FFP

[PaulWinch again]

Maybe, but circumstance and injury gave Rogers his opportunity too. I’d be wary of making him the yardstick for every young player who is signed, he’s had an exceptional start to his Villa career that’s unlikely to be the norm for all players.

[Dogtanian]

We are always going to be selling good, young players. Because it isn't just about how good a player is, there are other factors.

The timing of when a player matures is a big part of this. A player who is ready at a time where we have a weakness in their area can progress into the first team, but that same player coming through at a time where we are strong is most likely going to get sold.

Philogene is another example. We wanted him to stay, but he wanted to be playing more matches which his ability deserved. We couldn't offer it to him last summer so we sold him because it was best for both his development and our finances.

You're taking a gamble on youth. You don't know what the situation will be when they mature, years later but you try your best to either use them or make them work financially. We release far more players than we ever use or sell.

[Dave]

Philogene is another example. We wanted him to stay, but he wanted to be playing more matches which his ability deserved. We couldn't offer it to him last summer so we sold him because it was best for both his development and our finances.

This is also presumably part of the Duran issue.

[algy]

The point I’m failing to make is this juggling PSR rules means we have to buy and sell players for reasons other than their ability.

In an ideal world I don’t think we’d want to sign both Illing Jnr AND Dobbin (or sell Kellyman), so whilst we have got ourselves out of a hole we don’t want it to be an integral part of our transfer strategy.

Also, thanks to Emery, we are trading in a rising market, with players values increasing. Imagine having a bad season and falling prices. then we are at risk having to sell our best players at low prices.

It is an absolutely bizarre situation that to be "sustainable" clubs are encouraged to sell off players that have cost them nothing/a very low fee and replace them with ones that they've bought from some other club's academy.

I think in some regards the Iroegbunham-Dobbin swap makes sense anyway.  Iroegbunham wasn't going to get a game for us, that much was clear at the end of last season when Emery still wasn't playing him despite the rest of the squad being dead on their feet.  Dobbin feels like he'd be a handy player to have on the bench to me - a player who can play across the front 3, and I think as someone else had said I could see him being brought in to play understudy to Ollie.  Seems a perfectly reasonable move from our point of view.  But it doesn't make the whole situation any less strange.

Also, as Paulie mentioned - whilst I'm not sure that it makes an awful lot of sense logically, you can't really argue with the fact that our academy has produced £40m from 2 players who weren't even an integral part of the team.  And that's before you start thinking about A.Ramz, Cam Archer, Finn Azaz and soforth.  It must've made us £60m in the past couple of seasons.  We're probably better off selling every player coming through the academy regardless of how good they are, and spending the proceeds on buying a £60m that fits our exact need every couple of seasons.

[Dogtanian]

Yes, plus as we get better and the level of the squad improves, it will get harder and harder to find young players who will perform to it.

[Smithy]

The point I’m failing to make is this juggling PSR rules means we have to buy and sell players for reasons other than their ability.

In an ideal world I don’t think we’d want to sign both Illing Jnr AND Dobbin (or sell Kellyman), so whilst we have got ourselves out of a hole we don’t want it to be an integral part of our transfer strategy.

Also, thanks to Emery, we are trading in a rising market, with players values increasing. Imagine having a bad season and falling prices. then we are at risk having to sell our best players at low prices.

It is an absolutely bizarre situation that to be "sustainable" clubs are encouraged to sell off players that have cost them nothing/a very low fee and replace them with ones that they've bought from some other club's academy.

I think in some regards the Iroegbunham-Dobbin swap makes sense anyway.  Iroegbunham wasn't going to get a game for us, that much was clear at the end of last season when Emery still wasn't playing him despite the rest of the squad being dead on their feet.  Dobbin feels like he'd be a handy player to have on the bench to me - a player who can play across the front 3, and I think as someone else had said I could see him being brought in to play understudy to Ollie.  Seems a perfectly reasonable move from our point of view.  But it doesn't make the whole situation any less strange.

Also, as Paulie mentioned - whilst I'm not sure that it makes an awful lot of sense logically, you can't really argue with the fact that our academy has produced £40m from 2 players who weren't even an integral part of the team.  And that's before you start thinking about A.Ramz, Cam Archer, Finn Azaz and soforth.  It must've made us £60m in the past couple of seasons.  We're probably better off selling every player coming through the academy regardless of how good they are, and spending the proceeds on buying a £60m that fits our exact need every couple of seasons.

Every club sells youth products for a profit, even the very, very wealthy ones.  We are not unique in that. See Cole Palmer last summer (and all the other youngsters they've sold on over recent years).  The fact is we RELY on it more than they do - at the moment - because we don't yet have the commercial operation of a top 6 side. That will come if Unai keeps us challenging at the top end.  And when we do, youth sales will become less important, but they'll still happen - because making £20m+ a year profit from your academy is like having another major sponsor.

We perform well above average in developing players; in the last two seasons we've sold almost £100m worth of youth players (assuming the Kellyman deal goes through), with Chuck Jnr, Archer, Ramsey Jnr, Philogene, Azaz, Iroegbunam, and Kellyman.  Go back another year and Grealish is included and takes that figure to £200m. 

Let's be very clear, without that revenue, we don't have the players in our first team that got us into the Champions League, either because we couldn't afford to buy them in the first place, or we couldn't afford to keep them.

I hate selling promising youth prospects without giving them the chance to establish themselves with us, but I also recognise that without doing it, we wouldn't have the resources we need to develop a top four firs team.

Until the FFP rules change, I don't see that changing.

[Drummond]

Our investment in young players and the academy is paying off. We're catching up with Man City and Chelsea who have been doing it far longer. Liverpool have too, but it feels to me like they bring more through to the first team.

Arsenal and Tottenham are behind us, but surely will look to catch up.

[Risso]

Our investment in young players and the academy is paying off. We're catching up with Man City and Chelsea who have been doing it far longer. Liverpool have too, but it feels to me like they bring more through to the first team.

Arsenal and Tottenham are behind us, but surely will look to catch up.

Arsenal would probably argue that with Saka, Martinelli, Saliba and Smith-Rowe in the team, their academy is working really well.

[chrisw1]

I think too much is being made of all this in the media. There is no way we are buying players just because it helps us and Everton.

I am sure we wouldn’t have bought Dobbin if we didn’t rate him. There is, though, a system of financial controls in place that forces clubs ton constantly be vigilant on their three year net spend and a result of that is that there are market distortions - like selling home grown players being particularly good for PSR numbers. It has become another element in assessing signings, yes, but not in itself a standalone reason for signing someone.

I'm not sure I agree.  Whilst I think our sale prices are absolutely defendable, I don't think we would have bought Dobbin at all, let alone at that price if it wasn't a simple quid pro quo with Everton.  I think Tim is the better prospect, but would have expected us to sell this summer anyway because of FFP.  I strongly suspect taking Dobbin was the price we paid to get the deal through. 

[LeeB]

I think too much is being made of all this in the media. There is no way we are buying players just because it helps us and Everton.

I am sure we wouldn’t have bought Dobbin if we didn’t rate him. There is, though, a system of financial controls in place that forces clubs ton constantly be vigilant on their three year net spend and a result of that is that there are market distortions - like selling home grown players being particularly good for PSR numbers. It has become another element in assessing signings, yes, but not in itself a standalone reason for signing someone.

I'm not sure I agree.  Whilst I think our sale prices are absolutely defendable, I don't think we would have bought Dobbin at all, let alone at that price if it wasn't a simple quid pro quo with Everton.  I think Tim is the better prospect, but would have expected us to sell this summer anyway because of FFP.  I strongly suspect taking Dobbin was the price we paid to get the deal through. 

I know its been hot but don't be daft.

[chrisw1]

I'm don't think I'm being daft Lee.  I doubt we'll see much of Dobbin in the first team.

[Dave]

Our investment in young players and the academy is paying off. We're catching up with Man City and Chelsea who have been doing it far longer. Liverpool have too, but it feels to me like they bring more through to the first team.

Arsenal and Tottenham are behind us, but surely will look to catch up.

Arsenal would probably argue that with Saka, Martinelli, Saliba and Smith-Rowe in the team, their academy is working really well.

I agree with your overall point - but I think counting Saliba is a stretch. He cost them £30m as a first-team player at St Etienne and barely set foot in Arsenal's academy.

[LeeS]

I’ve got an idea. To avoid clubs having to sell homegrown players, why don’t the PSR rules permit the opposite of amortisation. If you have an academy player and he signs a new contract you get to add his value to your balance sheet. So Kellyman could sign a 5 year deal with us and we book the £20m valuation as a new asset. Of course, that would u wind if you sold him a year later but at least you would t be forced to sell good youngsters just to balance the books.

[Toronto Villa]

I see Chelsea are interested in spending £115m on Isak.

[pablo_picasso]

That John Townley bloke from the Birmingham Mail reckons the youngsters being sold have nothing to do with PSR because the Douglas Luiz deal covers that problem...

BirminghamLive understands Douglas Luiz's €50m move to Juventus is the deal which puts Villa in the clear regarding PSR.

So any thoughts that they are simply flogging the likes of Tim Iroegbunam and Omari Kellyman to avoid a possible points deduction for breaking rules are wide of the mark.

And with the club's fears over PSR thus alleviated, any other transfer activity will simply be based on footballing requirements rather than financial, even though selling an academy player for pure profit, such as Kellyman, is obviously going to bolster any balance sheet.