The RJW63 Official Jack Grealish Appreciation Thread

[AvfcRigo82]

18 hours ago, WakefieldVillan said:

Yeah sorry I get that, I just can't really see it being that high to be honest 

I am glad it is - if it is £60m.

I have been tired of watching all our decent players being nabbed over the years for peanuts. It's been happening since the days of Dwight Yorke, so yeah - £60m or off you trot.

- Jack is the best player in this Chamionship league by a country mile.

- Jack our best ever academy product to emerge since I've been a Villa fan.

- Jack is the face of this club and our captain.

- Jack WILL be called up for England the minute he hits PL status.

- Jack WOULD walk into the first XI of any Premier League Team right now.

If any respective team can't stump up £60m then their bid ain't worth Jack!

[Jareth]

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

Grealish has basically done a reverse delph.

[brommy]

2 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

What I mean is, the point is to put an extortionate figure in them, which deters clubs from coming in, and letting them know if they DO come in, it will take massive money to get him.

More than likely would not be 60 mill, but it will be up there.

It will stop Spurs from offering 3 million plus Onomah for example.

It gives us a very strong negotiating position.

I agree with the above except the line I’ve put in bold. Daniel Levy will still feel compelled to offer an absolute joke of a fee. Our owners will then have a good laugh and hopefully Jack will feel insulted by it. I suspect the insulting offers spuds made last summer were part of why Jack was happier to stay.

[Brumstopdogs]

 

 

[Lichfield Dean]

Strapping on Jack's leg? How old are those pics? A week or so I'd guess.

[Daweii]

6 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Strapping on Jack's leg? How old are those pics? A week or so I'd guess.

The video with Grealish and Angel was recorded when Angel visited on the 29th March. So the pics they reused to advertise the video are 5 weeks old. 

[Lichfield Dean]

1 hour ago, Daweii said:

The video with Grealish and Angel was recorded when Angel visited on the 29th March. So the pics they reused to advertise the video are 5 weeks old. 

5 weeks?? Was it that long ago Angel visited? Blimey. Thanks for the clarification though.

[rodders0223]

2 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Strapping on Jack's leg? How old are those pics? A week or so I'd guess.

He had that strapping on his leg against Rotherham and I think against Bolton (he missed the game  inbetween against Bristol due to illness which I am not sure I believe tbh)

[Stephen_Evans]

I see Cascarino has let us have one of his pearls of “wisdom”.  Every time he pops up, I fantasise about how we signed Sheringham instead.

[hippo]

On 05/05/2019 at 09:55, TheStagMan said:

I think they are normal size, its just he always wears really tight shorts.

Good old VT - We can't even agree on the size of Jacks gonads ! 

[Dave-R]

Smith Stroke of Genius at making Jack captain, no doubts adds value as well to Jack. Any top club knows full well that Jack coming to there club is pretty much a deal that cant go wrong. Not only that but they are seeing how mature Jack is being even when being punched by a fan, they know they have an instant leader on there hands and even at 60 million which is peanuts to a top premier club, Jacks a steal.

There have been a few players up in the top teams in recent weeks kicking off over silly things, which make Jack look like a saint. They will be looking at Jack and licking there lips at the thought they could have a cool, calm, collected player in there ranks who has a real talent and at any point can draw players away from other players. Jack does it all defensively, midfield wise and attacking, he's a bargain at 60 mill if you ask me.

I would slap 100 mill on him if I were the Owners, just to say hands off, wouldn't surprise me if clubs start bidding and it ends up where the offer is just to good to not take up.

It's what we do with Jacks sale money that will  be important after he's gone, if we waste it we drift away from possibly being the club we could be again, we make good use of it and we could be in the premier off a very good Smith rebuild.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Dave-R

[AVFC44]

No chance Jack is a steal for a top club at 60 million and you say that it's peanuts for a Premier League club but there can't have been any more than 5 transfers that have been over that fee? No way is a club spending that much on a Championship player no matter how good we know he is.

Also if he has a buy-out clause of 60 million then that's what he will go for and there would be no reason for clubs to spend more than that (they wouldn't anyway).

I would say 30 million max is more realistic if we don't go up.

[Dr_Pangloss]

At £60m there's absolutely no chance anyone signs him, very good clause for us to have then, only issue is if we don't go up I can see him looking to force a move and he'll go for quite a lot less than £60m. He owes it to himself to play at a much higher level.

[Stevo985]

People still don’t know what release clauses are do they?

They’re not put there by the club. Or if they are it’s as an incentive to the player.

if he goes, it won’t be for £60m, clause or no clause. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Stevo985

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

People still don’t know what release clauses are do they?

They’re not put there by the club. Or if they are it’s as an incentive to the player.

They are always put there by the club. They have to be because the club writes the contract. Though you're right that sometimes the clause might be inserted by the club, at the request or instigation of the player or his agent(s).

But, they are not always as an incentive to the player. Sometimes they are to protect the club's "investment" - i.e. a ridiculously high figure. 

[villalad21]

We have to get promoted to keep him.

There is absolutely no way we are keeping him if we remain in the Championship.

[Stevo985]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

They are always put there by the club. They have to be because the club writes the contract. Though you're right that sometimes the clause might be inserted by the club, at the request or instigation of the player or his agent(s).

But, they are not always as an incentive to the player. Sometimes they are to protect the club's "investment" - i.e. a ridiculously high figure. 

Well yes of course they’re literally put there by the club, but what I mean is it’s not in the clubs interest to have a figure that they HAVE to accept in a contract. 

They don’t protect the club’s investment. All they do is provide a price that a club can pay and cannot be rejected. The best protection is to not have a clause at all. 

This isn’t a fee that a buying club HAS to pay. It’s a fee we HAVE to accept. 

Theres no way a release clause was put in there intentionally by the club unless it was as an incentive for Grealish to sign it. And if it was then whoever did it deserves the sack. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

It will be a figure agreed between club, player and agent. There are reasons why the club may have instigated it, as a sweetner perhaps. If we were to go up I expect he will sign another contract anyway, with the clause removed. He will likely become our first £100k a week player. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

23 hours ago, Daweii said:

The video with Grealish and Angel was recorded when Angel visited on the 29th March. So the pics they reused to advertise the video are 5 weeks old. 

Jack "So I'm delighted to meet you and STUFF" Grealish?

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Well yes of course they’re literally put there by the club, but what I mean is it’s not in the clubs interest to have a figure that they HAVE to accept in a contract. 

They don’t protect the club’s investment. All they do is provide a price that a club can pay and cannot be rejected. The best protection is to not have a clause at all. 

This isn’t a fee that a buying club HAS to pay. It’s a fee we HAVE to accept. 

Theres no way a release clause was put in there intentionally by the club unless it was as an incentive for Grealish to sign it. And if it was then whoever did it deserves the sack. 

On Jack, sure I agree you might be right, but not necessarily.

As a general point, no. Clubs in the past (e.g. Barcelona) have put monumental clause fees in player contracts to protect their footballing assets from being bought unless for daft sums - Neymar being a case in point - which mean they are way over-compensated for the player going. Neymar's (and his agent) are happy to accept because of the rich rewards, the club protects their investment in wages and fee for him and PSG were mad enough to pay 200 million or whatever it was for him. Coutinho Liverpool was another one. These huge sums were not player demands, they were club demands.