Cantwell. Surely there comes a time to draw the line on more

[dylanisabaddog 5,990]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

I agree with virtually all of that. My point is that for whatever reasons (injuries etc) the squad was too weak that even the talents of Buendia and Todd were not remotely capable of saving us from demotion. I think Webber's calculation was that it was impossible for us both to retain all our top talent, and strengthen the team with enough quality in depth so as not to repeat the mistake of having an under-strength squad last time. That trade-off is inevitable given the necessity of our self-funding model sans a beneficent billionaire. Personally I think Webber is spot in about that.

Where I do have a disagreement with you is over the replacement of Skipp. I fully expect Skipp to prove himself to be an international quality player. However, I'm not convinced we have to replace him like for like. If we move to a 4-3-2-1 formation (as we did the other night) I think PLM, Gilmour and Rupp (McClean and another) between them have more than enough guile and anticipation to switch between defensive and attacking duties as the situation dictates. Indeed, I think a three-man midfield looks a far more promising possiblity than a two-man set-up with Skiip at number 6. Skipp's "weakness" (seems a sin to suggest such a thing) was in his contribution to attacking play, PLM, Gilmour, and Rupp are all excellent passers of the ball capable of moving play quickly into counter-attack (something I think we shall rely on more this time round). Only time will tell.

Have to disagree about Skipp. He's a very good scrapper indeed but he's not top 6 standard. Apparently Newcastle are interested which I would think is about his level.  I think Gilmour and Lees-Melou will be an improvement in that area. 

The standard for defensive midfielders is set by someone like Phillips at Leeds who can do everything Skipp does but can pass the ball forwards as well. 

[horsefly 5,281]

5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Have to disagree about Skipp. He's a very good scrapper indeed but he's not top 6 standard. Apparently Newcastle are interested which I would think is about his level.  I think Gilmour and Lees-Melou will be an improvement in that area. 

The standard for defensive midfielders is set by someone like Phillips at Leeds who can do everything Skipp does but can pass the ball forwards as well. 

Yep! that's what I said about Skipp too "Indeed, I think a three-man midfield looks a far more promising possiblity than a two-man set-up with Skipp at number 6. Skipp's "weakness" (seems a sin to suggest such a thing) was in his contribution to attacking play, PLM, Gilmour, and Rupp are all excellent passers of the ball capable of moving play quickly into counter-attack (something I think we shall rely on more this time round)."

[French fan 1]

On 04/08/2021 at 23:00, PurpleCanary said:

If the fans really need to be mobilised then the obvious solution is a crowd-funded appeal to pay for a ‘Cantwell must stay’ banner to be flown over Carrow Road.

Or crowd-fund 40 million and there will be no need to sell anyone - only about 2,000 each.

[Badger 2,743]

23 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

As I see it too Badger. 

So - hypothetically - if we could say no to a £40 million bid without disgruntling Cantwell, would you reject it? I think I would - which does sound crazy to say.

But sadly I'm not sure we do have the power to say no, with our position on selling our players already so clear in the public (and most definitely to the players too) - I fear Webber can't now go back on his word. 

Best case scenario is that we don't actually get any formal bids for him, of course!

 

If he were totally ok and totally gruntled. I think that I probably would reject it because we already have a lot of disruption in forward areas. However, I would worry about it not working - one badly timed challenge and he could be out for half the season + there is no guarantee that he will look anything like a £40 million footballer - he is still quite untested at the highest level. Refusing the offer would be a great gamble, but if he were fully committed one that I would take in this year's circumstances. 

If he really wants to go, however, it would be a no brainer, we would have to let him go. The harmony of the squad is so important to what we do, you can't risk it for one player.

[VillaFan 118]

On 04/08/2021 at 23:07, Hank shoots Skyler said:

£25 mil for Pukki on deadline day?

He is 31 years old with 12 months left on his contract. 😀

[VillaFan 118]

On 05/08/2021 at 08:52, Jim Smith said:

They have signed fixed term contracts which they should honour

Does that also apply to the club? Should clubs honour the full duration of the contract when they want to sell a player and the player would prefer not to leave?

[VillaFan 118]

On 05/08/2021 at 12:11, dylanisabaddog said:

Can I just add to that the fact that we lost £35m because of Covid. Where on earth do people think that sort of money is coming from? 

Further to that you lost out of about 45m parachute payment which you didn't get last year. Yes you will get PL money for this season but not getting para payment has a big impact

[BigFish 2,257]

12 minutes ago, VillaFan said:

Does that also apply to the club? Should clubs honour the full duration of the contract when they want to sell a player and the player would prefer not to leave?

Professional football is a brutal business with no room for sentiment. Fans can afford to be sentimental, clubs are not and players need to take that into account when making decisions about their career.

[VillaFan 118]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

Fans can afford to be sentimental, clubs are not and players need to take that into account when making decisions

Clubs need to take into account that players may want to leave during the term of the contract. This happens to all clubs every transfer window. Fans just don't like this. They want the club to sell their weak players and keep their good players. Of course, either the player or the club can dig their heals in and either make the player train with the u23s and keep them away from the 1st team or the player can stop putting in the effort on the pitch. Either way the club and player are likely to lose a lot of money as a result. The club must protect their assets and if that means selling a player they are effectively forced into doing so.

[TheGunnShow 7,254]

Just now, VillaFan said:

Clubs need to take into account that players may want to leave during the term of the contract. This happens to all clubs every transfer window. Fans just don't like this. They want the club to sell their weak players and keep their good players. Of course, either the player or the club can dig their heals in and either make the player train with the u23s and keep them away from the 1st team or the player can stop putting in the effort on the pitch. Either way the club and player are likely to lose a lot of money as a result. The club must protect their assets and if that means selling a player they are effectively forced into doing so.

Precisely, and what fans often forget - particularly with younger players - is that tying them down to long contracts is what ensures a decent return on investment in most cases as essentially the potential buyer has to buy out that contract, or at least factor it into discussion when negotiating transfer fees.

The notion that we should just force them to work out their contract is a remnant from the days when clubs had all the power, so before the Bosman ruling for starters, yet has remained in an attenuated form up to this day - mainly amongst idealists over realists.

[VillaFan 118]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

is that tying them down to long contracts is what ensures a decent return on investment

100%, long contracts are there to ensure a future sell on value for the club. The cost to the club is a higher salary during this period. That is how the system works. I think fans too often forget that the players view the club as their employer and playing football is their job. They have a very short career and it is completely understandable why players want to leave. Exactly why Grealish just left Villa, he was a genuine Villa supporter, his family were Villa, his great great grandfather won the FA cup for Villa in 1904. Yet, he left for City when Villa offered him 200k a week. Players want to progress their careers and if a fair price is agreed for the sale then I think the club should be happy and accept it. It sucks as a fan but c'est la vie!

Edited August 7, 2021 by VillaFan

[Peanuts 150]

Pretty unequivocal here from Bailiey

 

[Peanuts 150]

I tried to embed the twitter post above but who knows with the forum on the blink again.

Quote from Bailey is "For the record, Villa will not be coming for Todd Cantwell during this window - so scrub that one off."

[Capt. Pants 4,882]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

 

If he really wants to go, however, it would be a no brainer, we would have to let him go. The harmony of the squad is so important to what we do, you can't risk it for one player.

Agreed, but the flipside is with the proceeds 2, maybe 3 players come in. Players like Rupp, McLean, Hernandez, Placheta, Zimmermann, even Sorensen won't get in the matchday squad let alone team.

There could be several unhappy bunnies and lack of harmony.

[Monty13 2,710]

8 minutes ago, Peanuts said:

I tried to embed the twitter post above but who knows with the forum on the blink again.

Quote from Bailey is "For the record, Villa will not be coming for Todd Cantwell during this window - so scrub that one off."

He’s changed tune from literally yesterday. Must have heard something pretty firm to make him make such a definitive statement.

[Capt. Pants 4,882]

49 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

He’s changed tune from literally yesterday. Must have heard something pretty firm to make him make such a definitive statement.

Bailey says that quote was from Thursday, what did Purslow say yesterday?

Todd not featuring today so make of that what you will.

[Midlands Yellow 4,672]

12 hours ago, VillaFan said:

Further to that you lost out of about 45m parachute payment which you didn't get last year. Yes you will get PL money for this season but not getting para payment has a big impact

Norwich still get the 20/21 parachute payment of £40m+, obviously not the next two dues ones because of promotion. 

[VillaFan 118]

12 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Norwich still get the 20/21 parachute payment of £40m+, obviously not the next two dues ones because of promotion. 

That is not the case. Para payments are paid at the end of the season and any team that is promoted does not receive any para payment. The money not paid to Norwich and Watford is divided out between the 20 clubs that were in the PL last season. 

There are lots of references if you Google it but there is one link below

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-premier-league-parachute-5345215

[Midlands Yellow 4,672]

1 hour ago, VillaFan said:

That is not the case. Para payments are paid at the end of the season and any team that is promoted does not receive any para payment. The money not paid to Norwich and Watford is divided out between the 20 clubs that were in the PL last season. 

There are lots of references if you Google it but there is one link below

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-premier-league-parachute-5345215

Ben Godfrey left for Everton for £25m and Jamal Lewis to Newcastle for £15m but the club were able to keep hold of Max Aarons, Todd Cantwell, Teemu Pukki and newly-crowned Championship Player of the Year, Emi Buendia. That core of players has won them the title while the £40m raised in sales helped bridge the gap between the two divisions. However, without the extra £42.6m they were given in parachute payments, they may have been forced to sell another one of those four stars.

[Alex Moss 2,167]

On 05/08/2021 at 15:33, Jim Smith said:

Where have I said that? Ive said I find it surprising our fan base just accepts it. I’ve not said anyone is thick. 

⬇️

On 05/08/2021 at 17:29, PurpleCanary said:

You may not have used that word, but your posting history is one long tirade against what you do see as many fans' sheep-like acceptance of the owners and their supposedly unambitious and limiting ownership model. That is tantamount to regarding them as stupid, or gullible. I don't see much difference there.

In one, Purple 👍 - explained perfectly, and exactly why I said ‘BASICALLY calling people thick’ rather than a direct quote.

For what’s it’s worth, we already have a bit more cash to spend, that is evident.

But if we sold Todd for £40mil plus add ons, and used that large sum of money for a quality CDM and additional CB, plus some in the coffers for another attacker if needs be (that said 2 almost certain this week), I would suggest that would make our team considerably stronger than just with Todd alone. And no prizes for guessing what that would mean at the end of the season. Will be delighted if we can keep Todd on the proviso he signs a new contract, but if not I’d rather we made the whole team stronger rather than focus on one individual player.

[Alex Moss 2,167]

On 05/08/2021 at 15:33, Jim Smith said:

Where have I said that? Ive said I find it surprising our fan base just accepts it. I’ve not said anyone is thick. 

⬇️

On 05/08/2021 at 17:29, PurpleCanary said:

You may not have used that word, but your posting history is one long tirade against what you do see as many fans' sheep-like acceptance of the owners and their supposedly unambitious and limiting ownership model. That is tantamount to regarding them as stupid, or gullible. I don't see much difference there.

In one, Purple 👍 - explained perfectly, and exactly why I said ‘BASICALLY calling people thick’ rather than a direct quote.

For what’s it’s worth, we already have a bit more cash to spend, that is evident.

But if we sold Todd for £40mil plus add ons, and used that large sum of money for a quality CDM and additional CB, plus some in the coffers for another attacker if needs be (that said 2 almost certain this week), I would suggest that would make our team considerably stronger than just with Todd alone. And no prizes for guessing what that would mean at the end of the season. Will be delighted if we can keep Todd on the proviso he signs a new contract, but if not I’d rather we made the whole team stronger rather than focus on one individual player.

[VillaFan 118]

45 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

However, without the extra £42.6m they were given in parachute payments, they may have been forced to sell another one of those four stars.

My personal view is that it is wrong not to give Norwich or Watford the money. Para payments are intended to help club with payroll costs upon relegation. Regardless of whether Norwich were promoted or not you still had a season in the Championship with some high wages last season. This season you will ear a lot of money but that is needed for this season and to improve your squad. It is completely ignoring the fact that last season had a massive dip in revenue. And to see that Man City and Man Utd et al got a share of the money (about 4m each) is just wrong imo 

[Midlands Yellow 4,672]

Just now, VillaFan said:

My personal view is that it is wrong not to give Norwich or Watford the money. Para payments are intended to help club with payroll costs upon relegation. Regardless of whether Norwich were promoted or not you still had a season in the Championship with some high wages last season. This season you will ear a lot of money but that is needed for this season and to improve your squad. It is completely ignoring the fact that last season had a massive dip in revenue. And to see that Man City and Man Utd et al got a share of the money (about 4m each) is just wrong imo 

You’ll be pleased to know then that Norwich and Watford get a parachute payment for 20/21. The £83m saving is for the combined payments which would have been received (Watford&Norwich) for seasons 2/3 after relegation.