Wainy316 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 **** Liverpool, we should do everything we can to make it as difficult for them as possible just because they're Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm resigned to losing Benteke, but I'm surprised that he is considering Liverpool? They couldn't make a CL spot without Suarez and I really doubt that they can do so next season without Sterling and Gerrard - 5th-8th looks about their level. A move to MU (or any other CL team) would make much more sense I also think that Benteke 1) won't suit their style of play and 2) will not be g'teed a place once Sturridge is fit again. I think he thrives on being the main man aand he needs to look at what happened to the careers of Carroll, Lambert and Balotelli once they rocked up at Liverpool As I say, not sour grapes as I'm resigned to losing him but why swap a team that may finish 10th-12th for one that will probably finish 5th-8th? A small progression but I would have thought that he needs CL football at this stage of his career Totally agree with your sentiment, though care very little about where he goes and what he does...if he's shit at Liverpool I won't shed a tear for them and at the same time I don't wish it on Benteke to become a flop at the kop. I can see benteke being dragged off on his few too many "lazy days" at liverplop, to be honest. I do care a little about where he ends up......in a dream world I could see us in and around Liverpool (!!) but can't imagine challenging the top four. so I guess I would rather see him go to someone who is less of a "potential rival" like MU 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Yes, he would seem ideal for Chelsea. I'd much rather see him there or at another top 4 club Maybe no CL side has come in for him and he thinks a move to Liverpool (with a suitable release clause) will give him a pay rise and a better shop window. I think it could go either wat for him - either he hits the ground running and is a huge success or he has a run of form like he had for us part of last season and he fades away. I think this is exactly how it is, no top 4 side sees any value in him at the price being around. But that shouldn't matter, all that matters is what's right for Villa...we got someone who's willing to pay the money and unlock the funds for us to advance. In the end, that's what counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm genuinely amazed that anyone is making any noise at all about staggered payments. Firstly it's Twitter of course so nonsense, but secondly as everyone's been pointing out this is standard practice. From an accounts point of view the money is essence ours (whether we get out now or in bits over the next 2 years or whatever) so we can spend it because we will get the money. It'll have no effect on is buying anyone else. I see what you are saying but it does have an impact because all business operate on cashflows. Companies don't go out of business because of lack of profitability, but because of lack of cashflow. Presumably this isn't a significant issue for Villa with television deals and steady income... but it isn't irrelevant. What if benteke's replacement requires all cash up front? It is a standard practice but it isn't the standard practice. There are different ways of doing business. It impacts our cashflow and readily available cash. This could mean we get less interest from the bank - which means less income. On a deal of £32m I would expect this to be in six figures. This could impact how much we could pay players and thus what quality we could get in. Furthermore It could have a tax impact. Not saying any of the above is irrelevant... just I would imagine to the accountants in the finance team I think it would matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Please stay Benteke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted July 17, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 17, 2015 Maybe were trying to make it impossible for lpool to meet our payment requirements, £32.5m hard cash or £40m in installment's, the devil is in the detail of the contract he signed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm genuinely amazed that anyone is making any noise at all about staggered payments. Firstly it's Twitter of course so nonsense, but secondly as everyone's been pointing out this is standard practice. From an accounts point of view the money is essence ours (whether we get out now or in bits over the next 2 years or whatever) so we can spend it because we will get the money. It'll have no effect on is buying anyone else. I see what you are saying but it does have an impact because all business operate on cashflows. Companies don't go out of business because of lack of profitability, but because of lack of cashflow. Presumably this isn't a significant issue for Villa with television deals and steady income... but it isn't irrelevant. What if benteke's replacement requires all cash up front? It is a standard practice but it isn't the standard practice. There are different ways of doing business. It impacts our cashflow and readily available cash. This could mean we get less interest from the bank - which means less income. On a deal of £32m I would expect this to be in six figures. This could impact how much we could pay players and thus what quality we could get in. Furthermore It could have a tax impact. Not saying any of the above is irrelevant... just I would imagine to the accountants in the finance team I think it would matter... Aston Villa aren't in danger of going out of business though, we have no such cash flow issues. Neither do Liverpool. So the point is moot. We pay accountants a lot of money to ensure there are no negative tax implications. We are talking about a business that turns over £150m a year as if they are a corner shop. Ellis left 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 This, i doubt many if any big deals are done in one swift payment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm genuinely amazed that anyone is making any noise at all about staggered payments. Firstly it's Twitter of course so nonsense, but secondly as everyone's been pointing out this is standard practice. From an accounts point of view the money is essence ours (whether we get out now or in bits over the next 2 years or whatever) so we can spend it because we will get the money. It'll have no effect on is buying anyone else. If it's a release clause trigger it needs to be up front to activate the clause. That prevents clubs from bidding a quid and spreading the rest over a set period. It's different for a regular transfer where there's wiggle room for negotiation, but for a release clause it's the whole hog up front or the clause isn't activated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 You've seen the clause then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 You've seen the clause then? Obviously not, but think about it with your common sense hat on for a minute. Why would a release clause allow a club to essentially pay nothing up front, and the rest over 100 years (which would be the case if there was no specific noted about it in the clause)? It's a release clause, which means the player can be released when the fee is paid, not when the fee is agreed to be paid over x amount of years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 This, i doubt many if any big deals are done in one swift payment The vast majority are done over payments. This is not a regular transfer though, it's a release clause triggered transfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grobs Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 As much as i love Benteke and will be sad to see him go, especially to Liverpool, £32 mill is a great price for us and we should be able to improve the overall quality of the 11. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Do you think we have a sell on fee included in the clause as well? I'd hope for 10% of c.£60mil when he moves on in three years. Doubt it. It wouldn't really fit with the nature of a release clause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 As much as i love Benteke and will be sad to see him go, especially to Liverpool, £32 mill is a great price for us and we should be able to improve the overall quality of the 11. I'm clinging to the only positive around this. The team was unbalanced, not enough players anywhere near his quality so the money, if spent wisely, can help correct that. I'd rather have 5 or 6 players of Delph's quality, than one Benteke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClarrieBlue Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Taking into account how long LFC took to pay the Downing fee by installments I say we are more than justified in demanding full payment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightysasquatch Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Isn't it Standard practice that usually half the fee is paid up front & the remaining 12 months later? I'm talking about domestic transfers here...remember seeing something on it once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Isn't it Standard practice that usually half the fee is paid up front & the remaining 12 months later? I'm talking about domestic transfers here...remember seeing something on it once That wouldn't be triggering a clause though, that'd be paying half of the clause and triggering it a year later when the rest is paid. This isn't a standard practice transfer. Depending on what's in the contract, we don't have to sell until someone gives us 32.5m (or whatever the figure is) for Benteke. 16m now and 16m next year does not equal someone giving us 32m for him now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 17, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) Isn't it Standard practice that usually half the fee is paid up front & the remaining 12 months later? I'm talking about domestic transfers here...remember seeing something on it once That wouldn't be triggering a clause though, that'd be paying half of the clause and triggering it a year later when the rest is paid. This isn't a standard practice transfer. Depending on what's in the contract, we don't have to sell until someone gives us 32.5m (or whatever the figure is) for Benteke. 16m now and 16m next year does not equal someone giving us 32m for him now Are you making this up on the fly? Because I'm really not sure that's how it works. 16m now and 16m next year is a £32m transfer. When it's paid is almost irrelevant, as I understand it. Edited July 17, 2015 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Isn't it Standard practice that usually half the fee is paid up front & the remaining 12 months later? I'm talking about domestic transfers here...remember seeing something on it once That wouldn't be triggering a clause though, that'd be paying half of the clause and triggering it a year later when the rest is paid. This isn't a standard practice transfer. Depending on what's in the contract, we don't have to sell until someone gives us 32.5m (or whatever the figure is) for Benteke. 16m now and 16m next year does not equal someone giving us 32m for him now Are you making this up on the fly? Because I'm really not sure that's how it works. So what's to stop pool bidding nothing up front, and the rest on the last possible day, but planning to sell him before that point at a profit so he costs them nothing apart from wages? By your logic we'd be bound to accept that deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts