The RJW63 Official Jack Grealish Appreciation Thread

[HanoiVillan]

7 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Don't think I subscribe to the idea that the 100m release clause was beyond what anybody thought he'd be worth at the time. If that were true, why would it even be inserted? In his own words:

He obviously had designs on leaving as early as summer 2020 at the very least. It's not like the City bid just sprang up out of nowhere and he had to make a difficult decision like some people are making out. This was the plan.

Both can be true at the same time of course, as in maybe Villa thought no-one would pay £100m, or it would be very unlikely, but maybe Jack and his agent backed him to be worth it at some point down the line.

If Villa didn't want to sell him badly enough, then we could simply not have offered him a new contract with a release clause. If that was an actual dealbreaker, we had the opportunity of taking the deal off the table - but we didn't.

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, Keyblade said:

I bet if he didn't sign that contract and/or didn't put in a release clause, and still ended up leaving, there'd be a lot less animosity. Like if City still bid 100m and we accepted it, and Jack didn't really have any machinations on moving until the bid actually came in, I don't think anybody would blame him. Villa fans are passionate, but they're not deluded. We'd know we're quite a ways off winning a trophy or playing regular CL football.

 

4 hours ago, El Zen said:

I think that’s quite accurate. 

But City wouldn't have bid £100m, so if he had left without signing a new deal or without the release clause, then he'd have left for something much less, and instead of 'how dare he sign a new contract then leave' it would be 'how dare the club sell our best ever asset for less than Newcastle paid for Joelinton' or whatever.

I've got to be honest, I just don't believe this 'it's not that he left, it's the way he left' argument. It's because it's *him*, and we're all gutted about it. Okay to admit it IMO.

[Keyblade]

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

But City wouldn't have bid £100m, so if he had left without signing a new deal or without the release clause, then he'd have left for something much less, and instead of 'how dare he sign a new contract then leave' it would be 'how dare the club sell our best ever asset for less than Newcastle paid for Joelinton' or whatever.

I've got to be honest, I just don't believe this 'it's not that he left, it's the way he left' argument. It's because it's *him*, and we're all gutted about it. Okay to admit it IMO.

Why wouldn't they have bid 100m? We know it isn't beyond them financially. If there was no release clause, Villa would still be well within their rights to ask for that much if not more. They bid more for Harry Kane, after buying Grealish no less.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here, I'm referring to a scenario where he didn't include a release clause but still signed a new deal. Obviously if he didn't sign one and left for 40m or whatever, we can only blame ourselves surely? I think we could have still commanded 50m though.

But that's all besides the point I think. Basically what I'm saying is, if he wasn't angling for a move for the past 12 months while projecting the exact opposite, I don't think it's really that unfair to say their would have been a markedly different reaction from the fans. I think they value honesty and transparency, and in the absence of it, at the very least they'd appreciate if it wasn't feigned. It'd be a much easier pill to swallow if you knew where he stood on the matter, or could make an educated guess. The bitterness I believe comes from being misled. For an example of the former, see Benteke.

[Keyblade]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Both can be true at the same time of course, as in maybe Villa thought no-one would pay £100m, or it would be very unlikely, but maybe Jack and his agent backed him to be worth it at some point down the line.

If Villa didn't want to sell him badly enough, then we could simply not have offered him a new contract with a release clause. If that was an actual dealbreaker, we had the opportunity of taking the deal off the table - but we didn't.

If we take the deal off the table, he goes into the last 2 years of his contract.  I think it was clear he would have left that summer had a suitable offer came in from United.

I imagine they accepted the clause with gritted teeth as at the very least it'd guarantee us a very sizeable fee, close to what we'd realistically value him at. If he left this summer without a new contract, it would have likely been for half of that. That extra 50m got us Bailey and Ings to be fair. It was a sensible move by the club, but one where they had very little choice in, as Jack held most of the cards.

[Spoony]

10 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Change that to £2m and relegated or £1m with success and it's a far more interesting thought experiment, considering Grealish would have made enough money to set his family up for life when at plucky little Villa.

I mean if you’re actually going to be realistic, make it £18.2m but let’s say you get the joy of England winning the World Cup and Villa don’t win anything, or £13m but Villa win the champions league and England probably still win the World Cup. 

[StanBalaban]

3 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Why wouldn't they have bid 100m? We know it isn't beyond them financially. If there was no release clause, Villa would still be well within their rights to ask for that much if not more. They bid more for Harry Kane, after buying Grealish no less.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here, I'm referring to a scenario where he didn't include a release clause but still signed a new deal. Obviously if he didn't sign one and left for 40m or whatever, we can only blame ourselves surely? I think we could have still commanded 50m though.

But that's all besides the point I think. Basically what I'm saying is, if he wasn't angling for a move for the past 12 months while projecting the exact opposite, I don't think it's really that unfair to say their would have been a markedly different reaction from the fans. I think they value honesty and transparency, and in the absence of it, at the very least they'd appreciate if it wasn't feigned. It'd be a much easier pill to swallow if you knew where he stood on the matter, or could make an educated guess. The bitterness I believe comes from being misled. For an example of the former, see Benteke.

Without the release clause, there is no new deal unfortunately.

[El Zen]

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I've got to be honest, I just don't believe this 'it's not that he left, it's the way he left' argument. It's because it's *him*, and we're all gutted about it. Okay to admit it IMO.

Well, it’s perfectly possible for it to be both. And it is. Of course it’s overwhelmingly an emotional response to a disapppointing situation. Personally, Jack choosing to leave disappointed me enough to make me not want to like him anymore. Expressing my resentment makes me feel better about the situation. That’s probably childish, but having any kind of emotional attachment to a game is essentially childish in nature. Which is a good thing. It’s healthy to be childish. Life is otherwise serious enough. «Understanding» and «accepting» Jack’s decision is probably rational, but f***ing boring. Football shouldn’t be boring. It should be therapeutically emotional. 

Then I also contend that there are circumstances under which Jack could have left, that would have been more palatable for many. 

It’s both. And that’s okay too.

[StanBalaban]

46 minutes ago, Spoony said:

I mean if you’re actually going to be realistic, make it £18.2m but let’s say you get the joy of England winning the World Cup and Villa don’t win anything, or £13m but Villa win the champions league and England probably still win the World Cup. 

None of these scenarios match up because, imagine you're legitimately one of the best in the world at what you do, but your current employer has a very low chance of offering you any personal success or recognition to show just how good you are. Now add to the mix that your career is also tied somehow to the success of Aston Villa.

Do you take the £18.2m, enjoy being the star man in your country, getting a lots of personal success and recognition along the way from your new job, or take the £13m, stay with your employer, have a chance of getting something whilst also seeing Villa potentially win something. 

Which do you choose, knowing that Villa are in safe hands either way? 

[villa4europe]

Why are you only looking at money? And then only wages? 

Factor in fame, the new sponsorship deals, the worldwide recognition, the national team step up (which is a **** joke) and then the trophies 

The why would a rich man want to be richer stuff is only the tip of the ice berg, man City is recognition that we can't offer him 

Next year when Nike do their world cup advert does Aston Villas Jack grealish get the phone call? Because man city's jack grealish will be one of the stars of it

Edited September 8, 2021 by villa4europe

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, Keyblade said:

If we take the deal off the table, he goes into the last 2 years of his contract.  I think it was clear he would have left that summer had a suitable offer came in from United.

I imagine they accepted the clause with gritted teeth as at the very least it'd guarantee us a very sizeable fee, close to what we'd realistically value him at. If he left this summer without a new contract, it would have likely been for half of that. That extra 50m got us Bailey and Ings to be fair. It was a sensible move by the club, but one where they had very little choice in, as Jack held most of the cards.

I think we're in agreement about what happened, we just interpret it differently. You interpret it (and I can understand why) in a negative way:

6 hours ago, Keyblade said:

...what I'm saying is, if he wasn't angling for a move for the past 12 months while projecting the exact opposite, I don't think it's really that unfair to say their would have been a markedly different reaction from the fans...

...whereas I see what you see as 'angling for a move while projecting the exact opposite' as 'backing himself to play well enough that a club that could match his understandable ambitions would meet his release clause'.

The reason I bring up the club agreeing the contract with a release clause is that they were ultimately prepared to take the money over the determination to never sell him at no matter what cost, so if the club were okay with getting £100m and moving on, I don't see why I shouldn't be okay with it either.

[Stevo985]

14 hours ago, Keyblade said:

I bet if he didn't sign that contract and/or didn't put in a release clause, and still ended up leaving, there'd be a lot less animosity. Like if City still bid 100m and we accepted it, and Jack didn't really have any machinations on moving until the bid actually came in, I don't think anybody would blame him. Villa fans are passionate, but they're not deluded. We'd know we're quite a ways off winning a trophy or playing regular CL football.

You're probably right, which is why it's mental that he's getting so much stick now when in your hypothetical scenario NOT signing a new contract was making it easier for himself to leave.

 

In reality we wouldn't be getting £100m bids for him if he hadn't signed that new contract

[Stevo985]

4 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Why are you only looking at money? And then only wages? 

Factor in fame, the new sponsorship deals, the worldwide recognition, the national team step up (which is a **** joke) and then the trophies 

The why would a rich man want to be richer stuff is only the tip of the ice berg, man City is recognition that we can't offer him 

Next year when Nike do their world cup advert does Aston Villas Jack grealish get the phone call? Because man city's jack grealish will be one of the stars of it

Basic hierarchy of needs psychology.

Money is only a truly motivating factor when you don't have enough of it.

If anyone thinks Grealish's motivation for leaving was more money then they're quite frankly wrong. It's just a nice stick to beat him with.

[Wainy316]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

If anyone thinks Grealish's motivation for leaving was more money then they're quite frankly wrong. It's just a nice stick to beat him with.

City fans are still convinced that we offered him more.  Was that ever debunked? 

Heard they're giving him £370k.  No way we'd offer that.

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

City fans are still convinced that we offered him more.  Was that ever debunked? 

Heard they're giving him £370k.  No way we'd offer that.

I think it was reported that we were going to match their salary.

But I think the £370k is after addons and bonuses and stuff. So maybe we were going to match the base salary?

We'll probably never know

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

City fans are still convinced that we offered him more.  Was that ever debunked? 

Heard they're giving him £370k.  No way we'd offer that.

They used that line with sterling too

The Liverpool fans use the only joined them for money line too

Sterling is a bit harder to tell but in the last year he's become a global ambassador for puma and signed the highest boot deal in history so same as grealish its not just better wages that they can offer 

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Basic hierarchy of needs psychology.

Money is only a truly motivating factor when you don't have enough of it.

If anyone thinks Grealish's motivation for leaving was more money then they're quite frankly wrong. It's just a nice stick to beat him with.

Depending what you mean by 'a truly motivating factor', I'm not sure I agree with this. Obviously footballers like Grealish don't *need* more money from a Maslow perspective, but football is a] a small world in which everyone knows everyone else, and b] unusual in being an industry in which a worker's wages are public knowledge to all. Consequently I think there's a lot of status competition around wages (one example I always think of is Spurs' fans using them 'only' paying Eriksen roughly £70k/week as an example of Levy's hard-bargaining genius, but Eriksen and his agent could also read these arguments, and from their perspective, it must have felt like being a mug who was paid way below market rate).

[stuart_75]

18 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

Villa winning the champions league and the league. £1 million would not make a lot of difference to my life

Absolute baller.

[ThunderPower_14]

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

You're probably right, which is why it's mental that he's getting so much stick now when in your hypothetical scenario NOT signing a new contract was making it easier for himself to leave.

 

In reality we wouldn't be getting £100m bids for him if he hadn't signed that new contract

 

Yep,  the release clause was a good thing for us. Without it, we've got Grealish probably handing in a transfer request while Man City offer us £60mil as a starting point and we get painted as career ruiners in the media for standing in his way.

With the release clause we can just ignore any bid that doesn't meet it. Sure, it means that Grealish was always engineering a move which hurts the soul a bit, but he was doing that anyway. At least the way he did it ensured that we got paid.

Edited September 8, 2021 by ThunderPower_14

[Keyblade]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think we're in agreement about what happened, we just interpret it differently. You interpret it (and I can understand why) in a negative way:

...whereas I see what you see as 'angling for a move while projecting the exact opposite' as 'backing himself to play well enough that a club that could match his understandable ambitions would meet his release clause'.

The reason I bring up the club agreeing the contract with a release clause is that they were ultimately prepared to take the money over the determination to never sell him at no matter what cost, so if the club were okay with getting £100m and moving on, I don't see why I shouldn't be okay with it either.

I'm totally okay with it. I think we're actually a stronger outfit now having sold him. I'm just speculating on how he handled the optics of it all and how that would have altered fans' perception of his move. He (inadvertently probably) violated a few football faux-pas'. I bet we wouldn't see a lot of the SHA-esque obsession had things gone down a little differently.

[Xela]

22 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

Villa winning the champions league and the league. £1 million would not make a lot of difference to my life

All that money and you still can't drink in town. 

Mate.