Aston Villa Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2017

matrim

BUNK1982 wrote: »

Not too put out by Cleverly leaving for Everton - Delph and Westwood are just as good.

I think Robertson from Hull would be a good signing but surely Cissohko deserves a fair shot. Same for Kozak.

If we're going to play a 3 in midfield we probably need to replace him. Gary Gardner seemed to have a good spell on loan so could be an option but I'd like a really energetic box to box midfielder

BUNK1982

matrim wrote: »

If we're going to play a 3 in midfield we probably need to replace him. Gary Gardner seemed to have a good spell on loan so could be an option but I'd like a really energetic box to box midfielder

Yeah I'd like to see Gardner given a shot - there were rumours as well that TS was trying to sign Yohann Cabaye but he is holding out for a move to Crystal Palace!

Mixed bag that one - glad to hear that he's going for players like Cabaye but disappointing to hear that anyone would pick Palace over us...

CSF

BUNK1982 wrote: »

Yeah I'd like to see Gardner given a shot - there were rumours as well that TS was trying to sign Yohann Cabaye but he is holding out for a move to Crystal Palace!

Mixed bag that one - glad to hear that he's going for players like Cabaye but disappointing to hear that anyone would pick Palace over us...

Probably his relationship with Pardew, if there's in fact any truth at all in it.

Wacker The Attacker

Anyone have any doubts over Sherwood or is it just me?

CSF

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Anyone have any doubts over Sherwood or is it just me?

He's unproven so of course there are doubts, but so far so good.

BUNK1982

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Anyone have any doubts over Sherwood or is it just me?

He is untested no doubt but he must have something about him - he captained Blackburn to title when they were the Man City/ Chelsea of their time.

I liked the comments a few weeks back about there being too many losers in the Villa squad. Can't be a coincidence that Roy Keane said the same thing?

CSF

BUNK1982 wrote: »

He is untested no doubt but he must have something about him - he captained Blackburn to title when they were the Man City/ Chelsea of their time.

I liked the comments a few weeks back about there being too many losers in the Villa squad. Can't be a coincidence that Roy Keane said the same thing?

I don't get the impression that him and Keane are cut from the same cloth. Both controversial characters who divide opinion but Sherwood seems to have a way with people, a warmness that Keane will probably never be capable of.

But as for the losers thing, yes, I think Martin O'Neill's transfer policy set in place a culture that the managers since have not been able to wipe out. Sherwood may well be the man to do just that.

BUNK1982

CSF wrote: »

I don't get the impression that him and Keane are cut from the same cloth. Both controversial characters who divide opinion but Sherwood seems to have a way with people, a warmness that Keane will probably never be capable of.

True - he is a very different (better for mgmt.) personality which is why it was telling to me that he also thought they had a losing mentality.

Panrich

I have a feeling if Benteke leaves for the reported fee of £32m early in the window, we'll be struggling as I can see prices going up and up this window.

How about this for crazy!!!!

http://www.teamtalk.com/aston-villa/9875843/-?

Doodee

Panrich wrote: »

I have a feeling if Benteke leaves for the reported fee of £32m early in the window, we'll be struggling as I can see prices going up and up this window.

How about this for crazy!!!!

http://www.teamtalk.com/aston-villa/9875843/-?

I'd hope we would put in a bid for Austin before we sold Benteke if that was the case. With Kozak back next season it could make a decent pairing up front.

cyclops999

Never going to get the players he wants as long as the club is for sale, I cannot for the life of me understand why nobody wants to buy this sleeping giant.

Wacker The Attacker

cyclops999 wrote: »

Never going to get the players he wants as long as the club is for sale, I cannot for the life of me understand why nobody wants to buy this sleeping giant.

I can think of a good reason.

We're crap.

artanevilla

cyclops999 wrote: »

Never going to get the players he wants as long as the club is for sale, I cannot for the life of me understand why nobody wants to buy this sleeping giant.

We're based in Birmingham, not London, which is more fashionable for the discerning billionaire. Man City are the exception, but you're buying into a derby there with one of the worlds biggest clubs.

G

artanevilla wrote: »

We're based in Birmingham, not London, which is more fashionable for the discerning billionaire. Man City are the exception, but you're buying into a derby there with one of the worlds biggest clubs.

City were hardly top of the pops when they were bought but it's definitely easier to build a brand footballing dynasty off a club with Manchester in it's name.

Villa is a sleeping giant and a massive opportunity but in any league there is only room for 4 or 5 big spending clubs and you'd have to drop the better part of half a billion to compete.

Topper Harley

Birmingham's close enough to London for a billionaire to be based in London and fly to Birmingham by heli when needed.

And as much as I'd hate to see Villa turned into some billionaire's toy, it appears it's needed to compete at the top these days.

LeBash

Topper Harley wrote:

And as much as I'd hate to see Villa turned into some billionaire's toy, it appears it's needed to compete at the top these days.

We have a billionaire owner. He plowed huge money into the club. Then got left with a huge wage bill and a bunch of donkeys. He had 6th place finishes at best and 2 losing finals to show for it.

Topper Harley

LeBash wrote: »

We have a billionaire owner. He plowed huge money into the club. Then got left with a huge wage bill and a bunch of donkeys. He had 6th place finishes at best and 2 losing finals to show for it.

But he's old school. He treats it like a business. Nowadays you get billionaires using clubs as their personal play thing and it's only worth their while if they're winning and they'll spare no cost to achieve this but if they aren't successful, they lose interest.

CSF

He might have been more inclined to pump more money in if his initial investment hadnt been pissed away by O'Neill

JPA

Topper Harley wrote: »

But he's old school. He treats it like a business. Nowadays you get billionaires using clubs as their personal play thing and it's only worth their while if they're winning and they'll spare no cost to achieve this but if they aren't successful, they lose interest.

With FFP that's really not true. That thinking is out of date, it existed for a while alright.

Topper Harley

CSF wrote: »

He might have been more inclined to pump more money in if his initial investment hadnt been pissed away by O'Neill

I completely disagree. Every manager has their fair share of flops. O'Neill was given a budget and got decent players within it and did well but ultimately couldn't keep up with the top spending teams so left and we are where we are now largely based on that fact.

We haven't been able to attract top players or keep hold of our best players, so at best, we'll always just be also rans in the Premiership. Martin O'Neill may have spent a fair bit but the teams above us and some below us were spending a lot more.

Topper Harley

JPA wrote: »

With FFP that's really not true. That thinking is out of date, it existed for a while alright.

There's still an element of it there though. Teams that spend big and have top players finish higher, play in Europe, sell out their stadiums and sell more merchandise, all of which leads to being able to spend more on players.

CSF

Topper Harley wrote: »

I completely disagree. Every manager has their fair share of flops. O'Neill was given a budget and got decent players within it and did well but ultimately couldn't keep up with the top spending teams so left and we are where we are now largely based on that fact.

We haven't been able to attract top players or keep hold of our best players, so at best, we'll always just be also rans in the Premiership. Martin O'Neill may have spent a fair bit but the teams above us and some below us were spending a lot more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301712/Buy-buy-Martin-How-ONeill-spent-120million-years-Aston-Villa.html

Have a look. Can't see this not changing your mind.

Corholio

Topper Harley wrote: »

I completely disagree. Every manager has their fair share of flops. O'Neill was given a budget and got decent players within it and did well but ultimately couldn't keep up with the top spending teams so left and we are where we are now largely based on that fact.

We haven't been able to attract top players or keep hold of our best players, so at best, we'll always just be also rans in the Premiership. Martin O'Neill may have spent a fair bit but the teams above us and some below us were spending a lot more.

It wasn't really about spending more on fees, it was the crazy wages some of the players he signed were on. Sidwell, Harewood etc. This had a big ripple effect on every manager since then. He 'couldn't keep up' with the top teams anymore because Lerner got sick of the likes of Sidwell and Harewood cutting their backsides on the bench while earning ridiculous wages from his pocket.

Topper Harley

CSF wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1301712/Buy-buy-Martin-How-ONeill-spent-120million-years-Aston-Villa.html

Have a look. Can't see this not changing your mind.

Not really. There were certainly some expensive flops on large wages but I'd like to see how much we spent compared to Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham.

It's very easy for us to say he could have been shrewder in the market and that this player or that player could have done a better job for less money/wages but we can't really be sure about it and ultimately we were sixth three seasons in a row and threatening those above us and big spending was needed to do that.

Corholio

Topper Harley wrote: »

Not really. There were certainly some expensive flops on large wages but I'd like to see how much we spent compared to Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham.

It's very easy for us to say he could have been shrewder in the market and that this player or that player could have done a better job for less money/wages but we can't really be sure about it and ultimately we were sixth three seasons in a row and threatening those above us and big spending was needed to do that.

Or not signing Heskey and changing the way the team played to suit him.

CSF

Topper Harley wrote: »

Not really. There were certainly some expensive flops on large wages but I'd like to see how much we spent compared to Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham.

It's very easy for us to say he could have been shrewder in the market and that this player or that player could have done a better job for less money/wages but we can't really be sure about it and ultimately we were sixth three seasons in a row and threatening those above us and big spending was needed to do that.

That list is mostly expensive flops on large wages. Even the likes of Collins who weren't that bad should have had more expected of him when on circa 50k a week.

LeBash

CSF wrote:

That list is mostly expensive flops on large wages. Even the likes of Collins who weren't that bad should have had more expected of him when on circa 50k a week.

While I agree I don't think Collins is a good example because he played every week. Davis 10 m bench warmer, Sidwell (I think was 5 m) Harewood 3.5 m and that's just 3 examples there were more that basically got huge money to sit on a bench. Most of the player he bought left at low values of free with the exception of Young and Milner. I don't blame RL for being more conservative with his money.

Who was the full back we bought from Reading who barely played as well.

CSF

LeBash wrote: »

While I agree I don't think Collins is a good example because he played every week. Davis 10 m bench warmer, Sidwell (I think was 5 m) Harewood 3.5 m and that's just 3 examples there were more that basically got huge money to sit on a bench. Most of the player he bought left at low values of free with the exception of Young and Milner. I don't blame RL for being more conservative with his money.

Who was the full back we bought from Reading who barely played as well.

I don't think merely playing every week is a good barometer for a 50k a week player. For 50k a week you're expecting a top notch centreback.

fullstop

Surely if you say O'Neill pissed all the money away on flops etc., it's only fair to take into account the likes of the Downing, Milner and Young signings? Signed Downing for £10m, sold for £20m. Signed Milner for £12m, sold for £26m, signed Young for £9.75m, sold for ~£20m. There's £36m of sell-on profits from those signings

CSF

fullstop wrote: »

Surely if you say O'Neill pissed all the money away on flops etc., it's only fair to take into account the likes of the Downing, Milner and Young signings? Signed Downing for £10m, sold for £20m. Signed Milner for £12m, sold for £26m, signed Young for £9.75m, sold for ~£20m. There's £36m of sell-on profits from those signings

Those 3 along with Delph were his good signings. I never said ALL his signings were bad. But the sheer quantity of overpaid duds killed the wagebill for a number of years to come until all these contracts ended.

matrim

LeBash wrote: »

While I agree I don't think Collins is a good example because he played every week. Davis 10 m bench warmer, Sidwell (I think was 5 m) Harewood 3.5 m and that's just 3 examples there were more that basically got huge money to sit on a bench. Most of the player he bought left at low values of free with the exception of Young and Milner. I don't blame RL for being more conservative with his money.

Who was the full back we bought from Reading who barely played as well.

Shorey was the LB from Reading. There was also Beye from Newcastle for RB

listermint

Bent and Enda Stevens released from the Club. Contracts have expired.

Patser

Bent signing with Derby. Good luck to him, he was our saviour one season not too long ago.

Liverpool signing Ings, wonder is that their striker needs filled and will they leave Tekkers alone.

LeBash

The point being that we got something for our money. There were several signings that basically played for the reserves.

I'm not a fan of the director of football role but MON clearly should have had one.

"Snip" the new boards app is woeful

LeBash

Just heard on snozetalk that we had 3 bids for the club and RL has picked who he felt was best. Takeover could go ahead by the start of July. The consortium was "unnamed". Any ideas?

Doodee

Sky understand that that Smith's consortium is unlikely to have been granted exclusivity, so it appears to be a straight fight between the American group and the Chinese.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11677/9879201/aston-villa-bidder-granted-has-been-granted-exclusivity

O.A.P

LeBash wrote: »

Just heard on snozetalk that we had 3 bids for the club and RL has picked who paid the most. Takeover could go ahead by the start of July. The consortium was "unnamed". Any ideas?

I fixed your post up a little but its all about money now for him and not Aston Villa,

Patser

BBC reporting sale if club looking more likely, and with the good news that it's not the Paul Smith offer (Tony Adams? Wasn't he included) but an unnamed bidder that's come in

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/33053539

Patser

General consensus over on VT is that it's either a group of American investors or a Chinese super group.

A Chinese group could mean mega money.

LeBash

Patser wrote:

General consensus over on VT is that it's either a group of American investors or a Chinese super group.

A Chinese group could mean mega money.

Could be great exposure in the biggest potential market in the world alright.

Bounty Hunter

Simply did not have a good feeling about that Adams Smith group so happy to see them out of the running with a sale potentially imminent, max 6weeks if it goes through hopefully faster though so our transfer plans our made ASAP and we can maybe not just be restricted to the bargain bucket (though I still have a feeling about Micah Richards on a free).

Americans or Chinese? Hmmm

Paully D

Patser wrote: »

General consensus over on VT is that it's either a group of American investors or a Chinese super group.

A Chinese group could mean mega money.

Financial Fair Play means that even with mega money, it's not going to make a whole lot of difference. You can only increase your wage bill by a maximum of £4m per season (unless it's below £60m in total then restrictions don't apply for 2014/2015, but lets be honest, to push on it's going to have to be more than that).

The days of a group coming in and be able to turn say a Manchester City from a lower/mid-table side to title challengers is long gone.

Patser

FFP realistically only effects teams in European competitions, not fighting relegation annually. I'm more hoping it'll solve the latter.

BUNK1982

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Simply did not have a good feeling about that Adams Smith group so happy to see them out of the running with a sale potentially imminent, max 6weeks if it goes through hopefully faster though so our transfer plans our made ASAP and we can maybe not just be restricted to the bargain bucket (though I still have a feeling about Micah Richards on a free).

Americans or Chinese? Hmmm

Yeah I was the same - did not get a good feeling about the Adams/ Smith bid.

I would take Micah Richards over Vlaar though....

Bounty Hunter

Patser wrote: »

FFP realistically only effects teams in European competitions, not fighting relegation annually. I'm more hoping it'll solve the latter.

plus im fairly sure they relaxed the FFP rules recently with regards this with something along the lines of if you can show a plan for how your investment will lead to increased revenue then you can have some leeway.

not as simple as buying these lads will make us a CL team though of course

Paully D

Patser wrote: »

FFP realistically only effects teams in European competitions, not fighting relegation annually. I'm more hoping it'll solve the latter.

Not strictly true. UEFA FFP only impacts teams in European competition, but the Premier League have brought in their own form of FFP too.

Premier League clubs now can't make a loss exceeding £105m from 2013-2016 combined and any loss from £15m-£105m has to be guaranteed by the owners of the club. In addition, and this one is the dagger for clubs wanting to push on, you can't increase your wage bill by more than £4m each season.

Penalties for breaking these rules include a possible points deduction. From The Independent:

Any club breaching the rules will face tough sanctions - and Scudamore said they would be pushing for points deductions.

Scudamore told reporters: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.

"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction.

"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."

Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105million over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016.

matrim

Paully D wrote: »

Not strictly true. UEFA FFP only impacts teams in European competition, but the Premier League have brought in their own form of FFP too.

Premier League clubs now can't make a loss exceeding £105m from 2013-2016 combined and any loss from £15m-£105m has to be guaranteed by the owners of the club. In addition, and this one is the dagger for clubs wanting to push on, you can't increase your wage bill by more than £4m each season.

Penalties for breaking these rules include a possible points deduction. From The Independent:

I had thought that the wage bill was something to do with % of turnover not an absolute figure like 4m.

JPA

Looks like Micah Richards is going to join on a free.
Good player if fit but that's a big if.

Patser

JPA wrote: »

Looks like Micah Richards is going to join on a free.
Good player if fit but that's a big if.

Confirmed

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/aston-villa-agree-micah-richards-5866880

And some interesting sayings in that report, if true - Sherwood convinced him to join, on a lesser wage than go to Sunderland. Still £65,000 a week puts him near top earner, yes? And what does this all mean for Lowton (gone hopefully), Hutton and Bacuna (really want him to stay).

matrim

65k a week for someone who is injury prone and hasn't played much football in a few years seems over the top. Looks like a MON signing to me