CVByrne Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 33 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said: I don't disagree. Carlos giving away goals this season for me is the bigger elephant in the room I just accept that mistakes are part of the game when you play out from back the way we do and in the era of high pressing teams. I also don't allow the outcome to cloud my view either. A mistake where Martinez saves it vs a mistake where they score is just a mistake. Martinez himself had a howler when we lost to Forest. At 1-0 we were in that game especially considering how we are always 1-0 down away from home yet come back. Mistakes are mistakes. They will also happen more when players are brave. I Carlos always passed left or right or back he'd not make a mistake but when you try to play a pass through midfield to one of the 10s it's brave and exactly what Emery wants. Doing that often will result in more chances it gets intercepted. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 19 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said: Because I think he’s shit and significantly weakens us whenever he plays. He also doesn’t get called up anymore. But this debate has been done to death so we leave it there. We need to replace Dendonker for sure, but we can't let him leave without a replacement. I think last summer we wanted Adams in and Dendonker out. Acuna in and Dinge out. Neither happened due to Donk getting injured and Acuna getting injured. Traore and Chambers are player we can and should lose without a need to replace them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, CVByrne said: We need to replace Dendonker for sure, but we can't let him leave without a replacement. I think last summer we wanted Adams in and Dendonker out. Acuna in and Dinge out. Neither happened due to Donk getting injured and Acuna getting injured. Traore and Chambers are player we can and should lose without a need to replace them. Agree. Was hoping Tim could step up but looks like he is not seen as good enough. Hopefully Kamara and stay fit and avoid further suspensions. So important to the way we play. I think we dodged a bullet with Adam’s. Seems to be always injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 8 hours ago, paul514 said: as if we are going to loan him out, get your wallet out and spend some of your dirty money. Quite. A 'loan with an option to buy' would be the worst of all worlds; left with only one LB for the rest of this season, unless we buy one but then possibly end up with 3 next season. Could try and loan a replacement but we wouldn't be able to loan an *improvement* so just leaves us worse off from a footballing perspective. As you say, they need to get their wallets out. Edited January 12 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HKP90 Posted January 12 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, CVByrne said: We have one Premier League game in 32 days, Everton. Lots of players rested for Boro. So Watkins\Luiz etc.. will have played 25 mins of football in 29 days between Burnley and Chelsea FA Cup game. Then for Feb and early March we have just one game a week on the weekends. Not sure I follow this, between now and mid feb we have 4 PL games (5 if you count the one on the 17th as 'mid feb') and an FA cup game (two if there is a replay- as I understand it 4th round this year has them). We'd played the same number of games by 6th Jan this season that we had on the 12 March last season. By 11th Feb (assuming no Chelsea replay), we will have played the same number of games as we had by the 22nd April last season. And then we get some additional European games, and hopefully an FA cup run on top. Last season we had 21 players who'd played more than 5 games, this year to date it is exactly the same number 21. For context Arsenal last year had 25 players with more than 5 games, Chelsea had used 30. I think assuming we're not going to get fatigued is wishful thinking. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted January 12 VT Supporter Share Posted January 12 51 minutes ago, Jas10 said: FFP is such a pain in the ass… moving on a player like Digne would help if we got a decent offer… getting rid of Coutinho permanently. Get the players who aren’t crucial or irreplaceable, that are paid big wages, off the books and replace with better value if we can… then hopefully free up funds (while doing well in the league) to make some proper/big signings… The last thing we want is to sell a crucial player that should be part of our long term future… we have to be imaginative and “wheel and deal” as we did with the young player sales (w buybacks, none of which we’re likely to activate imo)… intelligent sales that don’t impact us too much but… we’re light on options and offers aren’t forthcoming for players like Chambers, Dendoncker, Traore… The line there about Unai not wanting or accepting “second-rate players” is important… We really, really need Champions League, much more than a trophy… I don't see how anything to do with FFP is relevant to the North Stand development. In fact, not redeveloping now is actually a big hindrance to revenue and thus FFP in the near future to long terms versus a relatively small drop in revenue (that would likely be written off for FFP purposes) for a few years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 16 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said: Agree. Was hoping Tim could step up but looks like he is not seen as good enough. Hopefully Kamara and stay fit and avoid further suspensions. So important to the way we play. I think we dodged a bullet with Adam’s. Seems to be always injured. Tim lacks the experience to be put in as the CDM role in our side. We need a player ideally the level of Tielemans is as alternative to Luiz for the Kamara competition role 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 23 minutes ago, HKP90 said: Not sure I follow this, between now and mid feb we have 4 PL games (5 if you count the one on the 17th as 'mid feb') and an FA cup game (two if there is a replay- as I understand it 4th round this year has them). We'd played the same number of games by 6th Jan this season that we had on the 12 March last season. By 11th Feb (assuming no Chelsea replay), we will have played the same number of games as we had by the 22nd April last season. And then we get some additional European games, and hopefully an FA cup run on top. Last season we had 21 players who'd played more than 5 games, this year to date it is exactly the same number 21. For context Arsenal last year had 25 players with more than 5 games, Chelsea had used 30. I think assuming we're not going to get fatigued is wishful thinking. I think the point is that by mid Feb we should be quite good. The relatively low number of games being played this month is kind of a reset for the players. However, you are right that come the business end of the season we are going to have players that have played a lot more games than last season, and not having any additional reinforcements is a big gamble. May even start to bite by the end of March, almsot certainly before Buendia and Mings are back. If Youri is out for much longer then I think we are going to need an extra body or two this month. Or he needs to start giving Traore and Chambers more game time when the opposition/state of the game allows... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachoFantastico Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I genuinely think this will be one of the quietest windows in some time. A lot of clubs have realised that the January window isn't the best time to do business, especially with FFP involved. At this point, I'm ignoring 99.9% of the transfer talk because it's just paper/media BS. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted January 12 VT Supporter Share Posted January 12 I should say I'm not necessarily advocating that we go out and spend big this window if overall value is poor, but I suspect we may end up reassessing short term objectives later in the season. Again not necessarily a bad thing if we are looking at long term success. Success has just all happened so quickly that I wonder if the squad is just a little undercooked to bring it home. Hope I'm wrong, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted January 12 VT Supporter Share Posted January 12 2 hours ago, Kiwivillan said: Why? It's been talked about that Emery style of play is about conserving energy off the ball. We have the evidence of 2nd most points in 2023 and we're probably not going to get additions in January and neither are a lot of clubs with FFP restrictions kicking in. Seems like a lot of Chicken Littles in this forum As I mentioned in a later post, it's because we've played 10 more games this year than at the same time last year with the same number of players. The number of points achieved has no bearing on the effect of match load on fitness in the long term. And as an aside, it drives me mad that a certain section of the forum shoot down any constructive concerns (note-not criticisms, this isn't the match thread) that might lead to a practical solution as 'chicken little', 'doomsaying' or equivalent. Being prepared to solve challenges means not dismissing any and all signs of issues that can be solved before they become problems. In this case by ensuring adequate squad depth if, and only if we have the opportunity to do so. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post DCJonah Posted January 12 Popular Post Share Posted January 12 The fact us and Newcastle have to be very careful in regards to FFP just shows how bad Cities financial doping for a decade is. It's allowed them to dominate. Imagine if they'd actually followed the rules. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, fightoffyour said: I don't see how anything to do with FFP is relevant to the North Stand development. In fact, not redeveloping now is actually a big hindrance to revenue and thus FFP in the near future to long terms versus a relatively small drop in revenue (that would likely be written off for FFP purposes) for a few years. It has a big impact. 1) Loss of revenue from reduced attendance. 2) Reduced Villa Park atmosphere means potentially less home wins. A win in CL is worth £2.4m. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 46 minutes ago, HKP90 said: And as an aside, it drives me mad that a certain section of the forum shoot down any constructive concerns (note-not criticisms, this isn't the match thread) that might lead to a practical solution as 'chicken little', 'doomsaying' or equivalent. Being prepared to solve challenges means not dismissing any and all signs of issues that can be solved before they become problems. In this case by ensuring adequate squad depth if, and only if we have the opportunity to do so. It's a couple of weird narcissists who are hilariously ill-informed. They literally post the same bollocks every other post. Wouldn't worry, they don't deserve your respect. Informed debate is welcome by most of the site. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 19 minutes ago, DCJonah said: The fact us and Newcastle have to be very careful in regards to FFP just shows how bad Cities financial doping for a decade is. It's allowed them to dominate. Imagine if they'd actually followed the rules. It just shows how FFP has helped the richer clubs. It basically "pulls up the ladder behind them" to prevent anyone else crashing the party. Teams like Chelsea and City have much bigger revenues than us because they were able to financially dope to reach and maintain the highest levels. Which effectively allows them to continue to financially dope, to an extent. It's going to be very difficult for even Newcastle to catch up because all the money in the world does not help if you can't spend it. What I would like to see happen is that FFP limits should be applied to teams like City and Chelsea based on their likely revenue bases if they hadn't doped for years. For example their FFP status should be assessed on the revenue bases of clubs that were arguably of similar stature before the doping started. Teams like Villa, Everton and Newcastle. Or, when you consider they were not even in the top flight for much of their pre-doping eras, maybe even clubs like Forest or Palace. Of course that will never happen, but it would be a lot fairer than what is in place now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan95 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 35 minutes ago, DCJonah said: The fact us and Newcastle have to be very careful in regards to FFP just shows how bad Cities financial doping for a decade is. It's allowed them to dominate. Imagine if they'd actually followed the rules. Yep city's net spend was over £100M per season when they were building at the start and that was with the old TV deal which was considerably less. Oh and when £20-30M would still get you a top player. Edited January 12 by villan95 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 minute ago, El Segundo said: It just shows how FFP has helped the richer clubs. It basically "pulls up the ladder behind them" to prevent anyone else crashing the party. Teams like Chelsea and City have much bigger revenues than us because they were able to financially dope to reach and maintain the highest levels. Which effectively allows them to continue to financially dope, to an extent. It's going to be very difficult for even Newcastle to catch up because all the money in the world does not help if you can't spend it. What I would like to see happen is that FFP limits should be applied to teams like City and Chelsea based on their likely revenue bases if they hadn't doped for years. For example their FFP status should be assessed on the revenue bases of clubs that were arguably of similar stature before the doping started. Teams like Villa, Everton and Newcastle. Or, when you consider they were not even in the top flight for much of their pre-doping eras, maybe even clubs like Forest or Palace. Of course that will never happen, but it would be a lot fairer than what is in place now. Without FFP, City, Chelsea and United would have been able to spend even more money than they already have. So would make no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 6 minutes ago, duke313 said: Without FFP, City, Chelsea and United would have been able to spend even more money than they already have. So would make no difference. Come on man. They spend what they want anyway. It's not for them. It's for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 7 minutes ago, CVByrne said: It has a big impact. 1)years? Loss of revenue from reduced attendance. 2) Reduced Villa Park atmosphere means potentially less home wins. A win in CL is worth £2.4m. Wouldn't loss of matchday revenue from our smallest stand be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things? Even over two years? (And I Still don't understand why it would need two years to build a new stand). The opportunity cost - loss of potential increase in revenue in the long term - would surely dwarf it. As for point 2 I think it's pure speculation that the atmosphere and results would be adversely affected. I don't recall much in the way of drop-off in either when we replaced the Trinity. And the Holte generates most of the noise anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted January 12 VT Supporter Share Posted January 12 17 minutes ago, CVByrne said: It has a big impact. 1) Loss of revenue from reduced attendance. 2) Reduced Villa Park atmosphere means potentially less home wins. A win in CL is worth £2.4m. 1) that get's written off for FFP due to the circumstances 2) speculative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts