James Tarkowski

[Delphinho123]

27 minutes ago, VillaFaninLondon said:

It's insane. So many people on here seem delighted by this, I'm not sure if some people have lost their marbles.

 

If reports are true, even Everton, who have been run appallingly over the years, are only willing to pay him 90K a week which should tell us everything.

 

I really worry for this club if we're willing to pay James effing Tarkowski 120K a week in wages, he's simply not worth anywhere near that. 

Ok, so should we go and spend £40m on a new centre half and give him £100k a week instead for 4 years (Total £61m)? In fact, why don’t we give it to someone who hasn’t played in the league before and a) may need time to get up to speed and b) may completely flop in the Premier League.

Is that not even more stupid?

What aren’t you getting about the free transfer bit? The wages are high because it’s a free transfer and we don’t need to give a club £30m before we even start talking to the player. 

This really isn’t an expensive deal in the grand scheme of things and I can see him being a first team player for at least 2/3 years for us. Just look how J. Evans is going.. 

[DaveAV1]

6 hours ago, Zatman said:

If its a 5 year contract its madness, the sort of thing i expected from Gerrards management

Signing players we could only dream about 6 months ago is what I expect from his management. But you carry on, I’m sure you can find some negatives in the way he wears his tie or what he has for breakfast.  It’s going to be a long summer for you. 

[weedman]

54 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I dont mind the 120k wagss but anything more than a 3 year contract is madness

Isn't he 29? I'm very underwhelmed by this signing but it's not the 90's, central defenders are still at their peak well into their 30's as long as they look after themselves (I have no idea if he does or not). There's very little chance of resale value whether we give him a 3 or 5 year contract, and I doubt we'll see a really noticeable decline in his ability between 32 and 34

There are reasons to be underwhelmed by this potential signing, but him getting a 5 year deal instead of a 3 year deal isn't one of them in my opinion

[Mark Albrighton]

McGrath was 36 when he made 30 starts in his final season with us.

Appreciate his divinity stats were off the scale, but still, it was possible in the 90’s and as such Tarkowski being here when he’s 33 doesn’t fill me with too much dread.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Mark Albrighton

[peterw]

Wages are a little bit on the eye-watering side but if that's what it takes fine. i think he'd be a great signing and just what we, and probably Mings, needs. A tough experienced campaigner next to him.

[VillaFaninLondon]

17 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

Ok, so should we go and spend £40m on a new centre half and give him £100k a week instead for 4 years (Total £61m)? In fact, why don’t we give it to someone who hasn’t played in the league before and a) may need time to get up to speed and b) may completely flop in the Premier League.

Is that not even more stupid?

What aren’t you getting about the free transfer bit? The wages are high because it’s a free transfer and we don’t need to give a club £30m before we even start talking to the player. 

This really isn’t an expensive deal in the grand scheme of things and I can see him being a first team player for at least 2/3 years for us. Just look how J. Evans is going.. 

Well we have so far spent 17m of our summer transfer budget, there would be significant funds you would think given we were rumoured to be looking to spend 150m+ after sales this summer. 

 

I don't think it's stupid to target a younger CB and pay a bigger fee and the wages, because that player would have resale value. If we were to offer Tarkowski a 5-year contract on those wages we would not be able to shift him if he declines to the extent that he's an expensive benchwarmer. If the club can afford to do it without getting into financial difficulties then fine, it's not my money, but I'd be very sceptical it wouldn't hurt us somewhere down the line.

 

I remember under O'Neill we made similar transfers like these, and we massively suffered the consequences afterwards (e.g. Richard Dunne who was on ridiculous wages and who had one good first season with us then turned into an absolute liability). I don't think these owners are likely to lose interest like Lerner, but you don't know what can happen in future and the extent of our decline 12 years ago still gives me nightmares. 

 

I might be wrong and Tarkowski could turn out to be a masterstroke of a signing, but I was hoping we'd go for a CB that significantly improves us and I don't think he does that. Therefore, I hope Everton or Newcastle throw silly wages at him instead of us. 

[VillaParkAvenue]

36 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

What aren’t you getting about the free transfer bit? The wages are high because it’s a free transfer and we don’t need to give a club £30m before we even start talking to the player. 

This really isn’t an expensive deal in the grand scheme of things and I can see him being a first team player for at least 2/3 years for us. Just look how J. Evans is going.. 

As long as the player isn’t too old, transfer fees go in both directions. Pay 30m, 4m salary, sell after two years and let’s say for argument only get 23m back. Net cost 15m.

Tarkowski 6m salary for four or five years adds up to more.

It’s important not to let salaries go through the roof. A big wage bill for a team that’s not yet performing means players can’t be shifted or even sent on loan sometimes. By paying transfer fees, as long as it’s not for players older than 28-29, you get the option of moving them on if needed.

Edited May 25, 2022 by VillaParkAvenue

[TheMelvillan]

Better to sign a free agent and pay him more than to pay a transfer fee and pay the player less.

Simply because, assuming the total package works out about the same, it is better that the money goes to the player, leading to greater motivation and loyalty than to another club, benefitting them financially and allowing them to strengthen further.

[WallisFrizz]

Wages are nuts but I think the idea of this one is growing on me.

[CVByrne]

5 minutes ago, VillaFaninLondon said:

Well we have so far spent 17m of our summer transfer budget, there would be significant funds you would think given we were rumoured to be looking to spend 150m+ after sales this summer. 

 

I don't think it's stupid to target a younger CB and pay a bigger fee and the wages, because that player would have resale value. If we were to offer Tarkowski a 5-year contract on those wages we would not be able to shift him if he declines to the extent that he's an expensive benchwarmer. If the club can afford to do it without getting into financial difficulties then fine, it's not my money, but I'd be very sceptical it wouldn't hurt us somewhere down the line.

 

I remember under O'Neill we made similar transfers like these, and we massively suffered the consequences afterwards (e.g. Richard Dunne who was on ridiculous wages and who had one good first season with us then turned into an absolute liability). I don't think these owners are likely to lose interest like Lerner, but you don't know what can happen in future and the extent of our decline 12 years ago still gives me nightmares. 

 

I might be wrong and Tarkowski could turn out to be a masterstroke of a signing, but I was hoping we'd go for a CB that significantly improves us and I don't think he does that. Therefore, I hope Everton or Newcastle throw silly wages at him instead of us. 

I wish fans knew how we run the club and how clubs in general are run in the FFP / P&S rules era. Set amount of "funds" to be spent doesn't exist. 

Every players at the club has an annual cost which is their wages + their transfer fee spread over the life of their contract. All the costs need to balance the revenue side. At the hear of decisions that are made is do we believe the annual cost of this player is "good value or worth" the performances we believe he will give on the pitch.

Take Luca Digne - £25m over 4.5 years and £6.2m in wages. So that's ~£11.7m per year cost to Villa. That was believed good deal for us. 

The same decision will be made with Tarkowski, is say £100k per week or £5.2m per year "good value" for the performances he will give? Remember Mings cost £20m and is on 85k per week so his cost is over £8m per season (technically this will be lower though as he signed a new contract which extends the amortisation cost of his fee further).

The focus on salary alone is totally utterly flawed. The vast majority of the playing squad are signed for transfer fee's + salary. 

[CVByrne]

So the simple rule to work out if a player is a good buy is Transfer fee divided by length of contract + annual wages. 

The two most "costly" players at Villa are. Danny Ings = £14.5m per season. Emi Buendia £12m per season

[Rodders]

Longer I think about the more pleased I would be with this signing. 4 or 5 year deal is fine. If after 3 years he's no longer good enough at 32 he's still got several years as a useful CH for another PL side. 

[DaveAV1]

19 minutes ago, VillaParkAvenue said:

As long as the player isn’t too old, transfer fees go in both directions. Pay 30m, 4m salary, sell after two years and let’s say for argument only get 23m back. Net cost 15m.

Tarkowski 6m salary for four or five years adds up to more.

It’s important not to let salaries go through the roof. A big wage bill for a team that’s not yet performing means players can’t be shifted or even sent on loan sometimes. By paying transfer fees, as long as it’s not for players older than 28-29, you get the option of moving them on if needed.

I agree but if he performs well but starts declining in 2 or 3 years, as a good central defender we could possibly still get a fee for him or at least be able to move him on and ditch a couple of years off his contract, to a lower PL club or a championship club with ambitions. As you say a lot of unknowns as in any signing. 

[DaveAV1]

4 minutes ago, Rodders said:

Longer I think about the more pleased I would be with this signing. 4 or 5 year deal is fine. If after 3 years he's no longer good enough at 32 he's still got several years as a useful CH for another PL side. 

Beat me to it!

[useless]

Wages don't seem that cray to me, he's reportedly on £60k a week at Burnley, so I would expect in normal circumstances for him to be getting at least £80k a week upon moving to a better positioned club, you would also probably have to pay around £30m as a transfer fee, so total cost over a four year contract would be around £46m, whereas if you're getting him on a free transfer then £120k a week comes to around £25m over a four year deal.

[The Fun Factory]

Not sure on this one. He is ok but a fairy meat and potatoes defender who is nearly 30. Does this mean we have given up on Gomez?  Konsa or Hause to be sold?

[TheMelvillan]

2 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Not sure on this one. He is ok but a fairy meat and potatoes defender who is nearly 30. Does this mean we have given up on Gomez?  Konsa or Hause to be sold?

Hause to be sold I reckon. Hopefully yes we have given up on gomez

[villa4europe]

As much as I'm not sold on tarkowski I'd take him every day of the week over gomez 

[Wezbid]

Tarkowski also played on the left side of the CB's when played with Ben Mee, so he's comfortable playing there should Mings be out of action at all. 

[Jareth]

Buy him and the defence are sorted - Chambers, Konza, Mings, Tarkowski is a combination from which we can draw on for the rest of the season with confidence.