Alejandro Garnacho - loan deal agreed

[algy]

That’s the thing with managers you like, any deals you don’t like the look of you pin on the Director of Football, even if all evidence is pointing to Unai actually thinking he can get a tune out of him.

The difference with this deal and Sancho is that we’re 6 weeks away from deadline day, Sancho and Elliott were complete panic buys to bring bodies in, and none of us know how much input Unai had on them, we can only guess.

I think Sancho was more out of necessity than anything.  We weren't in a place to spend money on permanent deals, and being out of the Champions League neutered any possibility of getting Rashford/Asensio type loans.  In the loan market, you're necessarily looking at players that their current club doesn't want for their first team.  You can't poach a regular first team player like that.  Quite possibly Sancho was seen as the best available option - a player that wouldn't cost us much upfront, and at worst wouldn't look completely out of place as a squad player for a Champions League-chasing side.

Garnacho feels similar in a sense - Chelsea don't want him, and we need to keep our (transfer) expenditure down to comply with the UEFA sanctions.  The difference I think is that Garnacho is 4 years younger than Sancho and has shown more glimpses of the player he could be. *If* Emery can coax that player out, we'll have bought a £80m+ player for £40m.  Hopefully the obligation/option to buy only kicks in once we've got a decent idea of how well he'll fit in to our squad.  I'm sure half of Harvey Elliot's problem was that the conditions of the loan.  Ironically we'd have been far more likely to buy him if we didn't have to buy him.

Fabrizio has already laid the groundwork "the obligation to buy clause is considered easy to reach, almost guaranteed."

Oh god, is this with Garnacho or generally?

[Dogtanian]

According to the estimed "Law Insider" website;

"Virtually certain means >99% probability"

So, if it's x number of appearances or starts, or Villa qualifying for Europe, etc., are any of those going to be considered above that threshold?

I'd say if the condition was appear at all, be named in a matchday squad, or Villa not be relegated, that might be considered virtually certain.

[Dogtanian]

The London Evening Standard are reporting that the condition is only appearance based.

"Standard Sport understands those conditions should be easily achievable and relate to appearances made for Villa."

I'd say they would likely be around half a season's worth of appearances, maybe 20 or so? That way we could realistically look to trigger the clause in January, under the 2027 reporting period for UEFA.

[Percy McCarthy]

I don't see how UEFA could ever see it as a swap deal based on a conditional loan agreement, given how we treated Harvey Elliot last season. We've already shown - very publicly - that a loan with an easily achievable milestone that requires us to buy them, doesn't automatically mean we WILL buy them. 

I will be stunned if we've agreed to another "appear 10 times and we buy you" deal, but I also think it will be at a level where we can simply stop playing him if it's not working out.

I can not see any other method other than being based on  appearance's to contract a conditional loan deal.

Guessand’s was based on goals and assists.

[kippaxvilla2]

I wonder if alternating Nacho with Alysson might be a way of stretching the obligation clause into next years UEFA accounting system?

That would give us more Libre for sure.

[Clampy]

Maybe one of the conditions is that he has to wash his arse ?

[kippaxvilla2]

Maybe one of the conditions is that he has to wash his arse ?

He definitely strikes me as one that would not fit the DT hygiene standards.

[Dave]

My post is that I think, based on the information we have, is that we are compliant.

By way of caution, I have not seen either contract so I am at a serious disadvantage. Equally, neither has Fabrizio and I wouls be skeptical of what his interpretation is and placing any legal significance to it.

One thing's for sure - if we have done something silly yet again which in turns screws us (unable to play Garnacho / UEFA are grumpy with us / other), then after all the previous SNAFUs it's definitely time to accept that as a club we're just not very good at this rather than whining about the mean rules that keep holding us back.

[chrisw1]

UEFA will make a judgment based on if they consider the clubs are gaming the system.  I'm not sure if that will require a '99% probability' test or a 'reasonableness' test.  We'll see.

[Dogtanian]

Maybe one of the conditions is that he has to wash his arse ?

He definitely strikes me as one that would not fit the DT hygiene standards.

In the old days, they could make the youth players scrub their posteriors. Game's gone, innit.

[Clampy]

Maybe one of the conditions is that he has to wash his arse ?

He definitely strikes me as one that would not fit the DT hygiene standards.

In the old days, they could make the youth players scrub their posteriors. Game's gone, innit.

Weren't they called Groom of the Stool or suchlike?

[andyh]

The London Evening Standard are reporting that the condition is only appearance based.

"Standard Sport understands those conditions should be easily achievable and relate to appearances made for Villa."

I'd say they would likely be around half a season's worth of appearances, maybe 20 or so? That way we could realistically look to trigger the clause in January, under the 2027 reporting period for UEFA.

But, we know that’s not easily achieved.
Even 10 games isn’t easily achieved, Elliot proves the case.

Hopefully, Garnacho earns his move because he deserves to start many,many games.

[London Villan]

If he plays 25-30 games he has done something right.

[aev]

My post is that I think, based on the information we have, is that we are compliant.

By way of caution, I have not seen either contract so I am at a serious disadvantage. Equally, neither has Fabrizio and I wouls be skeptical of what his interpretation is and placing any legal significance to it.

One thing's for sure - if we have done something silly yet again which in turns screws us (unable to play Garnacho / UEFA are grumpy with us / other), then after all the previous SNAFUs it's definitely time to accept that as a club we're just not very good at this rather than whining about the mean rules that keep holding us back.

100%

[Percy McCarthy]

I think we employ a specialist to handle all this financial compliance stuff don’t we?