January Transfer Speculation (or lack of) Thread

[Toronto Villa]

I see Henry has been offered a deal for 2 months by Arsenal. He's a great signing to bring off the bench even if he isn't the player he once was. I'm surprised given our Irish contingent that we've not done the same with Robbie Keane, a player that has been linked to us forever. He needs a club to play for to stay sharp ahead of the Euros and he'd be a lot more effective than having Heskey or Fonz on the bench.

[Concrete John]

So what's that us down to 'only' £58million a year or so?

What is Delloit's target % of wages vs turnover?  50%?
That would mean we need a turnover of 116m whereas I think the last reported turnover was 84m.

So we just need to double our turnover and we'll be fine!

Thing is, what should a squad of 25 be paid?  If you take it as your 3 top boys are on £80k, the next level is 4 players on £60k, then the remainder of the first 11 4 on £50k.  You need to have a decent squad, so your top 3 reserves are on a par with the first team at £50k, with the rest of your usual bench averaging £35k.  After that, you'll be talking about cheap fioreigners and emerging kids at around £20k average for 7 players.

Does that sound reasonable for a non CL club who are trying to attain top 6 status?  Well, thats a total of £57,720,000 per year, with an average first team wage of £61k and squad average £44,400 per week.

So if we want to be that sort of side, and folow the 50% rule, then turnover should be £115,440,000, which is a 37% increase from where we are now.

If I'm honest I'm not sure what type of point I'm making here, other than these are probably the maths Randy & Co have been doing.

Or if we look at it the other way round, and wee what a £84m turnover can get us?  Again on the 50% basis we're looking at £42m, so if I use the same scale as above we'd be looking at a top earner of £58,212, with the first team and squad averages £44,387 and 332,308 respectively.  And that's firm mid table territory.   

[hartman_1982]

So what's that us down to 'only' £58million a year or so?

What is Delloit's target % of wages vs turnover?  50%?
That would mean we need a turnover of 116m whereas I think the last reported turnover was 84m.

So we just need to double our turnover and we'll be fine!

Thing is, what should a squad of 25 be paid?  If you take it as your 3 top boys are on £80k, the next level is 4 players on £60k, then the remainder of the first 11 4 on £50k.  You need to have a decent squad, so your top 3 reserves are on a par with the first team at £50k, with the rest of your usual bench averaging £35k.  After that, you'll be talking about cheap fioreigners and emerging kids at around £20k average for 7 players.

Does that sound reasonable for a non CL club who are trying to attain top 6 status?  Well, thats a total of £57,720,000 per year, with an average first team wage of £61k and squad average £44,400 per week.

So if we want to be that sort of side, and folow the 50% rule, then turnover should be £115,440,000, which is a 37% increase from where we are now.

If I'm honest I'm not sure what type of point I'm making here, other than these are probably the maths Randy & Co have been doing.

Or if we look at it the other way round, and wee what a £84m turnover can get us?  Again on the 50% basis we're looking at £42m, so if I use the same scale as above we'd be looking at a top earner of £58,212, with the first team and squad averages £44,387 and 332,308 respectively.  And that's firm mid table territory.   

Your plan is completely floored because you do not want a bench filled with 35k a week players. You want it filled with your Bannan's, Herd's etc that are all on about 10k a week. That is why our academy needs to be used more wisely.

[Rick_avfc]

He didn't let me down. Sounds like you wanted him to, just to prove how very clever you are. Gabby always gives his all and at times he terrifies the opposition with his pace and can be a great pressure relief outlet for us.
[/quote]

Nope, I dont want him to let me down, in fact I want him to do the exact opposite and go on a score a blinder or provide an assist.  I want gabby to be a villa legend, i want him to be a 20 goal a season striker but truth is that he wont be.  So he terrifies defenders with pace and then what?  How many times has he terrified them and go on to score goals or set up another player?  once or twice out of 20 attempts?
If gabby was SO good, why hasn't any of the bigger clubs made an enquiry or a concrete bid for him recently?  Like i said, I DONT want him to fail, I want him to prove doubters like me wrong so I can turn around and say "I was wrong". I dont want him to be another Stefan & Luke Moore or a Darius Vassell who had plenty of pace but lacked clinical finishing in front of goal.

[Concrete John]

Your plan is completely floored because you do not want a bench filled with 35k a week players. You want it filled with your Bannan's, Herd's etc that are all on about 10k a week. That is why our academy needs to be used more wisely.

I agree the accademy kids need to be used more and better, but if you've got a 1st 11 and then just them, the strength in depth issue does come into play.  Plus, once they get established, we'll have their agents asking for parity with other members of the squad.  If we were to offer Albrighton a new contract now how much do you think he'd be looking for?

[Dave]

It is rumoured that Bent is on alot more that £80k per week.  More like £110k p/w plus bonuses.

I've never seen or read anything to suggest that this is even close. Where is it rumoured exactly?

Most reports when we signed him suggested he was getting around £70k per week.

[PeterWithesShin]

I'd be absolutely stunned if we were paying Bent £110K a week.

[Dante Lavelli]

So what's that us down to 'only' £58million a year or so?

What is Delloit's target % of wages vs turnover?  50%?
That would mean we need a turnover of 116m whereas I think the last reported turnover was 84m.

So we just need to double our turnover and we'll be fine!

Thing is, what should a squad of 25 be paid?  If you take it as your 3 top boys are on £80k, the next level is 4 players on £60k, then the remainder of the first 11 4 on £50k.  You need to have a decent squad, so your top 3 reserves are on a par with the first team at £50k, with the rest of your usual bench averaging £35k.  After that, you'll be talking about cheap fioreigners and emerging kids at around £20k average for 7 players.

Does that sound reasonable for a non CL club who are trying to attain top 6 status?  Well, thats a total of £57,720,000 per year, with an average first team wage of £61k and squad average £44,400 per week.

So if we want to be that sort of side, and folow the 50% rule, then turnover should be £115,440,000, which is a 37% increase from where we are now.

If I'm honest I'm not sure what type of point I'm making here, other than these are probably the maths Randy & Co have been doing.

Or if we look at it the other way round, and wee what a £84m turnover can get us?  Again on the 50% basis we're looking at £42m, so if I use the same scale as above we'd be looking at a top earner of £58,212, with the first team and squad averages £44,387 and 332,308 respectively.  And that's firm mid table territory.   

Your plan is completely floored because you do not want a bench filled with 35k a week players. You want it filled with your Bannan's, Herd's etc that are all on about 10k a week. That is why our academy needs to be used more wisely.

I think that is our only hope Hartman.  We HAVE to trust our youth system more.  We need a few more Herds and Clarks that can be first reserve for a number of positions then that will help (both their development and the financial bottom line).

Annoyingly, if you add 30m for the chumps league then we would not be far off being the model club from an accounting perspective.

[SamTheMouse]

Yes we've needed a goalscorer like Bent for ages, but if the calibre of creative player we are currently fielding is any indication of where the club is heading, we would probably be better suited to having a bit of a workhorse upfront (Gabby for instance).  Is it a coincidence that we have started playing a better style of football since Bent has been out?

Dont all shoot me down at once but Im not really a Gabby fan.  Yes he is a workhorse but he is too inconsistent for my liking.  Ok, he is a local lad and tries but he is not clinical in front of goal for me.  Im not saying sell him or anything but just saying that I dont really see him as the "future" of Aston Villa.  He is the type of player that if he has too much time to think about something he messes it up.  There was an example of this against Stoke in the first half where he wont he ball in their half and ran towards goal, as he was doing this, I said to my missus "watch him mess this up" and he didn't let me down.  Also, he keeps doing what Wayne Rooney does for Man Utd when he plays up front - he will come deep to collect the ball. I would prefer him not to do that and to be more of a nuisance in the box.  Ive seen him on numerous occasions on the wing to collect a ball and then will pass it short to another player and then just hang about there.  Now, Ive also seen Bent do the same thing but as soon as he makes that pass, he makes that run towards the box to get into a goal scoring position.  I wish Gabby would have that same mentality to in the mix and poach a few more goals for us.  This is just my opinion and many of u may disagree with me, but hey, I guess we are all entitled to it.

BANG BANG *blows imaginary smoke from fingers*

He didn't let me down. Sounds like you wanted him to, just to prove how very clever you are. Gabby always gives his all and at times he terrifies the opposition with his pace and can be a great pressure relief outlet for us.

He does terrify opponents with his pace, but I know what Rick means. But much of the time, it's only really effective when we're counter attacking. There are situations when Gabby's pace is nullified - most obviously when we're playing further up the pitch, compressing the opposition into their own half and dominating possession. There were longish periods when that happened against Arsenal. He was getting frustrated because he doesn't have the instinctive ability to slip a defender like Bent does. He can roll a big man like Vidic occasionally, but that's about it, and you just know he'd rather be starting from a deeper position and running the channels at a defence that's backing off.

So it's horses for courses. Gabby is brilliant in certain situations - but I suspect that had Bent been on the field against Arsenal, given the possession we had in the areas we had it, we could have ended up winning that one.

[TheSandman]

Annoyingly, if you add 30m for the chumps league then we would not be far off being the model club from an accounting perspective.

That was Randy's plan. Unfortunately, for whatever reason (and we could have another thirty page thread debating those reasons) it did not come off and we are finding ourselves in this period of retrenchment.

[Rick_avfc]

It is rumoured that Bent is on alot more that £80k per week.  More like £110k p/w plus bonuses.

I've never seen or read anything to suggest that this is even close. Where is it rumoured exactly?

Most reports when we signed him suggested he was getting around £70k per week.

Like I said, rumoured.  I hear them and take them with a pinch of salt but share them with others.  AVFC fans on twitter saying this.

[Billy Walker]

I'd swap Bent for Carroll.  Looking at one or two Liverpool forums it is rumoured that they would be willing to sell him, too.   If we managed that I would say we have got the better long-term deal.

I feel sorry for Darren Bent to be honest.  He joins Villa just as we begin to change our whole approach to building the side.  And now he might be off-loaded to dull-as-dishwater Liverpool, a club that could finish anywhere between sixth and eighth.  Is that his level or does his goal scoring prowess suggest he deserves more?

 

[Dante Lavelli]

I do not think it is fair on either player to compare Bent and Gabby.  Whilst notionally strikers they play completely different roles.  Bent is a classic goal hanger whilst Gabby is more of a link between midfield and attack whilst also helping defensively.

Personally i think Gabby is more important to us than Bent as modern football rarely allows you the luxury of playing "just" a goal hanger.

[dave.woodhall]

All these clubs Bent's linked with. Are they signing him on a timeshare?

[Concrete John]

The Gabby debate has been done to death on here.  He's a good player for us, but does have limitations.  He's not a 20-a-season man, but will hit double figures with enough games.  His pace is a great asset to us, but he lacks a top level footballing brain.

Is there really anything more that needs to be said?