January Transfer Window 2024

[Kiwivillan]

5 hours ago, DakotaVilla said:

Are we the only fan base that constantly talks about trying to sell some of our best players? It’s maddening. 

There's no way we're selling key squad members in January and this thread is the January transfer thread. It's stupid

Edited November 29, 2023 by Kiwivillan

[sne]

Dear lord what is going on here  

[thabucks]

See our name mentioned as monitoring Lens midfielder Salis Abdul Samed -23 Y/O Ghanaian DM … 

Edited November 29, 2023 by thabucks

[allani]

3 hours ago, El-Reacho said:

Selling Ramsey would send a pretty strong message to our academy that it is essentially a separate money making enterprise for the club rather than training young players to play for Aston Villa. As important as it is that the club raise money, young players have to see some pathway to playing for the first team. Can't be great for the culture of the academy knowing you're only there to be trained up to be flogged for FFP reasons.

Ramsey playing for the first team as well as the international team shows academy players that it can be done but also the standards required to make it at Villa these days.

I kind of agree and don't agree with your conclusion here. 

I think the priority for most young players would be to be given the opportunity to improve and develop so that they can become professional footballers ideally at a good level.  The number of players who could realistically aim to go on and play for the Villa first team will always be relatively low (assuming that we are operating at the top end of the PL).  The big clubs don't tend to have many players who have come through their academies from a young age - indeed for many their elite level academy players are likely to have been bought for big money at youth level and the academy has really been a "finishing school" to refine an exceptional youth prospect into a first team squad player.  The draw for players is (a) to train and play at an elite club and (b) how good that club is at developing them to a point where they can realise their dream of being a professional footballer.  Sure most young kids will dream of playing for a top club side and representing their country - but at the end of the day if signing for Villa's academy improves your chances of playing Championship, League One of even League Two level professional football then that's what will encourage young players to sign.  Obviously for kids who are Villa fans then their dreams of playing for Villa will be greater.

Selling Ramsey would be a poor decision (in my opinion) for many reasons - mainly because he'd likely be sold to a rival club (based on what we can expect his transfer fee to be) and because he's not reached his full potential yet.  So that scenario would simultaneously strengthen a rival and probably weaken us (unless we can sign someone for less money who will reach a higher level).  But I'm not sure we should be worrying about whether seeing a player come through our academy, represent his country at youth level, play for the club at PL and then be sold for £40m + on a pretty hefty contract to another good PL team will impact on the reputation of the academy or demoralise kids within that academy.  It's more likely to impact on the first team players who we're selling the "we have huge ambitions" message too.  To me it has a Brightonesque feel to it - come here we'll develop you into a really good player, give you your PL break and then sell you to the highest bidder.  That's going to make you really attractive to players looking for the big break (especially if you can demonstrate a track record for making that happen) but it's going to make it very hard to hang onto your other first team players who will be asking why they should be showing loyalty to the club rather than just following suit and jumping at the first big offer.

That said, where you probably do have a point is that I do think that some clubs / academies do feel like they are little more than a gravy train.  Chelsea are probably a great example - buying up far more young players than they can possibly need and either dumping them, repeatedly sending them out on loan and / or selling them as soon as the next great hope emerges.  That kind of model definitely doesn't breed the kind of loyalty and sense of "family" that we seem to have at Villa.  But I feel that we are a long, long way from that Chelsea model.  I suspect the number of first team players who feel any kind of real connection with Chelsea is pretty small.  However, I would also suggest that the number of first team players who feel a strong connection with Villa is pretty high - many still see Villa as the club that gave them their big break (Emi, Konsa, Mings, McGinn, Luiz and Ramsey) and if we can continue to keep pace with their ambitions (some will be higher than others) then I think it will take a massive offer to tempt them away.  I'm not saying it won't happen but even with Jack - the only way he was leaving was to get an unbelievable contract and sign for a huge club where he would be winning things.  I know it isn't everyone's cup of tea but the "buy back" clauses we seem keen on with our younger players and specifically the fact that so many of the players have been willing to sign them - suggests that (whilst there are commercial benefits in selling these players) we aren't just dumping them for financial benefit and we're keen to give them a chance to play at a good / high level whilst maintaining an option to bring them back if they are successful.  The fact that so many of the players over the summer were happy to have the buy back clause in place suggests that they didn't feel like they were being abandoned by the club for profit.  Whether any of them come back is another question - but I don't think they are leaving with bad or even indifferent feelings about Villa.

I agree that turning the academy into a "separate money making enterprise" does not sit well with the concept of the Villa family that Emery bangs on about (in a good way).  However, I think that showing young kids that there is a pathway to a career in professional football (whether that is with Villa or not) through the Academy and making the academy a strong revenue generator - are not necessarily contradictory things.  It's more about the way that you treat the kids and look after them whilst at they are at the club.  Making them feel welcome, well looked after and valued and then releasing (selling) them to pursue a career at the highest level their ability merits is not a bad thing.  Having a reputation for allowing players to sign for another club to try and realise their dream rather than keeping them playing reserve football until it is clear that they can't make the next step - again is not a bad thing.  Like I say these buy back clauses all suggest that the club is leaving a huge door open to players and saying "go on, do your stuff and try and prove that you can make it to the top level and if you do we'll give you that chance" but hey if you don't prove that you are ready for a Top 8 team then we've given you a route to PL or Championship or League One football.

For me the measure of how successful the Academy is shouldn't be measured just be how many players come through and play for the Villa first team OR by how much money it generates in player sales.  It should be about how many players we develop so that they can play at a higher level of football than they could have realistically achieved by going somewhere else.  And for those kids that don't go on to play professional football it's about having given them a chance and the skills / attitude / confidence to find success through another channel.  Indeed at some level the true success of the Academy is how well the kids that drop out the bottom fare in life after football and after Villa.  Is the true value of the Academy driven by the success of the cream at the top or the success of the kids that don't make it?  In many ways I want both of these things to matter to the Villa Academy.  To me that's what the "Villa family" notion is all about.

We also need to acknowledge that the higher our ambitions - the harder it will be for players to come straight through our Academy and into our first team.  Ramsey and Jack were able to because we could "afford" to give them a chance to develop into decent players.  Hopefully we're now in a position where those young players need to be able to come in and play at top 8 PL level (which is a big ask as most players at that level are regular internationals or at least on the fringes of international selection).  So maybe the most realistic model now is to develop them into Championship / lower PL level prospects, sell them to a club to develop for 2 or 3 seasons and then have generated enough "mutual investment" during their time with the Academy that when we (and other elite clubs) try and sign them that we're in pole position.  Let's say we bring through Player A and sell him to Forest for £15m.  If he does well in 18 months then we have a 2 year buy back clause that allows us to sign him for £30m.  If that player's market value is £40m then we've got a great deal and we've got a player with 2 years PL experience that he wouldn't have got with us.  Even if his market value is £30m - we're still signing a £30m player for £15m so financially it makes sense.  If after 18 months he hasn't quite made it then he stays at Forest for another 18 months and suddenly everything clicks and he becomes worth £60m.  Then hopefully we're still a great option for him as he remembers his time at the club fondly (and he's always had a good welcome at VP from the fans) - even then we'd be signing a £60m player for effectively £45m (and he's had 3 or 4 seasons of regular PL football to hone his talents far more than he'd have done on the bench - or worse - for us).  Maybe long-term loans would achieve a similar thing and if so then they'd represent better value - but on the flip side, they represent very poor value if the player doesn't develop.  How many players could we have sold for £10m but have gone on loan, not done as well as expected and then we've struggled to shift them for any fee at all.

[Adman]

37 minutes ago, allani said:

I kind of agree and don't agree with your conclusion here. 

I think the priority for most young players would be to be given the opportunity to improve and develop so that they can become professional footballers ideally at a good level.  The number of players who could realistically aim to go on and play for the Villa first team will always be relatively low (assuming that we are operating at the top end of the PL).  The big clubs don't tend to have many players who have come through their academies from a young age - indeed for many their elite level academy players are likely to have been bought for big money at youth level and the academy has really been a "finishing school" to refine an exceptional youth prospect into a first team squad player.  The draw for players is (a) to train and play at an elite club and (b) how good that club is at developing them to a point where they can realise their dream of being a professional footballer.  Sure most young kids will dream of playing for a top club side and representing their country - but at the end of the day if signing for Villa's academy improves your chances of playing Championship, League One of even League Two level professional football then that's what will encourage young players to sign.  Obviously for kids who are Villa fans then their dreams of playing for Villa will be greater.

Selling Ramsey would be a poor decision (in my opinion) for many reasons - mainly because he'd likely be sold to a rival club (based on what we can expect his transfer fee to be) and because he's not reached his full potential yet.  So that scenario would simultaneously strengthen a rival and probably weaken us (unless we can sign someone for less money who will reach a higher level).  But I'm not sure we should be worrying about whether seeing a player come through our academy, represent his country at youth level, play for the club at PL and then be sold for £40m + on a pretty hefty contract to another good PL team will impact on the reputation of the academy or demoralise kids within that academy.  It's more likely to impact on the first team players who we're selling the "we have huge ambitions" message too.  To me it has a Brightonesque feel to it - come here we'll develop you into a really good player, give you your PL break and then sell you to the highest bidder.  That's going to make you really attractive to players looking for the big break (especially if you can demonstrate a track record for making that happen) but it's going to make it very hard to hang onto your other first team players who will be asking why they should be showing loyalty to the club rather than just following suit and jumping at the first big offer.

That said, where you probably do have a point is that I do think that some clubs / academies do feel like they are little more than a gravy train.  Chelsea are probably a great example - buying up far more young players than they can possibly need and either dumping them, repeatedly sending them out on loan and / or selling them as soon as the next great hope emerges.  That kind of model definitely doesn't breed the kind of loyalty and sense of "family" that we seem to have at Villa.  But I feel that we are a long, long way from that Chelsea model.  I suspect the number of first team players who feel any kind of real connection with Chelsea is pretty small.  However, I would also suggest that the number of first team players who feel a strong connection with Villa is pretty high - many still see Villa as the club that gave them their big break (Emi, Konsa, Mings, McGinn, Luiz and Ramsey) and if we can continue to keep pace with their ambitions (some will be higher than others) then I think it will take a massive offer to tempt them away.  I'm not saying it won't happen but even with Jack - the only way he was leaving was to get an unbelievable contract and sign for a huge club where he would be winning things.  I know it isn't everyone's cup of tea but the "buy back" clauses we seem keen on with our younger players and specifically the fact that so many of the players have been willing to sign them - suggests that (whilst there are commercial benefits in selling these players) we aren't just dumping them for financial benefit and we're keen to give them a chance to play at a good / high level whilst maintaining an option to bring them back if they are successful.  The fact that so many of the players over the summer were happy to have the buy back clause in place suggests that they didn't feel like they were being abandoned by the club for profit.  Whether any of them come back is another question - but I don't think they are leaving with bad or even indifferent feelings about Villa.

I agree that turning the academy into a "separate money making enterprise" does not sit well with the concept of the Villa family that Emery bangs on about (in a good way).  However, I think that showing young kids that there is a pathway to a career in professional football (whether that is with Villa or not) through the Academy and making the academy a strong revenue generator - are not necessarily contradictory things.  It's more about the way that you treat the kids and look after them whilst at they are at the club.  Making them feel welcome, well looked after and valued and then releasing (selling) them to pursue a career at the highest level their ability merits is not a bad thing.  Having a reputation for allowing players to sign for another club to try and realise their dream rather than keeping them playing reserve football until it is clear that they can't make the next step - again is not a bad thing.  Like I say these buy back clauses all suggest that the club is leaving a huge door open to players and saying "go on, do your stuff and try and prove that you can make it to the top level and if you do we'll give you that chance" but hey if you don't prove that you are ready for a Top 8 team then we've given you a route to PL or Championship or League One football.

For me the measure of how successful the Academy is shouldn't be measured just be how many players come through and play for the Villa first team OR by how much money it generates in player sales.  It should be about how many players we develop so that they can play at a higher level of football than they could have realistically achieved by going somewhere else.  And for those kids that don't go on to play professional football it's about having given them a chance and the skills / attitude / confidence to find success through another channel.  Indeed at some level the true success of the Academy is how well the kids that drop out the bottom fare in life after football and after Villa.  Is the true value of the Academy driven by the success of the cream at the top or the success of the kids that don't make it?  In many ways I want both of these things to matter to the Villa Academy.  To me that's what the "Villa family" notion is all about.

We also need to acknowledge that the higher our ambitions - the harder it will be for players to come straight through our Academy and into our first team.  Ramsey and Jack were able to because we could "afford" to give them a chance to develop into decent players.  Hopefully we're now in a position where those young players need to be able to come in and play at top 8 PL level (which is a big ask as most players at that level are regular internationals or at least on the fringes of international selection).  So maybe the most realistic model now is to develop them into Championship / lower PL level prospects, sell them to a club to develop for 2 or 3 seasons and then have generated enough "mutual investment" during their time with the Academy that when we (and other elite clubs) try and sign them that we're in pole position.  Let's say we bring through Player A and sell him to Forest for £15m.  If he does well in 18 months then we have a 2 year buy back clause that allows us to sign him for £30m.  If that player's market value is £40m then we've got a great deal and we've got a player with 2 years PL experience that he wouldn't have got with us.  Even if his market value is £30m - we're still signing a £30m player for £15m so financially it makes sense.  If after 18 months he hasn't quite made it then he stays at Forest for another 18 months and suddenly everything clicks and he becomes worth £60m.  Then hopefully we're still a great option for him as he remembers his time at the club fondly (and he's always had a good welcome at VP from the fans) - even then we'd be signing a £60m player for effectively £45m (and he's had 3 or 4 seasons of regular PL football to hone his talents far more than he'd have done on the bench - or worse - for us).  Maybe long-term loans would achieve a similar thing and if so then they'd represent better value - but on the flip side, they represent very poor value if the player doesn't develop.  How many players could we have sold for £10m but have gone on loan, not done as well as expected and then we've struggled to shift them for any fee at all.

[John]

We are in Europe and in a Champions League position, yet the talk is again of "sell to buy".... Have I gone back in the Tardis to the days when HDE treated every pound spent, like it was his own, rather than the club's?

We should be thinking of adding a couple of players to strengthen the squad for the run in. We should not think about selling a first team player, because that would weaken us and reduce our chances of making this the season to remember it looks like becoming. Sell the odd player who isn't good enough, if you can, but don't do so without replacing them and don't do the press and pundits job for them, by linking our players with a move! 

[allani]

2 hours ago, CVByrne said:

I think in 12 months time there will be no question that he's our best player. I think he has the all round game and is a goal scorer. In this team he will be superb 

That's a very bold statement.  Not necessarily because I don't think that Ramsey won't be a very good player - but more because I think we're developing into a very good team with very good players.  I think it is going to be difficult for any player to be unquestionably our best player - because the key is that we'll be a very good team because we're a very balanced team where everyone complements everyone else in the team.  Therefore, it won't be like the days when our whole team was based around Jack.  In 12 months I think we'll be strong in all positions and that we'll be stronger as a team than we are as individuals.  So you could argue that every player is really important to the way we play - but at the same time we are much more balanced so that losing any single player doesn't have the same impact on the team.  I would be VERY surprised if in 12 months we could argue that any player is our best (or most important) player.

I do think that a fit and firing on all cylinders Ramsey in that advanced left midfielder role will turn us up an extra notch though.  Like you say - he's going to love the time and space he's going to get to drive forwards in this team.  I can see him getting a lot of goals and assists.

[Derryvillan]

2 hours ago, thabucks said:

See our name mentioned as monitoring Lens midfielder Salis Abdul Samed -23 Y/O Ghanaian DM … 

Playing vs Arsenal now.He looks under 6ft tall.

Don't tell @TRO 

[allani]

17 minutes ago, John said:

We are in Europe and in a Champions League position, yet the talk is again of "sell to buy".... Have I gone back in the Tardis to the days when HDE treated every pound spent, like it was his own, rather than the club's?

We should be thinking of adding a couple of players to strengthen the squad for the run in. We should not think about selling a first team player, because that would weaken us and reduce our chances of making this the season to remember it looks like becoming. Sell the odd player who isn't good enough, if you can, but don't do so without replacing them and don't do the press and pundits job for them, by linking our players with a move! 

Let's also not forget that we've just hired a guy to focus on improving our commercial position who has a reputation for attracting good deals - we've got a lot of headroom there (in comparison to our rivals who are already close to, at or exceeding their sponsorship value) based on our "old" position - let alone now that we are looking like a team that are set-up to challenge for the top positions, compete in Europe and part of a network who are doing well in Portugal and have just won the title in Japan.  Whilst a Man City / Chelsea mega-deal is unlikely (due to FFP scrutiny that was brought in after the horse had already bolted) I do think we are in a much stronger position to hugely improve our sponsorship revenues - Heck has already pretty much said that this is going to be what we should be judging him on.  So with increased sponsorship, exploiting more revenue streams, improved earnings through league position / Europe and a bigger slice of the TV money - there's an awful lot of things stacking up in the + side of the FFP balance sheet as we move forwards.

[Adman]

I was listening to the claret and blue podcast (Dan Bardell) today and I think they're right about our intent this window.  They don't hink we need anyone, and there's a good arguement to not sign anyone.

Backup keeper - perhaps we reason that the drop off would be that big from Emi that it's not worth the expense to bring someone in now.

RB - who are we going to get as an upgrade to Cash in Jan who's not costing a fortune?

The rest of the squad looks pretty good with Ramsay and Moreno due back imminently.  We also have to consider longer term injuries (and any players sold that we might want to buyback) and how they will affect the squad in the summer.

If we sell Traore, Chambers and Dendonker, they haven't really played so wouldn't be missed that much.  We've got some really good options on the bench that need more minutes. ..So if we keep our powder dry, see where we finish and go from there

 

 

[Monkeypuzzle]

15 minutes ago, Adman said:

I was listening to the claret and blue podcast (Dan Bardell) today and I think they're right about our intent this window.  They don't hink we need anyone, and there's a good arguement to not sign anyone.

Backup keeper - perhaps we reason that the drop off would be that big from Emi that it's not worth the expense to bring someone in now.

RB - who are we going to get as an upgrade to Cash in Jan who's not costing a fortune?

The rest of the squad looks pretty good with Ramsay and Moreno due back imminently.  We also have to consider longer term injuries (and any players sold that we might want to buyback) and how they will affect the squad in the summer.

If we sell Traore, Chambers and Dendonker, they haven't really played so wouldn't be missed that much.  We've got some really good options on the bench that need more minutes. ..So if we keep our powder dry, see where we finish and go from there

 

 

Agree mostly but one question. Who do we play if Cash gets injured? Is Konsa really the long term answer in that position? I think a new right back is worth investigating in January. Whether or not we can find one, I think we will be looking.

[Adman]

8 minutes ago, Monkeypuzzle said:

Agree mostly but one question. Who do we play if Cash gets injured? Is Konsa really the long term answer in that position? I think a new right back is worth investigating in January. Whether or not we can find one, I think we will be looking.

I think emery probably sees either Carlos or Konsa as the answer.  That's why we let Young go

[allani]

1 minute ago, Adman said:

I was listening to the claret and blue podcast (Dan Bardell) today and I think they're right about our intent this window.  They don't hink we need anyone, and there's a good arguement to not sign anyone.

Backup keeper - perhaps we reason that the drop off would be that big from Emi that it's not worth the expense to bring someone in now.

RB - who are we going to get as an upgrade to Cash in Jan who's not costing a fortune?

The rest of the squad looks pretty good with Ramsay and Moreno due back imminently.  We also have to consider longer term injuries (and any players sold that we might want to buyback) and how they will affect the squad in the summer.

If we sell Traore, Chambers and Dendonker, they haven't really played so wouldn't be missed that much.  We've got some really good options on the bench that need more minutes. ..So if we keep our powder dry, see where we finish and go from there

 

 

Not sure about that.  We've hopefully got a lot of games before the end of the season.  I think there are a few places where we need better options to really help us finish the season as strongly as possible - in terms of giving us more options to rotate.  Obviously Ramsey and Moreno help with that regard (as will Zaniolo and Tielemans settling).  But we're definitely not sorted at RB.  I think Konsa has shown that he's not good enough going forwards to be a RB and I do think that we can improve on Cash for a not ridiculous outlay.  I also suspect that we are still looking at another attacking player - we are asking a lot of Ollie and Diaby to be starting every match.  We aren't under massive pressure to buy - but in many ways that strengthens our hand.  If other teams try and play hardball then it is very evident that we aren't desperate (unlike some of our rivals) and so we don't need to overspend.  However, I do think that we're working hard on identifying and following targets and that we'd be able to make a move for them.  In terms of keeping our powder dry - it is an interesting one.  On one hand you'd hope that we are in a stronger position in the summer to attract players than we might be now - so there's a risk that if we waited 6 months then we could have got a better player than somone we buy in January.  On the flip side we still have a lack of depth in certain positions where simple tiredness or an injury could severely dent our chances of continuing our form of the last 12 months.  So failing to strengthen now might backfire and leave us in a weaker position come the summer.  But it definitely feels like we're now tinkering with the squad rather than considering several changes / additions because we've got weaknesses throughout the team / squad.  So we don't need a busy January - but I would be surprised if we don't see anyone coming in (although it might just be on an end of the season loan basis).

[allani]

5 minutes ago, Adman said:

I think emery probably sees either Carlos or Konsa as the answer.  That's why we let Young go

I think we have a challenge figuring out how Pau, Carlos and Konsa all play (especially when Mings comes back - if he comes back and finds his form from last season).  Defensively it works OK - but against Spurs, Konsa received the ball with space in front of him and he didn't have the instinct to attack that space like a "proper" RB would.  I know that pre-Villa Emery has played a more attacking LB and a more defensive RB (for which role Konsa or Carlos would be fine) but this season we've seen both Cash and Digne push forward and either Kamara or Luiz drop into the back-line so that our 3 "defenders" can cover the width of the pitch.  So I do think we might be looking at a more attacking RB.  The question is whether we can get one who can compete immediately with Cash in January or whether we'll be better able to sign that upgrade in the summer.  I like Cash but he's probably not quite good enough defensively or offensively to fill either of the roles that we need to be as strong down the right as we are down the left (once Moreno and Ramsey are back fit).

[allani]

Just now, allani said:

I think we have a challenge figuring out how Pau, Carlos and Konsa all play (especially when Mings comes back - if he comes back and finds his form from last season).  Defensively it works OK - but against Spurs, Konsa received the ball with space in front of him and he didn't have the instinct to attack that space like a "proper" RB would.  I know that pre-Villa Emery has played a more attacking LB and a more defensive RB (for which role Konsa or Carlos would be fine) but this season we've seen both Cash and Digne push forward and either Kamara or Luiz drop into the back-line so that our 3 "defenders" can cover the width of the pitch.  So I do think we might be looking at a more attacking RB.  The question is whether we can get one who can compete immediately with Cash in January or whether we'll be better able to sign that upgrade in the summer.  I like Cash but he's probably not quite good enough defensively or offensively to fill either of the roles that we need to be as strong down the right as we are down the left (once Moreno and Ramsey are back fit).

Also bearing in mind the ages of Carlos and Mings (and that they've both had pretty serious injuries) - I am nervous about moving Konsa too far away from the CB specialist role.  The Pau / Konsa partnership is pretty solid and gives us a basis for the next 5 years.  It would be a shame to potentially compromise that by trying to get Konsa to plug a hole and trying to adapt his game or to move McGinn into a slightly deeper role when he's thriving in the freedom he has to be more of a maraudering midfielder looking to press the opposition higher up the pitch and to crop up more centrally or even on the left as space opens up for him to exploit.

[Adman]

18 minutes ago, allani said:

I think we have a challenge figuring out how Pau, Carlos and Konsa all play (especially when Mings comes back - if he comes back and finds his form from last season).  Defensively it works OK - but against Spurs, Konsa received the ball with space in front of him and he didn't have the instinct to attack that space like a "proper" RB would.  I know that pre-Villa Emery has played a more attacking LB and a more defensive RB (for which role Konsa or Carlos would be fine) but this season we've seen both Cash and Digne push forward and either Kamara or Luiz drop into the back-line so that our 3 "defenders" can cover the width of the pitch.  So I do think we might be looking at a more attacking RB.  The question is whether we can get one who can compete immediately with Cash in January or whether we'll be better able to sign that upgrade in the summer.  I like Cash but he's probably not quite good enough defensively or offensively to fill either of the roles that we need to be as strong down the right as we are down the left (once Moreno and Ramsey are back fit)

Maybe Cash is already the backup in an ideal world.  

                Watkins.   Diaby

Ramsey.  Kamara. Luiz.   Mcginn

Moreno.  Pau.   Carlos.  Konsa

 

Looks pretty good to me

[paul514]

6 hours ago, thabucks said:

See our name mentioned as monitoring Lens midfielder Salis Abdul Samed -23 Y/O Ghanaian DM … 

his stats look rubbish

[paul514]

On 28/11/2023 at 09:31, MaVilla said:

good post, especially re the wages, i think i said in another post somewhere, that i doubt the pure transfer fee thing is the biggest issue, i would guess its wages in terms of FFP.

with regard to player sales, Traore's contract is up in the summer, so i guess we either need to sell him in Jan, or loan him out for a small fee/wages partly covered in Jan, not sure we will manage it tho?

In terms of the summer, i can see Digne, Dendoncker, Azaz, Chambers and Sanson moving on, what will they fetch between them?, 40m maybe?, add Traore leaving on a free, i guess that would be somewhere in the region of 350-450k a week off the wage book?

I agree Lenglet will prob go back to Barca if we think Mings will be fit for the new season, so him off the books prob means we are up to 450k-550k off the wage books?

20m if you’re lucky

[maqroll]

11 hours ago, El-Reacho said:

Selling Ramsey would send a pretty strong message to our academy that it is essentially a separate money making enterprise for the club rather than training young players to play for Aston Villa.

At the end of the day, V-Sports is a money making enterprise, and it's hard to argue with the success and stature of Emery and Monchi. But if an academy player is good enough, I'd expect him to be given the chance to be a first team regular just like any of the players from the V stable will. The cream rises to the top. As for Ramsey, if he stays fit he can develop into an England regular and many clubs will come knocking. And if the offer is good enough and fits in with the long term strategy and FFP parameters, I'd think that he, and any of our other players could be sold. I expect Monchi to be ruthless and unsentimental. We probably won't like to see some of these players moved on, especially Ramsey, but if a deal makes sense, they'll do it.

 

[paul514]

https://fbref.com/en/players/722494dc/Arthur-Vermeeren

I like the look of this young lad for a squad place to develop him.

https://fbref.com/en/players/3828f130/Javier-Guerra

I think this lad might be decent to play our McGinn role.