Demitri_C Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 Just now, Stevo985 said: Price range is relative though. Look at someone like Veron. £30m 25 years ago isn’t that much different than 100m now. And just because you cost more doesn’t automatically make you a bigger flop. Phillips is a far bigger flop than Grealish, even though he cost a lot less. I mean i do agree that phillips has been a absolute flop but they paid 45m for him. They paid 55m extra for grealish thats a hell of a lot more money. If grealish was going for around 60m then its hand down phllips. But for that price tag for me grealish is a huge flop for them. I disagree price is a very important part of being a flop. I mean if you sogn someone up top for 10m lets say he scores 1 goal for you then you sign another player in same position for 90m and he scores 3 goals most people are gonna say the 90m player is the bigger flop of the two 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 19 VT Supporter Share Posted May 19 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: I mean i do agree that phillips has been a absolute flop but they paid 45m for him. They paid 55m extra for grealish thats a hell of a lot more money. If grealish was going for around 60m then its hand down phllips. But for that price tag for me grealish is a huge flop for them. I disagree price is a very important part of being a flop. I mean if you sogn someone up top for 10m lets say he scores 1 goal for you then you sign another player in same position for 90m and he scores 3 goals most people are gonna say the 90m player is the bigger flop of the two I didn’t say price didn’t matter. I just said being a higher price doesn’t automatically make you a bigger flop. Phillips is a far bigger flop than Grealish. At least Grealish contributed something. Fair enough it’s far below what he should have for that price. But Phillips has barely played and when he has he’s been shit. He’s not automatically less of a flop just because he cost less Edited May 19 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted May 19 Share Posted May 19 There was a funny stat during the City game earlier. Phillips didn’t play for West Ham because of the loan agreement. If instead he was eligible to play for City and was in the squad he’d have got a league winners medal for 5 match involvements. Instead he watched and managed to lose twice. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thug Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 11 hours ago, Stevo985 said: They signed Kalvin Phillips the same year (I think). An actual flop. Like I said , Grealish doesn’t make the top 100 flops in prem history, let alone the biggest ever. Absolutely mental take Can you name 100 bigger flops than him? not saying I disagree… but it would be an interesting list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 45 minutes ago, Thug said: Can you name 100 bigger flops than him? not saying I disagree… but it would be an interesting list. Pogba, Pepe, Nunez, Shevchenko, Phillips then entering Grealish territory Veron wasnt that big a flop, he played weekly and United didnt really know how to play him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thug Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 3 minutes ago, Zatman said: Pogba, Pepe, Nunez, Shevchenko, Phillips then entering Grealish territory Veron wasnt that big a flop, he played weekly and United didnt really know how to play him Good start. I would add Anthony to that list, Sancho. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 4 minutes ago, Zatman said: United didnt really know how to play him So like grealish then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thug Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 4 minutes ago, Thug said: Good start. I would add Anthony to that list, Sancho. Alexis Sanchez to Man Utd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 Kepa to Chelsea Haller to west ham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 5 minutes ago, villa4europe said: So like grealish then... Nope Fergie wanted to build a team around him but couldnt get a system Pep never even tried with Grealish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 20 VT Supporter Share Posted May 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, Thug said: Can you name 100 bigger flops than him? not saying I disagree… but it would be an interesting list. I already said I was making a point with a 100, so I probably couldn't. But I'd say Veron, Forlan, Mutu, Shevchenko, Taibi, Pogba, Steve Marlet, Rebrov, Brolin, Pepe, Kepa, Jeffers, Bogarde, Maccarone, Aquilani, Balaban, Marcelino, Luque, Kleberson, Bellion, Sutton (to Chelsea), Boumsong, Alfonso Alves, Kezman, Bentley (to Spurs), Hugo Viana, MIchael Owen (to newcastle), Sanchez to Man Utd, Anthony, Caciedo, Phillips were all comfortably bigger flops than Grealish (the last few may change but as of now they're looking like big ol flopparoonies) So there's 30 right off the bat Most of them are actual flops. Not just Grealish style where he's actually played a lot of games, contributed quite hewavily in one treble winning season, but hasn't quite lived up to the price tag. Most of that list were actually shit, barely played, never scored, or all of the above Edited May 20 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 20 VT Supporter Share Posted May 20 3 hours ago, Stevo985 said: But I'd say Veron, Forlan, Mutu, Shevchenko, Taibi, Pogba, Steve Marlet, Rebrov, Brolin, Pepe, Kepa, Jeffers, Bogarde, Maccarone, Aquilani, Balaban, Marcelino, Luque, Kleberson, Bellion, Sutton (to Chelsea), Boumsong, Alfonso Alves, Kezman, Bentley (to Spurs), Hugo Viana, MIchael Owen (to newcastle), Sanchez to Man Utd, Anthony, Caciedo, Phillips were all comfortably bigger flops than Grealish (the last few may change but as of now they're looking like big ol flopparoonies) And that's before you start on the flops that we've bought. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 It's funny, you can look at it in a couple of ways. On the one hand, I think if you'd said to a City fan before they'd signed him, 'this guy will cost you £100m but he'll be a crucial part of a team that wins the domestic + CL treble', they'd have bit your hands off and not considered that bad value for money at all. On the other hand, I think they'd also imagine that a guy who achieved that with them would be a damn sight better than he has been in the seasons around it. If he was downbeat yesterday, it may well be in part because he knows he didn't really contribute anything much to their success this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 Getting the ball, cutting in, then passing it off to someone else every once in a while is an essential contribution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 I think it's hard for us (Villa) to rationalise a massive transfer fee alongside not starting every game/contributing loads of goals and assists. Grealish hasn't played as much this season as he has in past seasons for Man City - but, then, they brought in Doku who is basically a direct challenge/rotation option for his position. Grealish has played the equivalent of 11 PL games this season, Doku around 16. They've both been involved in getting Man City another title and, therefore, it's hard to really quantify either as a "flop" despite Grealish's (in particular) end product figures not being good at all (then again, they were never great at Villa and I always remember discussing him as the "assist before the assist" player). He's played a lot for them (overall) and has helped them win a lot. He's not a flop - but it feels weird discussing a £100m move such context. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy7211 Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 After his move, and it came to light that Jack had been fluttering his eyelashes at every team above us for the previous seasons, I was convinced that City only signed him to stop him going anywhere else. Jack playing for the other Sky 6 rivals like he played for us would have made the others stronger. They spent £100m on him and however much on Phillips just to stop the other teams around them improving. Jack would have left us for any of the other clubs, his flirtations with Spurs and Man U prove it. This would definitely have harmed City's chances of being totally and completely dominant. My thought's haven't changed on this. Yes Jack has won trophies, but he's never in a million years a complete Pep player. Pep wouldn't play him at all if he lost the ball as much now as he did when he was here (Not a Jack criticism, when running at players he was brilliant). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 1 hour ago, Jonesy7211 said: After his move, and it came to light that Jack had been fluttering his eyelashes at every team above us for the previous seasons, I was convinced that City only signed him to stop him going anywhere else. Jack playing for the other Sky 6 rivals like he played for us would have made the others stronger. They spent £100m on him and however much on Phillips just to stop the other teams around them improving. Jack would have left us for any of the other clubs, his flirtations with Spurs and Man U prove it. This would definitely have harmed City's chances of being totally and completely dominant. My thought's haven't changed on this. Yes Jack has won trophies, but he's never in a million years a complete Pep player. Pep wouldn't play him at all if he lost the ball as much now as he did when he was here (Not a Jack criticism, when running at players he was brilliant). Yep. Pep played for 90 minutes in the CL final just 12 months ago just to spite the 'Sky 6' 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don_Simon Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 1 hour ago, Jonesy7211 said: After his move, and it came to light that Jack had been fluttering his eyelashes at every team above us for the previous seasons, I was convinced that City only signed him to stop him going anywhere else. Jack playing for the other Sky 6 rivals like he played for us would have made the others stronger. They spent £100m on him and however much on Phillips just to stop the other teams around them improving. Jack would have left us for any of the other clubs, his flirtations with Spurs and Man U prove it. This would definitely have harmed City's chances of being totally and completely dominant. My thought's haven't changed on this. Yes Jack has won trophies, but he's never in a million years a complete Pep player. Pep wouldn't play him at all if he lost the ball as much now as he did when he was here (Not a Jack criticism, when running at players he was brilliant). This is absolutely mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 3 hours ago, villaajax said: Getting the ball, cutting in, then passing it off to someone else every once in a while is an essential contribution! The Ashley Westwood of wide players 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy7211 Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 1 hour ago, rodders0223 said: Yep. Pep played for 90 minutes in the CL final just 12 months ago just to spite the 'Sky 6' I get that he played, but this was nearly 2 years after signing for them and he was playing as well as he's played since leaving. His 1st and 3rd seasons have been rather different in terms of big game appearances, let alone total appearances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts