2023 Summer transfer window - hopes, needs, expectations and rumours.

[Beard82]

I think, most non villa fans would put Wilson on a similar level to Wtakins - Wilson gets in the England squad ahead of him.  And in all fairness, we properly had him in Danny Ings. 

If we sell Archer, then there is a plan at foot - if not, I think that's what we're banking on - rightly or wrongly. 

I think its also worth mentioning that signing a backup is much harder.  Does Wilson go to Newcastle to play backup if Isak is already there?

That doesn't really change our situation, though.

Signing players to play in positions where there's an established player is always going to be a challenge, but it happens all the time.

It didn't stop us signing Pau Torres as a left footer CB when we have an extremely embedded left footed CB in place.

Unless you think it's really impossible for us to acquire a more match-ready striker than Duran and Archer?

Unless you think it's really impossible for us to acquire a more match-ready striker than Duran and Archer?

TBH, I think that is a big ask.  outside the top 8, how many other teams forwards are you taking from the PL for example? 

[pauliewalnuts]

I think, most non villa fans would put Wilson on a similar level to Wtakins - Wilson gets in the England squad ahead of him.  And in all fairness, we properly had him in Danny Ings. 

If we sell Archer, then there is a plan at foot - if not, I think that's what we're banking on - rightly or wrongly. 

I think its also worth mentioning that signing a backup is much harder.  Does Wilson go to Newcastle to play backup if Isak is already there?

That doesn't really change our situation, though.

Signing players to play in positions where there's an established player is always going to be a challenge, but it happens all the time.

It didn't stop us signing Pau Torres as a left footer CB when we have an extremely embedded left footed CB in place.

Unless you think it's really impossible for us to acquire a more match-ready striker than Duran and Archer?

Unless you think it's really impossible for us to acquire a more match-ready striker than Duran and Archer?

TBH, I think that is a big ask.  outside the top 8, how many other teams forwards are you taking from the PL for example? 

Neither of Duran or Archer has ever scored a single Premier League goal.

You reckon we can't sign a striker more proven than that?

Put it this way, imagine in three weeks time, Watkins picks up a bad injury, or even a half-bad one, who is playing in his role for us while we wait for him to recover?

[Dave]

TBH, I think that is a big ask.  outside the top 8, how many other teams forwards are you taking from the PL for example?

Why would we need to sign our potential new striker from the bottom 14 Premier League teams?

[PaulWinch again]

I think we need another forward who can play in Watkins role.

[Beard82]

I think with Ramsey and Archer, it's worth remembering, it's not just about the sums they fetch for FFP purposes, it's that they are both home grown, which is FFP gold dust.

Am i right in thinking that, assuming we got 14m for ramsey and 20m for archer, that would easily cancel out this seasons amortisation costs for our new signings so far? We would absolutely need another striker were that to happen though (although someone like Brennan Johnson would be fine for me, as opposed to an out-and-out striker)

Doesnt that also mean that FFP is bollocks - if we sell 2 players that cost us nothing on low wages and buy someone new on high wages - how are we in a better position in the real world?

Not sure that question makes sense.

If we sell players who are youth products, we get to book the entire transfer fee in whichever period we want to, so we could sell Ramsey and Archer for say 40m and book the entire lot to this year's FFP if we wanted. That gives us immense room for maneouvre.

FFP is absolutely a thing, look at the state of Wolves and Everton for proof of that.

The absolute saving grace for us in our recent transfer activity has been 120m for two homegrown players.

Sorry, Im not questioning that FFP is a thing.  but what doesn't make sense to me is how selling 40m gives us anything more to play with than £40m?

I'm not trying to be smart, hopefully by now you guys know I'm anything but smart, but In my head, if we sell a house for 200k, and buy another house for 200k were in the same position?

Obviously, I get we could sell a "bad" house and buy a "good" house - but in reality, most of the time, prices are set by the market so any bargain is within a finite scope

[Beard82]

Im not saying we cant buy a player more proven than Archer or Duran - but who realistically can we sign that isn't Danny Ings that would come, and would either cost less than 40m and play backup to Watkins, or cost more and be better than him?

Im not trying to be obtuse, and my knowledge beyond the UK is limited, but i personally don't see it

[Dante Lavelli]

I can see a Felix type signing, possibly on loan.  Funded by the sale of archer.

Just a hunch but I think they want to make a statement.

[PaulWinch again]

I can see a Felix type signing, possibly on loan.  Funded by the sale of archer.

Just a hunch but I think they want to make a statement.

Well I don’t think there’s a chance we’re selling Archer and not bringing another forward in.

[pauliewalnuts]

I think with Ramsey and Archer, it's worth remembering, it's not just about the sums they fetch for FFP purposes, it's that they are both home grown, which is FFP gold dust.

Am i right in thinking that, assuming we got 14m for ramsey and 20m for archer, that would easily cancel out this seasons amortisation costs for our new signings so far? We would absolutely need another striker were that to happen though (although someone like Brennan Johnson would be fine for me, as opposed to an out-and-out striker)

Doesnt that also mean that FFP is bollocks - if we sell 2 players that cost us nothing on low wages and buy someone new on high wages - how are we in a better position in the real world?

Not sure that question makes sense.

If we sell players who are youth products, we get to book the entire transfer fee in whichever period we want to, so we could sell Ramsey and Archer for say 40m and book the entire lot to this year's FFP if we wanted. That gives us immense room for maneouvre.

FFP is absolutely a thing, look at the state of Wolves and Everton for proof of that.

The absolute saving grace for us in our recent transfer activity has been 120m for two homegrown players.

Sorry, Im not questioning that FFP is a thing.  but what doesn't make sense to me is how selling 40m gives us anything more to play with than £40m?

I'm not trying to be smart, hopefully by now you guys know I'm anything but smart, but In my head, if we sell a house for 200k, and buy another house for 200k were in the same position?

Obviously, I get we could sell a "bad" house and buy a "good" house - but in reality, most of the time, prices are set by the market so any bargain is within a finite scope

Because when we spend money on players from other clubs, for FFP purposes the fee is ammortised over the length of their contract.

If we sign Pau Torres for 25m on a 5 year contract, for FFP purposes he is considered as 5m a year for 5 years.

If we sell a home grown player, we get the entire fee as profit, obviously, which is a good start, but we also get to assign that entire amount to the current year if we want to.

So, if we sell Ramsey for 15m (changing the figures here for easier maths) then we can assign that entire sale price (which is 100% profit) to this year, which would cover the ammortisation cost for the year of three Pau Torreses.

This is what Man City and Chelsea are excellent at, yes, they throw huge amounts of money at it (too much in Man City's case, hence the charges, but that doesn't make this part wrong), but they also sell home grown players for big money which gives them room to maneouvre.

Newcastle, for example, theoretically have tons of money but can't spend it because they have raised almost zero from homegrown sales for a decade.

[pauliewalnuts]

Im not saying we cant buy a player more proven than Archer or Duran - but who realistically can we sign that isn't Danny Ings that would come, and would either cost less than 40m and play backup to Watkins, or cost more and be better than him?

Im not trying to be obtuse, and my knowledge beyond the UK is limited, but i personally don't see it

We have an entire department of Monchi and his data minions to do exactly that.

Look at Brighton's modus operandi. It's way more complex than pulling a name out of the air, but it is still entirely doable.

[Olof's Beard]

Watkins had scored 0 Premier League goals before he joined us.

[Beard82]

I think with Ramsey and Archer, it's worth remembering, it's not just about the sums they fetch for FFP purposes, it's that they are both home grown, which is FFP gold dust.

Am i right in thinking that, assuming we got 14m for ramsey and 20m for archer, that would easily cancel out this seasons amortisation costs for our new signings so far? We would absolutely need another striker were that to happen though (although someone like Brennan Johnson would be fine for me, as opposed to an out-and-out striker)

Doesnt that also mean that FFP is bollocks - if we sell 2 players that cost us nothing on low wages and buy someone new on high wages - how are we in a better position in the real world?

Not sure that question makes sense.

If we sell players who are youth products, we get to book the entire transfer fee in whichever period we want to, so we could sell Ramsey and Archer for say 40m and book the entire lot to this year's FFP if we wanted. That gives us immense room for maneouvre.

FFP is absolutely a thing, look at the state of Wolves and Everton for proof of that.

The absolute saving grace for us in our recent transfer activity has been 120m for two homegrown players.

Sorry, Im not questioning that FFP is a thing.  but what doesn't make sense to me is how selling 40m gives us anything more to play with than £40m?

I'm not trying to be smart, hopefully by now you guys know I'm anything but smart, but In my head, if we sell a house for 200k, and buy another house for 200k were in the same position?

Obviously, I get we could sell a "bad" house and buy a "good" house - but in reality, most of the time, prices are set by the market so any bargain is within a finite scope

Because when we spend money on players from other clubs, for FFP purposes the fee is ammortised over the length of their contract.

If we sign Pau Torres for 25m on a 5 year contract, for FFP purposes he is considered as 5m a year for 5 years.

If we sell a home grown player, we get the entire fee as profit, obviously, which is a good start, but we also get to assign that entire amount to the current year if we want to.

So, if we sell Ramsey for 15m (changing the figures here for easier maths) then we can assign that entire sale price (which is 100% profit) to this year, which would cover the ammortisation cost for the year of three Pau Torreses.

This is what Man City and Chelsea are excellent at, yes, they throw huge amounts of money at it (too much in Man City's case, hence the charges, but that doesn't make this part wrong), but they also sell home grown players for big money which gives them room to maneouvre.

Newcastle, for example, theoretically have tons of money but can't spend it because they have raised almost zero from homegrown sales for a decade.

Got you -thanks for the explanation, really clear - so if I own a house, and sell it - I bank the money.  If i buy a house I mortgage it and spread it over the length of the mortgage.

I can see from an accounting perspective that makes sense.  Not sure it actually does what it's "meant to", i.e. stop clubs from spending money they don't have - as buying a player doesn't require you to be able to afford it (which I get is the same with businesses' assets).

Surely just means the best youth players are pretty much priceless as 10m in sales is worth 40m in purchases.  So clubs will find ways of corrupting the system to get valuable youths?  which is properly already happening.

[Beard82]

Im not saying we cant buy a player more proven than Archer or Duran - but who realistically can we sign that isn't Danny Ings that would come, and would either cost less than 40m and play backup to Watkins, or cost more and be better than him?

Im not trying to be obtuse, and my knowledge beyond the UK is limited, but i personally don't see it

We have an entire department of Monchi and his data minions to do exactly that.

Look at Brighton's modus operandi. It's way more complex than pulling a name out of the air, but it is still entirely doable.

But isn't it basically that which bought us Duran?  I know it was Lange not Monchi - but that's what we did

[AV84]

If we sell Archer too, even with a buyback clause, we have to be looking at bringing someone else in. No way we go into the season expecting Watkins to play every single game with only Durán as back up. Something must be in the works.

Mbappe hasn't gone anywhere yet, has he?

I saw something earlier that suggested he'd agreed a deal with a Prem side but it fell through. Can only assume he heard we'd be in the market very soon.

Surely he must realise that working with Unai and his coaches will only improve him as a player.

He wants to win a European trophy and knows we're his best bet.

[pauliewalnuts]

Im not saying we cant buy a player more proven than Archer or Duran - but who realistically can we sign that isn't Danny Ings that would come, and would either cost less than 40m and play backup to Watkins, or cost more and be better than him?

Im not trying to be obtuse, and my knowledge beyond the UK is limited, but i personally don't see it

We have an entire department of Monchi and his data minions to do exactly that.

Look at Brighton's modus operandi. It's way more complex than pulling a name out of the air, but it is still entirely doable.

But isn't it basically that which bought us Duran?  I know it was Lange not Monchi - but that's what we did

Duran as one for the future, I don't know who signed it off. But Duran quite clearly isn't ready for prime time yet, and wasn't bought for that. and if Watkins picks up an injury, it'd be either him or Archer having to do that.

If we're going to see ourselves as challengers for a Champions League place, then we are going to have to start building a team of stronger players, and that is going to mean that not all our youth products will go on to be a Grealish.

We're getting £14m for Ramsey. We'd probably get £20m plus for Archer.

That, with the FFP bonus, is a massive chunk of flexibility in terms of spending.