasons. The first is that he's a reliable pro and our team level does drop with him playing in CF. He's a great finisher and he won't ever kick up a fuss if he has to bide his time and compete for minutes on the pitch. The second is that he's not a saleable asset (unless possibly Newcastle want some instant success). This is because we need a bid of 17m+ and a team to match his 120k a week salary for us to break even on him. If the solution is to then get a CF who takes Watkins place in the team that will probably unsettle Watkins, who wants to be playing football at his prime age and that then becomes an issue.

If the plan is a new CF better than Watkins/Ings. Then it makes more sense to keep Ings and sell Watkins. With Archer the understudy. 

I kind of agree, but 120k is a lot of money for someone who isn’t starting matches for us..

[MWARLEY2]

the only striker i would be interested in from Arsenal is Martinelli . straight swap for Watkins 

[MentalM]

48 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I feel Ings is here to stay for 2 reasons. The first is that he's a reliable pro and our team level does drop with him playing in CF. He's a great finisher and he won't ever kick up a fuss if he has to bide his time and compete for minutes on the pitch. The second is that he's not a saleable asset (unless possibly Newcastle want some instant success). This is because we need a bid of 17m+ and a team to match his 120k a week salary for us to break even on him. If the solution is to then get a CF who takes Watkins place in the team that will probably unsettle Watkins, who wants to be playing football at his prime age and that then becomes an issue.

If the plan is a new CF better than Watkins/Ings. Then it makes more sense to keep Ings and sell Watkins. With Archer the understudy. 

Whatever is paid for a player is a sunk cost, shouldnt be taken into consideration if a player is to be sold or not.

I agree that Ings can have a future here, I dont think he has been that bad, just not compatible with Watkins atm

[CVByrne]

13 minutes ago, MentalM said:

Whatever is paid for a player is a sunk cost, shouldnt be taken into consideration if a player is to be sold or not.

I agree that Ings can have a future here, I dont think he has been that bad, just not compatible with Watkins atm

Unfortunately it does. The "sunk cost" is actually only sunk year over year. The buying Ings for 25m on a 3 year deals and selling him the next year for 10m does not appear as -25m and +10m on balance sheet or in FFP calcs. 

We as a club need to view the book value of a player, player wages and potential future value of a player as key factors. 

[tomsky_11]

14 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Unfortunately it does. The "sunk cost" is actually only sunk year over year. The buying Ings for 25m on a 3 year deals and selling him the next year for 10m does not appear as -25m and +10m on balance sheet or in FFP calcs. 

We as a club need to view the book value of a player, player wages and potential future value of a player as key factors. 

The £25m is gone either way. Book value is only a consideration for timing on FFP and it could actually be worse to sell earlier from an FFP perspective depending the sales value. Wages are more of a consideration as that is a future cost that can actually still be saved, while obviously that actual value we can get from him, either now or in the future would be a bigger consideration still.

[MentalM]

50 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Unfortunately it does. The "sunk cost" is actually only sunk year over year. The buying Ings for 25m on a 3 year deals and selling him the next year for 10m does not appear as -25m and +10m on balance sheet or in FFP calcs. 

We as a club need to view the book value of a player, player wages and potential future value of a player as key factors. 

That is correct, but the -25 (split up) will still be there no matter what. Hence it should not be taken into consideration in regards to selling.

Other FFP measures as getting the profit a year later etc should be taken into consideration, but thats not related to whats already paid. 

[CVByrne]

13 hours ago, Spoony said:

Christ almighty no. He’s utterly crap. 
 

edit: although his goal record given the stop start nature of his time at Arsenal is surprisingly not bad. 

His per 90 stats in goals and assists are excellent. He's an improvement in terms of goal contributions over Ings or Watkins for sure. On a free it's a good deal for the club. Issue is his wages are reported to be 180k per week. He'd need to take a drop on that 

Edited February 8, 2022 by CVByrne

[Peter Griffin]

2 hours ago, MentalM said:

Whatever is paid for a player is a sunk cost, shouldnt be taken into consideration if a player is to be sold or not.

I agree that Ings can have a future here, I dont think he has been that bad, just not compatible with Watkins atm

I disagree with that. The strategy at Villa is stated to buy players that we can improve and add value to. If the club regards player acquisition costs as sunk then the club cannot become sustainable, we need to be able to trade players to be profitable

[Mister_a]

10 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

There's more chance of Villa signing me than Lacazette.

Welcome Tomaszk!

[Dante_Lockhart]

2 minutes ago, Mister_a said:

Welcome Tomaszk!

Don't believe it until ITSOBH

[MentalM]

13 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

I disagree with that. The strategy at Villa is stated to buy players that we can improve and add value to. If the club regards player acquisition costs as sunk then the club cannot become sustainable, we need to be able to trade players to be profitable

Its nothing to disagree with, its economy.

I 100% agree thats our strategy, and I believe thats what we aim at. Making a profit in transfers.

However, when selling a player you evaluate current and potential value and what you would gain from it. The money we paid for them are gone, it doesnt add into the equation.

Edited February 8, 2022 by MentalM

[Peter Griffin]

Just now, MentalM said:

Its nothing to disagree with, its economy.

I 100% agree thats our strategy, and I believe thats what we aim at. Making a profit in transfers.

However, when selling a player you evaluate potential value and what you would gain from it. The money we paid for them are gone, it doesnt add into the equation.

The economics is that a sunk cost is a cost that is not recoverable. Selling a player can recover the cost of acquisition, therefore it is not a sunk cost. Regarding selling a player, yes I agree there are many factors to consider but the purchase price of the player is not gone. There is a difference between cashflow and profit & loss. Cashflow is not a concern for a well funded business like AVFC. Profit and loss is what is important and not just from an FFP perspective but also from a business perspective. Selling a player before he is fully amortised means that the money is not already gone, it is in future accounts. 

[paul514]

13 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

The economics is that a sunk cost is a cost that is not recoverable. Selling a player can recover the cost of acquisition, therefore it is not a sunk cost. Regarding selling a player, yes I agree there are many factors to consider but the purchase price of the player is not gone. There is a difference between cashflow and profit & loss. Cashflow is not a concern for a well funded business like AVFC. Profit and loss is what is important and not just from an FFP perspective but also from a business perspective. Selling a player before he is fully amortised means that the money is not already gone, it is in future accounts. 

I feel we can't demand our owners to keep funding us with huge amounts long term.

We must cover our non transfer fee costs from income as an absolute minimum, with 3 more signings I am happy enough to shut up shop for a couple of years and fund any addition with player sales.

[Peter Griffin]

Just now, paul514 said:

I feel we can't demand our owners to keep funding us with huge amounts long term.

We must cover our non transfer fee costs from income as an absolute minimum, with 3 more signings I am happy enough to shut up shop for a couple of years and fund any addition with player sales.

I agree with that 100%, we must make ourselves sustainable

[OutByEaster?]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

I feel Ings is here to stay for 2 reasons. The first is that he's a reliable pro and our team level doesn't drop with him playing in CF. He's a great finisher and he won't ever kick up a fuss if he has to bide his time and compete for minutes on the pitch. The second is that he's not a saleable asset (unless possibly Newcastle want some instant success). This is because we need a bid of 17m+ and a team to match his 120k a week salary for us to break even on him. If the solution is to then get a CF who takes Watkins place in the team that will probably unsettle Watkins, who wants to be playing football at his prime age and that then becomes an issue.

If the plan is a new CF better than Watkins/Ings. Then it makes more sense to keep Ings and sell Watkins. With Archer the understudy. 

I think there's an awful lot right in that, with the only caveat being the ages of the two players.

From a footballing perspective, on the proviso that we're not looking to buy a better striker than both of them in the summer, having Ings as back up to Watkins gives us quality in a key area and a slight change of style available when we need it - he's an asset. Having those two on our books means we don't have to worry too much about the odd niggle or knock. I'm be concerned about having to move to Archer in the case of a longer term injury to either of them, but I think it's a risk we can take. 

I think if we are looking to bring in an uber-striker in the summer (I like the phrase uber-striker) then either option has its advantages - we can generate a lot more money selling Watkins and keep Ings who still has the quality we need as back up or we can recoup some money from Ings and keep Watkins to give us a great second option. Where age comes into play in this scenario is that we'd probably then still be looking to replace Ings the following summer when he hits 31 and we have our last chance to move him - Ollie in theory could be our second striker for five or six years.

The ideal I guess (and we'd need to progress at a rapid rate to sell this to either player) is that we buy the uber-striker in the summer, qualify for Europe and keep all three strikers on to deal with the increased workrate and number of games - a Danny Ings in his thirties playing as a third striker in a team that plays 60 games a year would be an excellent proposition. 

If we can continue to afford his £120k a week wages, I don't see any reason why we need to rush to move Ings on - he's a good player that has a valuable role in the squad.

[MWARLEY2]

44 minutes ago, paul514 said:

I feel we can't demand our owners to keep funding us with huge amounts long term.

We must cover our non transfer fee costs from income as an absolute minimum, with 3 more signings I am happy enough to shut up shop for a couple of years and fund any addition with player sales.

I dont think we have ever really demanded more from them at any point. In fact they continually go the extra mile across the whole football club. In terms of buildings and people the infrastructure is incredible. 

And here is the salient point. Our owners want to have fun. They want to see the best players at their club. At some point they will want to see some money come back into the club, but i think not until they have done everything in their power to bring success , or even relative success.  They enjoy winning as much as we do. We have been truly blessed 

 

[Lord Willard]

I can't see us getting another striker. To improve uptop would mean spending 50m and even the high figure doesn't guarantee 20 goals.

I think the priority will be DM, RCB or RB with Countinho completed. Just 3 players. We need to qualify for Europe next season. To maintain progression, then maybe we'll look for another striker. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

We can demand what we want from our owners.. Doesn’t mean we’ll get it.