Summer transfer rumours, speculation and out-and-out b*ll*cks.

[Rigadon]

This is depressingly familiar - selling our best midfielder each summer. No wonder were in the bottom half.

I suppose it is easy to see it that way, logical even, but I get a perverse pleassure out if seeing our better players going to man u, Chelsea, arsenal and nowadays man city. The transfer business is very much that, a business, it's about investment and speculation.

In the instances of Barry, Milner and Young is where we have got it spectacularly right, turning an investment of hmmm max £15m into something like £50m.

Besides, in order to comply with these fair play rules we're going to have to get used to this as our turnover excluding transfer income would see us struggle.

You haven't read "Why England Lose" by Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper, by any chance? There's a chapter about transfers where it spells out how Lyon built up and up through canny playing of the transfer market. There's lots of very interesting stuff about certain pieces of received wisdom which are total rubbish and rules which the chairman, Aulas, has applied without variation. One of them is "always sell any player if you're offered more than his maximum value". We have the chance to do this with Young this summer, and rebuild from there.

Wow, that really is perverse!!  I see what you're both saying with regards to playing the long game, but how long can a team be a work in progress?  Perpetually?  There has to be some point where you grow. 

It's best if you do it from a position of strength but maybe another one (4th, Heskey blah blah) won't be so quick in coming around.  So, selling our best player every single summer and not improving, even slowly, is a pretty uninspiring lot for a supporter. 

[Monty]

Rigadon, the idea is that you do actually improve by reinvesting the money well. No player, not even Messi or Ronaldo, really makes a team. You can always improve as a team, and if someone else is silly enough to offer way more than your player is worth you can sell and reinvest and be better than you were when you had the player. Case in point: Inter sold Zlatan and reinvested well - they improved massively and won the treble. Our trouble is that we actually haven't reinvested particularly brilliantly until, I think at least, this transfer window just gone, where we saw a couple of areas of the team visibly strengthened thanks in part to money raised and not spent in the summer.

[Dante Lavelli]

This is depressingly familiar - selling our best midfielder each summer. No wonder were in the bottom half.

I suppose it is easy to see it that way, logical even, but I get a perverse pleassure out if seeing our better players going to man u, Chelsea, arsenal and nowadays man city. The transfer business is very much that, a business, it's about investment and speculation.

In the instances of Barry, Milner and Young is where we have got it spectacularly right, turning an investment of hmmm max £15m into something like £50m.

Besides, in order to comply with these fair play rules we're going to have to get used to this as our turnover excluding transfer income would see us struggle.

You haven't read "Why England Lose" by Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper, by any chance? There's a chapter about transfers where it spells out how Lyon built up and up through canny playing of the transfer market. There's lots of very interesting stuff about certain pieces of received wisdom which are total rubbish and rules which the chairman, Aulas, has applied without variation. One of them is "always sell any player if you're offered more than his maximum value". We have the chance to do this with Young this summer, and rebuild from there.

I have not read that but will keep an eye out for it. That policy/philosophy you referred to is definitely paraphrased by the Swiss Ramble blogger when he discusses Lyon and also possibly Sporting Lisbon.

[curiousorange]

This is depressingly familiar - selling our best midfielder each summer. No wonder were in the bottom half.

I suppose it is easy to see it that way, logical even, but I get a perverse pleassure out if seeing our better players going to man u, Chelsea, arsenal and nowadays man city. The transfer business is very much that, a business, it's about investment and speculation.

In the instances of Barry, Milner and Young is where we have got it spectacularly right, turning an investment of hmmm max £15m into something like £50m.

Besides, in order to comply with these fair play rules we're going to have to get used to this as our turnover excluding transfer income would see us struggle.

You haven't read "Why England Lose" by Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper, by any chance? There's a chapter about transfers where it spells out how Lyon built up and up through canny playing of the transfer market. There's lots of very interesting stuff about certain pieces of received wisdom which are total rubbish and rules which the chairman, Aulas, has applied without variation. One of them is "always sell any player if you're offered more than his maximum value". We have the chance to do this with Young this summer, and rebuild from there.

I have not read that but will keep an eye out for it. That policy/philosophy you referred to is definitely paraphrased by the Swiss Ramble blogger when he discusses Lyon and also possibly Sporting Lisbon.

I've read that, found it very interesting overall. Trouble is, most sports fans are wedded to the idea of tradition, continuity and luck. They would never accept that kind of transfer policy without a proven run of results to back it up, i.e. trophies. If Villa were a club who could consistently win cups regardless of how we played the transfer market I think the fans would be a lot more tolerant (see Arsenal fans with their 'Arsene knows' thing, even though they haven't won a trophy for five years or so) but we're not, hence the reluctance to admit that perhaps we could jettison Young and go for a different option.

[Monty]

Well Lyon's ridiculous run of successive league victories should show there's some sense in the transfer policy. Admittedly I don't entirely go along with it, because there is an element of continuity of the same group which is important - it takes time for players to gel in an effective enough way to play the best winning football, and too much selling would disrupt that gelling and set a club back a year or so - but it does highlight the fallacy of the cult of the individual, that there really is life after these 'star' players go.

[Rigadon]

Monty, yes I get the principal, and agree that it can work.  Also, no, we haven't re-invested all that well in recent times.   Much, much easier for Inter Milan with Champions League football and mega wages to replace Ibrahimovich (spl?) with quality than it is for Aston Villa to replace Ashley Young with similar quality though isn't it?  That's the rub I guess?

The last window was a great one for the Villa.  When Young goes I hope we see a player coming in of an equal quality or else we might be talking about another season of transition.

 

[Monty]

Agreed, I think the last window showed that we've probably been punching below our weight in the transfer market in recent years. Look at the players who came to us when we were in such a poor position, and just think of the players we could have got when we were in a better position! More and more that happens under GH is causing serious re-evaluation of MON's tenure, I have to say.

[cb]

It's a bit of a cliche of an idea, but I'm coming round to the idea of a director of football, at least for a while. I know the old argument against this is that he'll likely clash with the manager and you cannot achieve success while there are two people running the club, and I think this is correct. However, while we might not be successful for a time, I do think such an arrangement could allow us to put in place the foundations for success.

We've mentioned the likes of Lyon and Spurs as templates. To look at Spurs they had quite a long period where they had a DOF and weren't particularly successful, but they did accumulate a lot of players, who went on to form the basis of their current squad (Bale, Lennon, Modric etc.). I think if you want to play this 'long' strategy of buying good players and then selling them on to buy better plaers then you can only do this if you have a DOF.

With managers they only last a relatively short while and so every 3 or 4 years there is a disruption and suddenly you have players like Young who don't quite fit a new managers style and have to be moved on. The type of strategy we're talking about is going to take 7 or 8 years to really start to work. We all know Houllier won't be here that long as manager. Unless he really pulls something out of the bag the boo-boys will be on his back and then it will be a matter of time before we're looking for another manager again.

Maybe having a DOF in place would let us keep the continuity we need to progress to the stage where we have a strong enough squad to compete. The club could the revert to the more traditional management structure and hopefully go on to reap the rewards...

[KevinGage]

The idea of a DOF is not without merit.

It's the norm on the continent and would do away with the need for any manager/coach to pick a player on reputation rather than form. That, for me, is the biggest selling point.

Think about it, how often do you see an upturn in form when a new manager takes over? Part of that is the feelgood factor that comes from a new appointment. But a bigger part is that the new guy has no loyalty to the players he inherits and will pick on form and form alone.

Think how often it was called last season that Petrov was out of the game after 60/70 minutes. Yet he was MON's captain and first major signing ergo he was played until he dropped. Houllier's first full league game at Wolves away and the hook came out after the hour mark, no messing about.

Houllier has now spent decent money on Makoun and Bent - and you can pretty much guarantee that if they go through a rough trot they'll still be played regardless.

With a DOF in place, a coach/ manager may make recommendations for obvious gaps in the side. But recruitment wouldn't be his domain and he'd be forced to make the most out of his current resources.

[eastie]

Miguel of Valencia and Portugal available at £3m in the summer reportedly being linked with villa and Newcastle in today's press.

[Mazrim]

We've been linked with Miguel for the past million years.

[jonzy85]

Just read the 1st post on this thread.....Darron Gibson the first name mentioned on our summer transfer thread!!!! That is quite depresssing. At least the only way is up.

[Merv]

We've already got the perfect man for the DOF role at the club, IMO. We'd just need to find a younger manager with fewer tactical quirks to replace him first and allow him to move into the role.

Monty's point regarding transfers is a good one. It will hurt the pride if we lose Ashley Young - third big player in three years to go - but it might well be time to sell and rebuild. He's playing in a strange sort of role for us anyway now he's no longer wide and I think we could replace him with a more effective No.10 style of footballer. Not sure Young has the composure for that role - he's at great flashing past players wide and delivering the ball from there but doesn't seem to do as much damage centrally.

As has been said, Lyon have perfected the art of selling high over the years, as have Arsenal - selling the likes of Vieira, Overmars, Henry when they were at their peak, and moving on. Spurs have done well too recently - think Berbatov, Carrick, Keane (I know they got him straight back, almost)... sold at inflated prices, and it allowed them to strengthen elsewhere.

[oldtimernow]

A team of 10  of me and one 'world class player' .

Sell the 'world class one'  and buy 10 proper footballers to replace me.

I know which one will be more successful

[pablopicasso_10]

Wow, that really is perverse!!  I see what you're both saying with regards to playing the long game, but how long can a team be a work in progress?  Perpetually?  There has to be some point where you grow. 

It's best if you do it from a position of strength but maybe another one (4th, Heskey blah blah) won't be so quick in coming around.  So, selling our best player every single summer and not improving, even slowly, is a pretty uninspiring lot for a supporter. 

although tbf, clubs like arsenal have had to do it and it benefitted them immensely... take nicholas anelka for example, he was purchased for 500k, and then sold (reluctantly in wengers case) for 23 mil... with that 23 mil, arsenal purchased thierry henry... same thing with marc overmars, bought for 7 mil, sold for 25 mil.. they purchased robert pires and wiltord... (francis jeffers too, but they cant all be brilliant)... paul mersons sale funded vieira, etc etc... they also brought in some crap in with those purchases, eg, boa morte, grimandi, stepanovs, malz, etc, but to bring in a big bulk of what made them a great trophy winning side in the early parts of 2000 onwards, was used with money brought in through player sales...