Summer Transfer Window 2021

[Miltonaggro]

I think we should hold out for £65 million, or £25 million and Matt Targett.

[Chez]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

Might depend on any agreement we have with him for bids over a specified amount.

Even without any clauses though this is Saints we're talking of, not sure if the current set up (Semmens, Crocker, whoever) have the resolve to brazen it out and get a good deal. In my view it should be upwards of £50m given the likely transfer market this summer and amounts touted (someone else made a good point about Buendia at £33m) but suspect Saints board will cave in at £35/40m leaving little time to replace.

do you really think he is worth £50m? If we were Villa and had their money, and looking to progress, would you spend £50m of JWP?

[egg]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

£10m a year is nothing these days. Hoedt, Lemina and Bertrand must have been on roughly that, combined.

It is a lot when we haven't got £10m to spare. Spend it on Interest or players. Not much of a choice is it really. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Miltonaggro said:

I think we should hold out for £65 million, or £25 million and Matt Targett.

Behave! He'll go for about half of that, possibly less. 

[Chez]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

£10m a year is nothing these days. Hoedt, Lemina and Bertrand must have been on roughly that, combined.

I plucked that number out of the air and if that was the figure, it would just be the interest payment. The debt wouldn't go down. How about we pay £25m a year? Is that still nothing?

[ErwinK1961]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

Behave! He'll go for about half of that, possibly less. 

You think we’ll sell for £30-32.5m, after rejecting a £25m bid and dismissing it as derisory?

[egg]

Just now, ErwinK1961 said:

You think we’ll sell for £30-32.5m, after rejecting a £25m bid and dismissing it as derisory?

Do you think he'll go for £65m? Mental suggestion. The fee will be much nearer £32.5m than £65m.

[S-Clarke]

6 minutes ago, ErwinK1961 said:

You think we’ll sell for £30-32.5m, after rejecting a £25m bid and dismissing it as derisory?

Will probably be somewhere in the £40m region I reckon.

[Dellman]

Why are you all assuming he will leave? I still think he is essential to our way of playing and to our club spirit

[egg]

Just now, Dellman said:

Why are you all assuming he will leave? I still think he is essential to our way of playing and to our club spirit

We're not essential to him.

They're a club going somewhere imo. Very Leicester ish. We're going the other way. Plus a small matter of a massive wage hike, loyalty fee on exit, signing on fee, etc. 

[ErwinK1961]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

Do you think he'll go for £65m? Mental suggestion. The fee will be much nearer £32.5m than £65m.

No I don't, and I never said he would.

I think it’s a mental suggestion to say we’d sell for £32.5m or less, when we’ve just rejected £25m out of hand.

[Lord Duckhunter]

14 minutes ago, Dellman said:

I still think he is essential to our way of playing and to our club spirit

Exactly. Which is why we need to get rid. We’ve absolutely zero spirit or balls, and as you say, he’s integral to that. 

[sadoldgit]

If Villa were going places surely they wouldn’t be looking to sell their best player?   The established wisdom on here is that we are not going anywhere because we sell our best players. Why is that any different for Villa? With Grealish they were average. Why should they be any better without him?

[egg]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

If Villa were going places surely they wouldn’t be looking to sell their best player?   The established wisdom on here is that we are not going anywhere because we sell our best players. Why is that any different for Villa? With Grealish they were average. Why should they be any better without him?

They're not "looking" to sell Grealish any more than we're looking to sell JWP, or Spurs are looking to sell Kane, or Chelsea were looking to sell Hazard, or Real were looking to sell Ronaldo, etc, etc, etc. 

If you honestly believe we're going in a more positive direction than Villa, no doubt you'll set out the details. 

[TWar]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Do you think he'll go for £65m? Mental suggestion. The fee will be much nearer £32.5m than £65m.

He will be much closer to £65m for me, I very much doubt we deal below £50m and I very much doubt Villa reach £50m. It'll be Emile Smith-Rowe all over again, lowball pointless offers and then they will remember they are a midtable side and stop punting above their weight.

[Chez]

31 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If Villa were going places surely they wouldn’t be looking to sell their best player?   The established wisdom on here is that we are not going anywhere because we sell our best players. Why is that any different for Villa? With Grealish they were average. Why should they be any better without him?

Fair point, but Villa have a way to go before they reach the Man City level of the football pyramid. Leicester have sold their best player about three years on a row, but they seem to be getting better...going places?

[Chez]

5 minutes ago, TWar said:

He will be much closer to £65m for me, I very much doubt we deal below £50m and I very much doubt Villa reach £50m. It'll be Emile Smith-Rowe all over again, lowball pointless offers and then they will remember they are a midtable side and stop punting above their weight.

£65m. That seems like bonkers money to me. You could well be right about Villa's ceiling being below our valuation though.

[TWar]

3 minutes ago, Chez said:

£65m. That seems like bonkers money to me. You could well be right about Villa's ceiling being below our valuation though.

It's all about his importance to us really, and Ralph has repeatedly called him our most important player. Skillwise he's probably about £40-45m, but add on an extra £5m for being English, £5m for selling to a rival, and £10m because of how hard he is to replace in our system and I think that's where the money comes from. As Villa don't need English players as their home grown quota is very healthy and they don't need him to complete their team like we do, I see our valuations as being quite far apart.

Edited 31 July, 2021 by TWar

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Chez said:

£65m. That seems like bonkers money to me. You could well be right about Villa's ceiling being below our valuation though.

It is bonkers. He's never a £65m player. That's almost 3 Patson Saka's, or a Jadon Sancho. 

[northam soul]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

It is bonkers. He's never a £65m player. That's almost 3 Patson Saka's, or a Jadon Sancho. 

Or a Carrillo, Hoedt Lemina and Elyonoussi.

 

[egg]

1 minute ago, northam soul said:

Or a Carrillo, Hoedt Lemina and Elyonoussi.

 

Jeez!! 

[SuperSAINT]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

It is bonkers. He's never a £65m player. That's almost 3 Patson Saka's, or a Jadon Sancho. 

 

1 minute ago, northam soul said:

Or a Carrillo, Hoedt Lemina and Elyonoussi.

 

Fred was £61m.

[Chez]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It is bonkers. He's never a £65m player. That's almost 3 Patson Saka's, or a Jadon Sancho. 

I just cant get my head around these figures in the current climate. We have had to take out at £70m loan to pay the bills.  Every other club has had the same financial hit, yet prices seem to be rising. I guess there are few clubs that are covid-proof due to the affluence of owners

[Chez]

2 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

Fred was £61m.

£47m according to the BBC website. But still...

[SuperSAINT]

1 minute ago, Chez said:

£47m according to the BBC website. But still...

[Chez]

6 minutes ago, northam soul said:

Or a Carrillo, Hoedt Lemina and Elyonoussi.

 

the modern day Dixon and Speedie

[whiteleySaint30]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

Will probably be somewhere in the £40m region I reckon.

You suggesting Jack Grealish is worth £60m more than JWP?

[Miltonaggro]

12 hours ago, Turkish said:

He’s on strike

What a shithouse! 

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, egg said:

It is a lot when we haven't got £10m to spare. Spend it on Interest or players. Not much of a choice is it really. 

In the last two years we've offloaded Clasie, Boufal, Hoedt, Lemina, Gunn, Carrillo and hopefully soon we can add Moi, Long and Forster to that. That's only players who were surplus to the squad and added basically nothing, so not including Austin, Bertrand, Cedric, Hojbjerg et. al.

 

Even those six, averaging £50k a week, adds up to £15m a year. If we lose that from the wage bill and can't break even then f**k knows what's going on.

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

If Villa were going places surely they wouldn’t be looking to sell their best player?   The established wisdom on here is that we are not going anywhere because we sell our best players. Why is that any different for Villa? With Grealish they were average. Why should they be any better without him?

Villa are not looking to sell Grealish. Just like we are not looking to sell JWP. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

17 minutes ago, whiteleySaint30 said:

You suggesting Jack Grealish is worth £60m more than JWP?

Yes

[Saint Garrett]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Do you think he'll go for £65m? Mental suggestion. The fee will be much nearer £32.5m than £65m.

He won’t go. 

[Ex Lion Tamer]

My minimum selling prices:

JWP: £48m

Ings: £20m

Vest: £16m

[egg]

24 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

In the last two years we've offloaded Clasie, Boufal, Hoedt, Lemina, Gunn, Carrillo and hopefully soon we can add Moi, Long and Forster to that. That's only players who were surplus to the squad and added basically nothing, so not including Austin, Bertrand, Cedric, Hojbjerg et. al.

 

Even those six, averaging £50k a week, adds up to £15m a year. If we lose that from the wage bill and can't break even then f**k knows what's going on.

None of that has anything to do with spending millions a year on Interest if we can avoid it. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make - for me I'd prefer that we spend money on players/wages, not interest on a loan. 

[Baird of the land]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

He will be much closer to £65m for me, I very much doubt we deal below £50m and I very much doubt Villa reach £50m. It'll be Emile Smith-Rowe all over again, lowball pointless offers and then they will remember they are a midtable side and stop punting above their weight.

Yeah I can’t see us even seriously thinking about any derisory bid under 50m. 

[Ex Lion Tamer]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

None of that has anything to do with spending millions a year on Interest if we can avoid it. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make - for me I'd prefer that we spend money on players/wages, not interest on a loan. 

I agree with this, but hopefully if we can get full houses back at St Mary's this season, then we won't need as much of the loan as we feared and can pay back a big chunk of it early without incurring interest

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

In the last two years we've offloaded Clasie, Boufal, Hoedt, Lemina, Gunn, Carrillo and hopefully soon we can add Moi, Long and Forster to that. That's only players who were surplus to the squad and added basically nothing, so not including Austin, Bertrand, Cedric, Hojbjerg et. al.

 

Even those six, averaging £50k a week, adds up to £15m a year. If we lose that from the wage bill and can't break even then f**k knows what's going on.

And all of that has been done whilst still making a profit from transfers in that period. The only club to do so. What a shit show. The well run club mantra is a sick joke 

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

And all of that has been done whilst still making a profit from transfers in that period. The only club to do so. What a shit show. The well run club mantra is a sick joke 

Making a profit is a good thing, not a bad thing. The issue is how wisely the money has been spent.

[SKD]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Making a profit is a good thing, not a bad thing. The issue is how wisely the money has been spent.

So not well run then? If moneys a premium and you’re wasting it, that’s a pretty poorly ran club imo. 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Making a profit is a good thing, not a bad thing. The issue is how wisely the money has been spent.

Completely missing the point as usual 

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, SKD said:

So not well run then? If moneys a premium and you’re wasting it, that’s a pretty poorly ran club imo. 

Exactly. We’re still fucked despite being the only club to make a profit from transfers. Hideous running of a football club 

[Cartman]

37 minutes ago, Turkish said:

And all of that has been done whilst still making a profit from transfers in that period. The only club to do so. What a shit show. The well run club mantra is a sick joke 

 

19 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Exactly. We’re still fucked despite being the only club to make a profit from transfers. Hideous running of a football club 

17/18 was the last time we made a profit from player trading and the people responsible for driving the club into the ground have been gone for a while now, we have been fairly well run since but are still cleaning up the mess they left behind. So everything you are saying was true 3 years ago, but not now.

[SambaMaverick]

Villa fans on Twitter have decided through a game of Chinese whispers that Grealish is staying so long as their board match his level of ambition. This is apparently how the Bailey deal has been rushed through and this news of the Prowsey deal (apparently Grealish has "personally asked" for the club to sign JWP) has come about. 

 

How deluded can you get?

Edited 1 August, 2021 by SambaMaverick

[Strangely Brown]

8 hours ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

My minimum selling prices:

JWP: £48m

Ings: £20m

Vest: £16m

Just enough to pay back the loan we have taken out 👍

[tajjuk]

The things said on here, Villa are not a Leicester and Grealish is not worth £65 million more than what JWP is.  

Grealish is nowhere nowhere nowhere near what City are reportedly paying, Sancho is a better player than Grealish AND is four years younger, and for some weird reason City are paying like £30 million more than what Utd paid. IF it's actually true and goes through then IMO it will be the most baffling transfer in history and one of the most gross overpays ever.  This is a guy who can't get a start for England and was playing Championship football 2 years ago where the only people vaguely interested were Spurs who put in half hearted bids for him.

£100 million is what you pay for ballon dor winners, not a good winger from a mid table PL club.

 

Also still waiting for someone to show me proof we have spent the loan that people are claiming we need to pay back. 

Edited 1 August, 2021 by tajjuk

[SKD]

12 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

The things said on here, Villa are not a Leicester and Grealish is not worth £65 million more than what JWP is.  

Grealish is nowhere nowhere nowhere near what City are reportedly paying, Sancho is a better player than Grealish AND is four years younger, and for some weird reason City are paying like £30 million more than what Utd paid. IF it's actually true and goes through then IMO it will be the most baffling transfer in history and one of the most gross overpays ever.  This is a guy who can't get a start for England and was playing Championship football 2 years ago where the only people vaguely interested were Spurs who put in half hearted bids for him.

£100 million is what you pay for ballon dor winners, not a good winger from a mid table PL club.

 

Also still waiting for someone to show me proof we have spent the loan that people are claiming we need to pay back. 

Don’t think I could disagree more. Grealish is fantastic and imo, much better than sancho (at this moment). 
 

Given he’s an attacker, a much better and higher profile player than JWP, naturally he’ll command a much higher fee. 

[AlexLaw76]

14 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

The things said on here, Villa are not a Leicester and Grealish is not worth £65 million more than what JWP is.  

Grealish is nowhere nowhere nowhere near what City are reportedly paying, Sancho is a better player than Grealish AND is four years younger, and for some weird reason City are paying like £30 million more than what Utd paid. IF it's actually true and goes through then IMO it will be the most baffling transfer in history and one of the most gross overpays ever.  This is a guy who can't get a start for England and was playing Championship football 2 years ago where the only people vaguely interested were Spurs who put in half hearted bids for him.

£100 million is what you pay for ballon dor winners, not a good winger from a mid table PL club.

 

Also still waiting for someone to show me proof we have spent the loan that people are claiming we need to pay back. 

Sancho cannot get a start for England either.  JwP can't get a place in the squad ffs.

Part of the fee is the 'tax' associated with buying English from within the league.  Look at Ben White, he costs more than Varane! It is what it is.  The last lot of Balon Dor winners are generally Messi and Ronaldo.  How much do you think they would cost if they were available today at 25 years old or what ever?

It is why we buy total unknowns from beyond the league and will probably get relegated over the next season or two.  

[egg]

8 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

The things said on here, Villa are not a Leicester and Grealish is not worth £65 million more than what JWP is.  

Grealish is nowhere nowhere nowhere near what City are reportedly paying, Sancho is a better player than Grealish AND is four years younger, and for some weird reason City are paying like £30 million more than what Utd paid. IF it's actually true and goes through then IMO it will be the most baffling transfer in history and one of the most gross overpays ever.  This is a guy who can't get a start for England and was playing Championship football 2 years ago where the only people vaguely interested were Spurs who put in half hearted bids for him.

£100 million is what you pay for ballon dor winners, not a good winger from a mid table PL club.

 

Also still waiting for someone to show me proof we have spent the loan that people are claiming we need to pay back. 

Grealish is the best English midfielder / winger imo. Whether he's worth £100m isn't for me or you to say, and why it bothers you that one football club are willing to pay that to another I can't understand. 

How much JWP is worth neither of us know, but the £50-65 m some fans claim is mental. He's a decent midfielder who takes a great free kick, that's it. If he goes, I'd like us to get as much as possible, but nobody will pay anything like £50m for him.

The loan. It has to be repaid, that's how it works. Asking fans on a forum for evidence that we've spent it is as daft as me asking for proof that we haven't. However, nobody borrows that amount of money on such high interest rates, without needing the money. The issue is a) paying the interest, anyone with any sense would agree that wasting about 5% of your annual turnover on interest is best avoided; and b) where do we get the capital from to repay any capital we draw down on.

Anyways, I've said more than enough on the subject. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Baird of the land]

32 minutes ago, egg said:

Grealish is the best English midfielder / winger imo. Whether he's worth £100m isn't for me or you to say, and why it bothers you that one football club are willing to pay that to another I can't understand. 

How much JWP is worth neither of us know, but the £50-65 m some fans claim is mental. He's a decent midfielder who takes a great free kick, that's it. If he goes, I'd like us to get as much as possible, but nobody will pay anything like £50m for him.

The fact is we don’t want to sell, he’s got a long contract, an England international. I find it nuts the suggestion that we wouldn’t make someone pay over the odds (50-60m etc) if they are going to force our hand.

[SuperSAINT]

17 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

The fact is we don’t want to sell, he’s got a long contract, an England international. I find it nuts the suggestion that we wouldn’t make someone pay over the odds (50-60m etc) if they are going to force our hand.

Especially when they are just about to get £100m.