The RJW63 Official Jack Grealish Appreciation Thread

[KentVillan]

10 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

I agree. The problem was though we should've put in a ridiculous clause or said run your contract down over the next 3 years. In essence, played hardball. We'd still have made commercially and what, lose 30m a year on a player that cost nothing but have him for another 2 years, by which time we may have made the progress to get him to sign a contract and without a stupid release clause?! 

I think we acted gentlemanly though in this and believed when he signed the contract he was fully onboard for several more years, in truth he more than likely wasn't and yes, saw the new contract as a way to manipulate his future. Which tbh he has every right to. I just don't buy the love, loyal, he could've left before nonsense some want to trot out. 

 

I actually think we judged £100m to be a slightly ridiculous price, and weren’t prepared for the massive transfer price inflation and Grealish’s own reputation suddenly skyrocketing. Remember this would have been agreed when we’d just finished 17th and Grealish was struggling to break into the England side.

In the end it may still turn out to have been a sensible decision on our side. I’m not sure the annual circus was good for the club - Liverpool and Barcelona went through same thing with Gerrard and Messi, and it just gets in the way of your other transfer business, and stops managers from running the team when one player can get them sacked.

[Rightdm00]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

I actually think we judged £100m to be a slightly ridiculous price, and weren’t prepared for the massive transfer price inflation and Grealish’s own reputation suddenly skyrocketing. Remember this would have been agreed when we’d just finished 17th and Grealish was struggling to break into the England side.

In the end it may still turn out to have been a sensible decision on our side. I’m not sure the annual circus was good for the club - Liverpool and Barcelona went through same thing with Gerrard and Messi, and it just gets in the way of your other transfer business, and stops managers from running the team when one player can get them sacked.

It was a stupid high release clause.  At the time he signed it he had less than 5 caps for England. Barely 60 top flight appearances. The idea that someone with that resume could go for £100 million one season later is crazy. 

I think management figured they had 2-3 more years of Jack. In that time we would either convince him to stay by establishing ourself in the Top 6 or he would leave and we'd get a crazy high transfer fee. It just so happened that he left a bit early. 

[Zatman]

33 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said:

It was a stupid high release clause.  At the time he signed it he had less than 5 caps for England. Barely 60 top flight appearances. The idea that someone with that resume could go for £100 million one season later is crazy. 

I think management figured they had 2-3 more years of Jack. In that time we would either convince him to stay by establishing ourself in the Top 6 or he would leave and we'd get a crazy high transfer fee. It just so happened that he left a bit early. 

he was actually uncapped when he signed it  and now he is the 6th highest transfer fee in history, we really cant complain

[Genie]

9 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

agree. The problem was though we should've put in a ridiculous clause or said run your contract down over the next 3 years. In essence, played hardball. We'd still have made commercially and what, lose 30m a year on a player that cost nothing but have him for another 2 years, by which time we may have made the progress to get him to sign a contract and without a stupid release clause?!

As I mentioned before, he could have left for better things many times over the previous few years but chose to stay.

This was obviously a consideration by Villa. He played a major part in getting us promoted, the club in return agreed not to stand in his way if a CL club came in with a fair offer (hence the clause) and Jack felt the time was right to move. 

This is the difference with Kane, he says he has a gentleman’s agreement but it’s worthless. If he agreed a clause with Spurs of a fair amount (£120-140m) when he last signed it’s all clear and there’s no reason for animosity. Maybe if Kane had a proper agent rather than his brother then he’d be in a better place now.

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Genie

[villalad21]

Grealish had to leave if he were to play CL football.

Have to take your Villa goggles off sometimes, and just respect that decision. This guy is driven and is desperate to win things and play at the biggest stage.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, villalad21 said:

Grealish had to leave if he were to play CL football.

Have to take your Villa goggles off sometimes, and just respect that decision. This guy is driven and is desperate to win things and play at the biggest stage.

It’s not like Bellingham who **** off at the first opportunity. He stayed several more seasons as a big fish in a small pond putting the club before himself.

He did more than his bit, and I wish him well. 

[villalad21]

Just now, Genie said:

It’s not like Bellingham who **** off at the first opportunity. He stayed several more seasons as a big fish in a small pond putting the club before himself.

He did more than his bit, and I wish him well. 

Indeed.

I actually hinted to this last season I think.

Everyone raving about our progression I said I'm not sure we are progressing fast enough to keep up with Jack's ambitions.

Thought he would stayed for another season but fair play to the guy. Got us promoted. Secured our status in the Prem and season after made us into a stable mid table club. He can leave with no regrets. Done so much for the club and I am grateful.

[avfc1982am]

22 minutes ago, Genie said:

As I mentioned before, he could have left for better things many times over the previous few years but chose to stay.

This was obviously a consideration by Villa. He played a major part in getting us promoted, the club in return agreed not to stand in his way if a CL club came in with a fair offer (hence the clause) and Jack felt the time was right to move. 

This is the difference with Kane, he says he has a gentleman’s agreement but it’s worthless. If he agreed a clause with Spurs of a fair amount (£120-140m) when he last signed it’s all clear and there’s no reason for animosity. Maybe if Kane had a proper agent rather than his brother then he’d be in a better place now.

 

When could he have gone then???? Our owners blocked the spuds move and no bid came in from Utd last summer. The first opportunity he had to go was this summer. Stop with the bs that he could gone before. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[bobzy]

28 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s not like Bellingham who **** off at the first opportunity. He stayed several more seasons as a big fish in a small pond putting the club before himself.

He did more than his bit, and I wish him well. 

In fairness, I think he was pushed as much as anything.  Club were skint and getting £20m in the door.

 

(I find it weird that people compare Grealish and Bellingham)

[Wainy316]

You've all got a few years to get over it because I'm sure he'll be back if suitable to all parties towards the tail end of his career.

[Genie]

46 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

When could he have gone then???? Our owners blocked the spuds move and no bid came in from Utd last summer. The first opportunity he had to go was this summer. Stop with the bs that he could gone before. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

You don’t know what was happening behind the scenes at Villa. There would have been huge interest in a player like Jack at Villa (gettable in many eyes). 
If Jack pushed for a move he’d had got one and there would have been plenty of takers.

You are taking what you see in the papers as fact and getting all aggressive about it. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Genie

[The_Steve]

15 hours ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

Dont think he turned down multiple opportunities. He agreed to Tottenham, and would have agreed to United had they stumped up our asking price

He was off to United had they offered the right price. The release clause was him and his agent’s doing. Mr Villa saw the dazzling lights elsewhere always. 

[villa4europe]

8 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

He was off to United had they offered the right price. The release clause was him and his agent’s doing. Mr Villa saw the dazzling lights elsewhere always. 

That's because the dazzling lights are elsewhere

[avfc1982am]

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

You don’t know what was happening behind the scenes at Villa. There would have been huge interest in a player like Jack at Villa (gettable in many eyes). 
If Jack pushed for a move he’d had got one and there would have been plenty of takers.

You are taking what you see in the papers as fact and getting all aggressive about it. 

No.....Not at all. I'm pointing out that at no time until this summer had Jack had the chance to leave of his own accord. The decision previously was not his to make as he was under contract. You can spin this how you want but those are the facts. It's not aggressive, media driven. Just facts. Not the bs that your spinning in that he stayed out the goodness of his own heart and he could walked many times before. 

Give us an instance whereby it was Jackanory decision to stay when he could've left regardless of the clubs wishes and I will admit I'm wrong. Simple

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

Give us an instance whereby it was Jackanory decision to stay when he could've left regardless of the clubs wishes and I will admit I'm wrong. Simple

In 2018 when Spurs tried to sign him he could have refused the new deal he was offered and got a move either then, or the following summer as he went into the last year of his deal at the time.

He instead signed a deal to extend his stay at Villa. 
He signed another new long term contract in 2019, and ANOTHER long term contract in 2020. This is not the behaviour of someone who wants to leave at the first opportunity…

You don’t need to admit you’re wrong though, I’m bigger than that  

[avfc1982am]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

In 2018 when Spurs tried to sign him he could have refused the new deal he was offered and got a move either then, or the following summer as he went into the last year of his deal at the time.

He instead signed a deal to extend his stay at Villa. 
He signed another new long term contract in 2019, and ANOTHER long term contract in 2020. This is not the behaviour of someone who wants to leave at the first opportunity…

You don’t need to admit you’re wrong though, I’m bigger than that  

How could he have walked if he was still under contract and no way does a kid run his deal contract down? He went to meet Poch at Spurs and wanted to go until the owners came in and pulled the plug on the deal. He then signed a new deal because our owners rightly were not going to let him leave for a pittance and he would lose on wages over the following 12 months. if he didn't sign a new deal he'd also look a clearing in the woods. Your making out it was all JG's decision when the reality was it wasn't his choice. And signing new contracts doesn't always mean a player is committed to the club only that the club is committed to the player. Take Delph as a case in point. 

[wict01]

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said:

You've all got a few years to get over it because I'm sure he'll be back if suitable to all parties towards the tail end of his career.

I'd much prefer if we'd outgrown him by then.

[The Fun Factory]

We should have set the release clause at a random price like £107 million. That way when City put the 100 mil bid in and was rejected they wouldn't know how much to increase the bid up to.  In hindsight we could have squeezed another £20-30 million out of this.

[Wainy316]

15 minutes ago, wict01 said:

I'd much prefer if we'd outgrown him by then.

Well so would I because it would mean we'd be bloody good!

[Davkaus]

7 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

We should have set the release clause at a random price like £107 million. That way when City put the 100 mil bid in and was rejected they wouldn't know how much to increase the bid up to.  In hindsight we could have squeezed another £20-30 million out of this.

Do you think it's a coincidence that they bid exactly the release fee, and were in a rush to do so before the apparent expiry date? The whole deal stinks of tapping up, and as Grealish said, they'd had this in motion for months. The details of the clause had clearly been shared with City. Between the Grealish and Kane sagas this summer, it's clear how City do business. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Davkaus