The Villa Transfer Policy

[Hank Scorpio]

Spurred on by the potential sale of Ings for yet another big loss, Grealish aside as we didn't pay for him, when was the last player we actually sold for a profit in terms of fees paid to buy, then compared to the fee received to sell? 

I reckon this would make for horrible reading in the main. Shocking transfer business over a long long period of time. The last I can recall are maybe Benteke or Downing?

Edited January 19, 2023 by Pissflaps

[messi11]

We're trying to put mistakes made in the past right. Ings was one of them. Taking him off the wage bill giving his age is clever business. 
Early days but Moreno and Duran seems like we now moving in the right direction
I think you should move on and be positive and think towards the future rather than past mistakes.
Things are changing rapidly. 

Oh and to your answer your question- Carney Cashwuemeka for £20Million last transfer window 

[Sidmon]

40 minutes ago, Pissflaps said:

Spurred on by the potential sale of Ings for yet another big loss, Grealish aside as we didn't pay for him, when was the last player we actually sold for a profit in terms of fees paid to buy, then compared to the fee received to sell? 

I reckon this would make for horrible reading in the main. Shocking transfer business over a long long period of time. The last I can recall are maybe Benteke or Downing?

Totally agree and we seem to always be pushovers in the transfer market, even when it's desperate relegation candidates buying our players who are desperate to bolster their ranks in order to stay up.

Ignoring players brought through our ranks like Jack or players purchased as youth from other teams academies the last "profit" we've from a signing I think was Ashley Westwood reputed to have cost us £2m but sold (although not clear) for possibly £5m.

[Aston_Villan4]

Transfermarkt is your friend, OP.

[Zatman]

Didnt we make a profit on Targett?

[KMitch]

5 hours ago, Pissflaps said:

Spurred on by the potential sale of Ings for yet another big loss, Grealish aside as we didn't pay for him, when was the last player we actually sold for a profit in terms of fees paid to buy, then compared to the fee received to sell? 

I reckon this would make for horrible reading in the main. Shocking transfer business over a long long period of time. The last I can recall are maybe Benteke or Downing?

I think the main problem is that there hasn't been a steady philosophy of growth year over year and building on something at the club.  The Lerner years were about getting in the Champions League by any means necessary under Martin O'Neill and we overpaid on players who weren't good enough for a team at the top of the table (Reo Coker, Habib Beye, Nickey Shorey, Stephen Warnock, Zat Knight, Richard Dunne, James Collins, etc.).  Eventually Lerner's pocketbook ran out, Martin O'Neill threw a temper tantrum, left the club, and Gerard Houllier was brought in to "modernize" the club, bring through talented youth players, sell the cloggers, and look for value abroad instead of settling for shopping exclusively in England.  Unfortunately, Houllier's heart attack seemed to signal Lerner's complete withdrawal from even bothering with Aston Villa and the Eck/Lambert years seemed to just be about treading water while reducing costs in an era where the mega money entered English football.  Sherwood's one summer window showed a complete lack of cohesion between the manager and scouting/football director with a clear mixture of Sherwood's players and moneyball French players who weren't integrated into the team properly.  Xia's era was marked by huge money signings in terms of managerial appointments in Di Matteo and Bruce, along with absolutely ridiculous deals for McCormack, Kodja, Hogan, etc. with the goal of immediately bouncing back into the Premier League.  Unfortunately Dr. Tony was proven to be a fraud and the financial house of cards came crashing down after our disappointing playoff final loss at Wembley.  

The only point in time where we seemed to have a clear philosophy of smart signings and steady growth was during Smith's time at the club.  Both Purslow and Smith talked about finding players who we could increase their value by good coaching and by making steady progress up the table and overall, the players we signed fit this mold.  That seemed to be thrown completely out the window when Gerrard came on board and we focused on the here and now to get in to Europe asap.  I don't know what Emery's timeline looks like or if he's truly here for the long haul, but his first two signings and our form under him so far suggest that we're closer to Europe than we though under Gerrard, but we also need to think about the future as well.  15 million pounds on a 19 year old MLS striker is a ridiculous amount of money, but he could turn out to be amazing in a few seasons with Emery's guidance.  

The main difference between Villa and clubs like Brentford, Bournemouth, Brighton, and previously Southampton, is that those clubs are run like a business with a cohesive culture and philosophy which lasts beyond the manager in the dugout at any point in time.  We've never had that and I think are still trying to define what Aston Villa is.  

Edited January 19, 2023 by KMitch

[Mark Albrighton]

6 hours ago, Pissflaps said:

Spurred on by the potential sale of Ings for yet another big loss, Grealish aside as we didn't pay for him, when was the last player we actually sold for a profit in terms of fees paid to buy, then compared to the fee received to sell? 

I reckon this would make for horrible reading in the main. Shocking transfer business over a long long period of time. The last I can recall are maybe Benteke or Downing?

Depends what you mean by profit.

If you mean simply more money received than what we paid, we sold both Ashley Westwood and Rudy Gestede for more than we paid for them. 

But I have the suspicion that people won’t be happy with those examples.

Edit - actually Gestede it might have been recouping the money paid for. It’s a bit uncertain by the looks of the reports at the time.

Westwood, definitely a profit.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Mark Albrighton

[CVByrne]

6 hours ago, Pissflaps said:

Spurred on by the potential sale of Ings for yet another big loss, Grealish aside as we didn't pay for him, when was the last player we actually sold for a profit in terms of fees paid to buy, then compared to the fee received to sell? 

I reckon this would make for horrible reading in the main. Shocking transfer business over a long long period of time. The last I can recall are maybe Benteke or Downing?

Why does it have to be us selling our best players. We rejected 3 bids for Luiz for example. We signed Cash up to new deal when Atletico were sniffing around. Emi on a big contract too. We were forced into the Grealish sale at 100m. 

We've a significant amount of young players worth a lot more than what we paid for them to join our academy. We also have a lot of first team players who are worth more than we paid. Martinez, Cash, Konsa, Kamara, McGinn, Luiz, Mings, Davis, Hause

[Adman]

Premier league is at the top of the transfer pyramid, with a large net spend year on year so of course most teams lose money this way

[Zatman]

I think loss is only on the transfer sheet as players like Hourihane, Trez, El Ghazi etc. contributed to promotion/survival that we probably earned way more than we paid for them

Edited January 19, 2023 by Zatman

[Tayls]

We sold Young to United for a profit.. of about £3mill

[allani]

In the last 3 years we have improved pretty much every single position in the starting XI and on the bench with the obvious exception of losing Jack for a British transfer record.  Not every transfer has been brilliant but I think the majority have been far from terrible.  We've snapped up more than our fair share of bargains during that period - Emi, Kamara and McGinn being obvious ones, but there are probably 6 or 7 other players whose paper value is higher than their cost.  I do think that we made a couple of odd signings in the summer (mainly to deepen the squad) but generally I think our transfer business has been reasonable.  Let's not forget that FFP and previous transfer policies before our current owners arrived have meant that we had to make some huge gambles - we may not have made a paper profit on some of those - but the squad got us promoted, kept us up and now has us in a pretty comfortable mid-table position closer to 6th than 18th.  That is worth a lot of money in terms of Aston Villa the business.  Compare where we were 5 seasons ago to where we are now and it is like night and day.

[allani]

The aim of a transfer surely is to try and improve the results / finishing position of the club or to reduce the risk of those being impacted if a certain player gets injured.  As long as the club moves forward - trying to assess each transfer on a single metric of the differences between the buying transfer fee and the selling transfer fee is overly simplistic.  There are many, many more factors at play.  That doesn't mean that I have agreed with all of our transfer business in the last 4 or 5 seasons but I think we are far, far away from being a basket case like Everton.  I think if you actually look at things objectively there are more teams that have done worse business than us in the PL over the last 3 seasons than better business.

[VillaJ100]

You could say El Ghazi made us about £200 million with his play off performance 

[Hank Scorpio]

1 hour ago, Adman said:

Premier league is at the top of the transfer pyramid, with a large net spend year on year so of course most teams lose money this way

That's not true look at Chelsea for example look how much they make selling players that dontt play for them for profit

[Sulberto21]

3 minutes ago, Pissflaps said:

That's not true look at Chelsea for example look how much they make selling players that dontt play for them for profit

Unfortunately we’re not Chelsea they can command the price they do because of their status. We’re still recovering from years of mismanagement and the spell in the championship. 

We need to start regularly finishing top 10 and winning the odd cup for us to get more money for players that haven’t played for us. Like the top 3/4 are seemingly able to do.

[villarule123]

Every club has good and bad signings. Ings, whilst not a huge success, has scored goals and if we can get £15m for him it won't seem like a bad deal. El Ghazi at £7m scored a goal which got us promotion. Trez, one of the worst players I've seen at the Villa, single handedly kept us up in our first season back. 

Getting Kamara on a free also wipes out all the other 'bad' signings we've made anyway as like I'm sure most of us can see, he's already a £60m+ player and he's just got started. 

[allani]

12 minutes ago, Pissflaps said:

That's not true look at Chelsea for example look how much they make selling players that dontt play for them for profit

Chelsea have also spent a staggering amount of money on high profile players that they have sold for a massive loss or players they have sold for a fraction of their subsequent value.

[Sulberto21]

2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

So a thread has been opened because we made a loss on a player who’s 30 and who didn’t pull up trees whilst here.

Ridiculous.

We made a FFP profit. Some of the more knowledgeable guys have explained it to death in the ffp thread , the transfer thread in fact nearly every thread. 

[messi11]

I'm loving the Transfer policy since Emery come. Villa are Back!