Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: sfx412 on January 24, 2011, 12:41:00 PM
-
With all the past talk of Randy holding up on the spending and the club needing to sell before they can buy, I wonder how many even amongst the 'top' clubs would, or could have spent what Villa have this January.
OK Man City, but who else. Certainly none below the top 5 and I'd doubt even the top 5 City apart are keen if even able to.
It was the same when we had similar comments prior to Mon outspending most of Europe, twice and I'm sure come the summer many of the same arguments will be dragged out again.
Randy has proven as General K predicted, that he will back a manager when he needs to and doing so while we sat in the relegation zone took some balls for me, especially when the likes of Sir Alex, says no spending, Wenger dithers over 20 mill for a cb, Harry talks plenty but sells and loans off players like Walker and Bentley.
No brave move Randy, here's to a long and prosperous future for Walker, Makoun and especially Bent. Not that a few more players before the 31st wouldn't be nice too.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
-
A quote today from peter pan about Carson Yeung's outlay at The Sty:
"Carson has so far, in aggregate, spent £26.3million since his arrival," he said in the Daily Mail.
"Unfortunately, most of the purchases have not been playing much and have not improved the team directly.
"There are no blames here against anybody. These things do happen. Equally, no one can blame him if he feels he is not sure if his money is well spent."
I guess all owners must think the same when approached by managers for cash, and to be honest who can blame them when they see how it gets wasted. It doesn't seem to matter at Man City that people like Adebayor cost a fortune and don't play, but at EVERY other club it matters.
-
Not meant as a dig at Randy at all, before that starts, but since the start of last season, we didnt buy any players (Ireland aside), and sold Milner for approx £18m, Gardner £5m ish and Shorey went for £1m ish IIRC. Easily ove £20m
-
Not meant as a dig at Randy at all, before that starts, but since the start of last season, we didnt buy any players (Ireland aside), and sold Milner for approx £18m, Gardner £5m ish and Shorey went for £1m ish IIRC. Easily ove £20m
See above. Nothing like 20m
Not only was Milner not free, I bet we hadn't even finished paying Newcastle for him. They would still want paying.
-
We also made a huge loss on Shitwell
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
Once again the facts get in the way of a good story :)
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
Sorry, we now take out initial transfer fee of players who we sell to see how much we got for them?
I didn't agree with the 'recycled transfer fee' comment when I saw it either, but that's exactly what you're doing!
-
Perhaps I was hasty in suggesting it would be the summer before the knockers came out :).
I'm sure every club has sold players, Sunderland for instance, but have they reinvested it as regularly as Randy. Even Abramovich has slowed the spend and he's won things and has an ageing squad.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
Sorry, we now take out initial transfer fee of players who we sell to see how much we got for them?
I didn't agree with the 'recycled transfer fee' comment when I saw it either, but that's exactly what you're doing!
How is it what I'm doing? I am pointing out that "sell Milner for 16m, spend 16m on Bent" does not mean "it's just money we got in then spent".
The point which was made was that we raised 20m in player sales, and that we were just reinvesting that. That argument falls down because we didn't raise anything like 20m for those players.
If you spend 11 on something, then shortly after sell it for 16, you haven't raised 16. You've raised 5. Which is exactly the point I made about viewing football transfers so simplistically. We won't even have finished paying Newcastle for James Milner. Just like Sunderland hadn't finished paying Spurs for Bent.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Nothing like it? We got £18m for Milner alone plus £3m for Gardener then whatever for Knight and Shorey.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Nothing like it? We got £18m for Milner alone plus £3m for Gardener then whatever for Knight and Shorey.
See the point above re Newcastle.
-
I have work to do, not going to argue the toss. Perhaps it is simplistic. We also wont have paid Sunderland upfront for Bent, it will be in staged payments. There is another variable to add in to this mathematical equation.
-
I have work to do, not going to argue the toss. Perhaps it is simplistic. We also wont have paid Sunderland upfront for Bent, it will be in staged payments. There is another variable to add in to this mathematical equation.
I'm not trying to make it any more complicated than it needs be, I am genuinely just saying that it's not as simple as "sell for x, have x to spend on new player".
Niall Quinn said the same thing last week, that he hasn't got 24m pounds burning a hole in his pocket, and then described how they're still paying Spurs off.
Still, it's funny how some of the people who, when we were waiting for MON to wake up in the transfer windows, used to tell us "it's not like playing Football Manager, you know" now seem to think that, actually, it is.
-
If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.
-
If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.
I know, unfortunately that example is of no relevance here.
-
If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.
And if you had any finance left on it you'd have to pay that off first which lowers the value you got for it.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
Sorry, we now take out initial transfer fee of players who we sell to see how much we got for them?
I didn't agree with the 'recycled transfer fee' comment when I saw it either, but that's exactly what you're doing!
How is it what I'm doing? I am pointing out that "sell Milner for 16m, spend 16m on Bent" does not mean "it's just money we got in then spent".
The point which was made was that we raised 20m in player sales, and that we were just reinvesting that. That argument falls down because we didn't raise anything like 20m for those players.
If you spend 11 on something, then shortly after sell it for 16, you haven't raised 16. You've raised 5. Which is exactly the point I made about viewing football transfers so simplistically. We won't even have finished paying Newcastle for James Milner. Just like Sunderland hadn't finished paying Spurs for Bent.
So if we're including the £12m we paid for Milner by taking it off the incoming fee, do we then discount it from the summer it was initially spent and say we outlayed £30m instead of £40m? Of course we don't.
The point was that we have had circa £20m in, excluding Ireland, since we last bought a player. Which means that the majority of it is not 'new money', but pre-existing investments in players being used once again as is good business sense.
I'm perfectly happy with what Randy is doing, but this 'we only got £5m for Milner' stuff doesn't add up unless you're totally dismissing the initial outlay. Class it how you want, but our net spend on players went up by £30m this month, but it's also only gone up by circa £10m in the 18 month period.
-
I've never heard anything so bizarre as to follow transfers back in a chain like that. Doesn't matter what Milner cost, could have been 300 mill, point was we made 18 mill from selling him and reinvested it in Bent. Gardner/Shorey/Sidwell sales reinvested in Makoun. Randy said all along he would invest significantly yrs 1-3, but from yr 4 onwards we should be more sustainable, and so it has proved. Net spend yrs 1-3 was about 20 mill per season, now we break even just about, one in one out etc.
-
[quote author=pauliebentnuts link=topic=42042.msg1687898#msg1687898 date=1295874
So if we're including the £12m we paid for Milner by taking it off the incoming fee, do we then discount it from the summer it was initially spent and say we outlayed £30m instead of £40m? Of course we don't.
The point was that we have had circa £20m in, excluding Ireland, since we last bought a player. Which means that the majority of it is not 'new money', but pre-existing investments in players being used once again as is good business sense.
I'm perfectly happy with what Randy is doing, but this 'we only got £5m for Milner' stuff doesn't add up unless you're totally dismissing the initial outlay. Class it how you want, but our net spend on players went up by £30m this month, but it's also only gone up by circa £10m in the 18 month period.
I am not dismissing the initial outlay, you are.
I am saying...
Buy James Milner - 11 million pounds.
Sell James Milner - 16 million pounds.
Yes, we might have 16m in our hands having sold him, but we've still got to finish paying Newcastle off, so the suggestion that it is as simple as "we've raised 20, so let's spend it" is well wide of the mark, and transfer deals are far more complicated than that.
And who cares if it is not "new money" as you put it, it is still money we've invested in the playing staff.
Over the last few months, plenty of people on here have been moaning that Randy isn't investing. Now he has done, spectacularly, there's an air of "well, it's not real money", "it is recycled Milner money".
That's not the point. The point is that it is still money he could have quite happily not committed to spending on Darren Bent if he wanted, regardless of how he got it.
For one so firmly behind Randy, you're not too reluctant to take a trip down any path which casts doubt on his investments in the club, John.
I'd hate to see you if you ever really turned *wink*
-
If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.
I know, unfortunately that example is of no relevance here.
Glasses said we earned £20m in player sales, you said we didn't. All the Dougonomics in the world doesn't alter the fact that we sold players to a value in excess of £20m during the period stated.
-
I've never heard anything so bizarre as to follow transfers back in a chain like that. Doesn't matter what Milner cost, could have been 300 mill, point was [we made 18 mill from selling him and reinvested it in Bent. Gardner/Shorey/Sidwell sales reinvested in Makoun. Randy said all along he would invest significantly yrs 1-3, but from yr 4 onwards we should be more sustainable, and so it has proved. Net spend yrs 1-3 was about 20 mill per season, now we break even just about, one in one out etc.
I've never seen anything so bizarre as people who think you "make" a profit of what you sell a player for, and totally ignore what he cost in the first place.
We received 16m (or 18, whatever it was) for Milner, we didn't "make" it - that's the crux of the confusion.
-
If I sell my car for £5k, the fact that I bought it for £8K doesn't alter the fact I received £5k for it.
I know, unfortunately that example is of no relevance here.
Glasses said we earned £20m in player sales, you said we didn't. All the Dougonomics in the world doesn't alter the fact that we sold players to a value in excess of £20m during the period stated.
We sold players to that value, yes, but we didn't "earn" 20m - that's the entire point.
And not ignoring what a player cost in the first place when working out how much you earned from him is hardly Dougonomics.
-
I am not dismissing the initial outlay, you are.
I am saying...
Buy James Milner - 11 million pounds.
Sell James Milner - 16 million pounds.
Yes, we might have 16m in our hands having sold him, but we've still got to finish paying Newcastle off, so the suggestion that it is as simple as "we've raised 20, so let's spend it" is well wide of the mark, and transfer deals are far more complicated than that.
And who cares if it is not "new money" as you put it, it is still money we've invested in the playing staff.
Over the last few months, plenty of people on here have been moaning that Randy isn't investing. Now he has done, spectacularly, there's an air of "well, it's not real money", "it is recycled Milner money".
That's not the point. The point is that it is still money he could have quite happily not committed to spending on Darren Bent if he wanted, regardless of how he got it.
For one so firmly behind Randy, you're not too reluctant to take a trip down any path which casts doubt on his investments in the club, John.
I'd hate to see you if you ever really turned *wink*
And I'm saying
But Milner for £12m
Sell him for £16m
Buy Bent for £18m
Means we've invested a net £14m in players.
You can't talk about Randy's great investment, which I agree it has been great, and then dismiss the initial money. Randy hasn't spent £30m since he last put his hand in his pocket - he's spent the £30m less whatever we got back for sales inbetween.
I like Randy and he's answered any doubts I had about his continued commitment. But I call it as I see it and his overall net spend has not increased by £30m.
-
I thought something similar to this myself when we were about to sign him.
To elude arguments about the money in and money out, perhaps a better question is how many other clubs could or would go out and spend £18-24m on a player right now?
In the Premier League: Man City, Man U, Chelsea. I would say that's it.
-
You can't talk about Randy's great investment, which I agree it has been great, and then dismiss the initial money. Randy hasn't spent £30m since he last put his hand in his pocket - he's spent the £30m less whatever we got back for sales inbetween.
Yes, and I didn't say he had spent 30m, I said that in the same way you can't ignore the money we got for Milner, you can not ignore the money we spent on him, either.
For example (simplifying the figures) - we got 18m for Milner, we've spent it on Bent, does not mean a net spend of zero, which is what some people think.
-
I thought something similar to this myself when we were about to sign him.
To elude arguments about the money in and money out, perhaps a better question is how many other clubs could or would go out and spend £18-24m on a player right now?
In the Premier League: Man City, Man U, Chelsea. I would say that's it.
At the end of the day, regardless of what went on before, this is the important point. He could have kept that cash and suggested we go and get Robbie Keane on loan. Thank fuck he didn't.
I think your list is about right. I also think that's part of the reason the press don't seem to like it. We're not supposed to think big.
Oh, actually, maybe Liverpool, too. At least I wouldn't be massively surprised if they did with their new owners.
-
Using my trusty excel spreadsheet I have the net spend since Randy took over to be ;
2006/7 £15M
2007/8 £19M
2008/9 £34M
2009/10 £12M
2010/11 £5M
TOTAL £85M
-
For example (simplifying the figures) - we got 18m for Milner, we've spent it on Bent, does not mean a net spend of zero, which is what some people think.
True, however it does mean net spend of zero other than money already invested a few years ago. My example would be:-
Randy spends £42m in 2008, including £12m on Milner. We then sell Milner for £18m and use it to buy Bent. If we're then saying that the investment in Bent is the £18m less the £6m Milner profit, then we're adding the initial £12m in again unless we go back to 2008 and say "Actually, that was only £30m really."
Basically, wherever and whenever the initial fee comes from it WAS spent already. So that £20m that came in needs to be viewed on balance with anything subsequently spent.
And I totally agree with the point that the willingness to spend it all on one player is great and a clear sign of intent!!
-
You can't talk about Randy's great investment, which I agree it has been great, and then dismiss the initial money. Randy hasn't spent £30m since he last put his hand in his pocket - he's spent the £30m less whatever we got back for sales inbetween.
Yes, and I didn't say he had spent 30m, I said that in the same way you can't ignore the money we got for Milner, you can not ignore the money we spent on him, either.
For example (simplifying the figures) - we got 18m for Milner, we've spent it on Bent, does not mean a net spend of zero, which is what some people think.
Of course not, but if you're going to do it your way it's not really new money either.
He's been tremendous with the money he has put into the club, no complaints from me at all but if we're going to start a thread about this particular transfer window it is pertinent to put out that we made a decent profit in the last 2.
-
Whatever way you look at it it will be perceived by 'them' (The Bishop Boy and company) that we've spent the Milner money, thus proving our sell to buy policy.
-
and you're all ignoring amortisation as well......
-
You can't talk about Randy's great investment, which I agree it has been great, and then dismiss the initial money. Randy hasn't spent £30m since he last put his hand in his pocket - he's spent the £30m less whatever we got back for sales inbetween.
Yes, and I didn't say he had spent 30m, I said that in the same way you can't ignore the money we got for Milner, you can not ignore the money we spent on him, either.
For example (simplifying the figures) - we got 18m for Milner, we've spent it on Bent, does not mean a net spend of zero, which is what some people think.
Of course not, but if you're going to do it your way it's not really new money either.
He's been tremendous with the money he has put into the club, no complaints from me at all but if we're going to start a thread about this particular transfer window it is pertinent to put out that we made a decent profit in the last 2.
He's shown that he's willing to carry on investing in the club, that's by far the most important point.
You're right, we can't ignore the money recouped in the previous windows, although all that did was reduce the net amount he'd invested. It has to be looked at against his record of investment since coming here, which has been amongst the best.
Regardless of the fact that we got it from selling a player, he found himself in a situation whereby he had to decide - keep this 16m pounds and make the 150m plus I've invested in this club look a bit less of a chunk of my fortune, or invest it in new players.
To see it described (not on this thread) as "recycled Milner money" makes it all look a bit simple, like it's in some way not real money.
-
and you're all ignoring amortisation as well......
Is that when Stanley Mortensen comes as part of the deal?
-
I am just gratefull to Randy for spending in this winter transfer window like most of you have said the Milner money as been reinvested on Darren Bent which will bring it's own reward if he keeps scoring and getting rid of Sidwell, Carew, and Shorey the money from them as enabled us to get Makoun and hopefully we have some put aside for maybe one or two more signings.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
Great post.
not so much moving the goalposts as converting them into a basketball ring. My rules, my game eh?
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
Great post.
not so much moving the goalposts as converting them into a basketball ring. My rules, my game eh?
"My rules my game"?
Even by your own perilously low standards, that's utterly meaningless.
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
Great post.
not so much moving the goalposts as converting them into a basketball ring. My rules, my game eh?
"My rules my game"?
Even by your own perilously low standards, that's utterly meaningless.
It terms of discussing transfer fees, it takes a unique set of "rules of the game" to arrive at the conclusion that the Milner sale raised £5m.
-
It terms of discussing transfer fees, it takes a unique set of "rules of the game" to arrive at the conclusion that the Milner sale raised £5m.
Yes, it does, it's remarkable how if you buy something for 11, sell it for 16, you've earned 5, not 16.
How positively unique!
-
We didn't sell him for £16m. We sold him for £24m it's just that they mugged us for the other £8m by giving us faulty goods in lieu of payment.
-
Regardless of the semantics, how many other clubs will be spending 18-24 million on players like Bent, or 5-6 million on Makoun and hopefully more even yet to come.
Its also been suggested that Sunderlands Boards quick approval of the deal came about because of the cash upfront approach engineered by Randy, all of which flies in the face of those who by the looks of the above still propose we are a sell to buy club ?
-
all of which flies in the face of those who by the looks of the above still propose we are a sell to buy club ?
Seriously - is everyone avoiding the point, and the Randy priase, on purpose?
Everyone is happy Randy is spending and nobody believes we are sell to buy. But is it that hard to admit we did do a bit of selling before we bought this time?
-
All of them, if you earn 20 odd million on players sales in 18 months and reinvesty it.
Except we didn't earn 20m in player sales. Nothing like it, in fact.
Not that I'm anything other than 100% behind Randy and glad he's dispelled this ridiculous 'buy to sell notion', but with Milner, Gardner and Shorey - yes we did!
No we didn't.
Firstly, Milner went for 16m plus Ireland. Milner also cost us 11m to begin with. So that's 5m raised. Gardner and Shorey raised us 4.5m the pair.
Barry went for 12m, yes, but also in that window we bought Downing (12) Delph ( 8 ) Beye (2) Warnock (7) Collins (5) and Dunne (5).
I love some of the simplistic stuff that gets thrown around about transfers. Someone said the other day "it's just the Milner money recycled" as if we found Milner under a bush at Bodymoor Heath or something.
Sorry, we now take out initial transfer fee of players who we sell to see how much we got for them?
I didn't agree with the 'recycled transfer fee' comment when I saw it either, but that's exactly what you're doing!
How is it what I'm doing? I am pointing out that "sell Milner for 16m, spend 16m on Bent" does not mean "it's just money we got in then spent".
The point which was made was that we raised 20m in player sales, and that we were just reinvesting that. That argument falls down because we didn't raise anything like 20m for those players.
If you spend 11 on something, then shortly after sell it for 16, you haven't raised 16. You've raised 5. Which is exactly the point I made about viewing football transfers so simplistically. We won't even have finished paying Newcastle for James Milner. Just like Sunderland hadn't finished paying Spurs for Bent.
I reckon it must have been the Gray, Deehan, and Gidman money recycled for the 20th time.
-
We had to do some selling.
Milner wanted to go and the others we have moved on were quite frankly shite.
Doesn't alter the fact that Randy has just smashed our transfer record either way.
-
Back from work. If we use your method Paulie, would it be fair to say that we havent actually bought Bent, as we haven't paid for him yet?
-
Back from work. If we use your method Paulie, would it be fair to say that we havent actually bought Bent, as we haven't paid for him yet?
No.
We've bought and sold the players in question, my point was that it's not as simple as sell a player, raise some cash, buy another one with everything balancing out and all quits as the figures match.
-
I reckon Citeh, Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool and if they sold some players Spurs
-
and you're all ignoring amortisation as well......
Keep amortisation to yourself will ya! I'm confused enough as it is!
-
all of which flies in the face of those who by the looks of the above still propose we are a sell to buy club ?
Seriously - is everyone avoiding the point, and the Randy priase, on purpose?
Everyone is happy Randy is spending and nobody believes we are sell to buy. But is it that hard to admit we did do a bit of selling before we bought this time?
are they, happy Randy is spending that is.
No one is arguing we aren't selling players its hard not too see all the unsaleable deadwood going, but does that define us as a selling club or justify those who argued we were.
-
all of which flies in the face of those who by the looks of the above still propose we are a sell to buy club ?
Seriously - is everyone avoiding the point, and the Randy priase, on purpose?
Everyone is happy Randy is spending and nobody believes we are sell to buy. But is it that hard to admit we did do a bit of selling before we bought this time?
are they, happy Randy is spending that is.
No one is arguing we aren't selling players its hard not too see all the unsaleable deadwood going, but does that define us as a selling club or justify those who argued we were.
Not in my opinion it doesn't.
We're facing a period of high player turnover, so whatever we do get in will of course be spent on whoever Gezza wants, plus extra from Randy. We're not a selling club as we don't NEED to sell to buy, although we do need those not contributing off the wagebill, but those outisde won't see it like that. They had an argument ober the last 18 months, when players were going and precious few coming in, but now that is shown to clearly be down to circumstance and not design they'll have to find another way to justify it as opposed to simply saying 'we were wrong'!
-
Not in my opinion it doesn't.
We're facing a period of high player turnover, so whatever we do get in will of course be spent on whoever Gezza wants, plus extra from Randy. We're not a selling club as we don't NEED to sell to buy, although we do need those not contributing off the wagebill, but those outisde won't see it like that. They had an argument ober the last 18 months, when players were going and precious few coming in, but now that is shown to clearly be down to circumstance and not design they'll have to find another way to justify it as opposed to simply saying 'we were wrong'!
[/quote]
Nicely put
-
Won't they simply add up the transfer value of the players we have sold since the start of 2010 and deduct the transfer value of the players we have bought since 2010?
And If the sum total is close to zero won't they say with some justification, that they were right and Villa are indeed operating a "sell to buy" policy?
-
Won't they simply add up the transfer value of the players we have sold since the start of 2010 and deduct the transfer value of the players we have bought since 2010?
And If the sum total is close to zero won't they say with some justification, that they were right and Villa are indeed operating a "sell to buy" policy?
Possibly, but then how can we know the intent behind things?
I think Gezza will get what he needs, lets say £30m for arguments sake, so if that £30m can come from shifting the players he doesn't wan then great, but if not Randy will give it to him anyway. As it goes I think we'll be sitting heavily in the plus column come 01/09/11.
-
I see tonight Villa still top the transfer in and out table with 4 days to go.
Wonder if there will be any of those last minute deals from us we had learned to expect
-
Haven't read the thread but not many is the answer.