Jump to content

Peter Griffin

Established Member
  • Posts

    5,400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Peter Griffin

  1. That table was BS, it had Everton on -35m and they spent 25m already. It had toon on about 160m and Toon are a profitable club as Ashley wouldn't spend money.
  2. And there was me thinking only the best players managed to get pre contracts with a big payday. I got that wrong
  3. Man Utd appear to have drawn the short straw in that negotiation Edit: I should have read the date. But it is funny that the same shyte is believable today
  4. I know that applies to English based players but only if they are going to a club outside of England. Does the same apply for German/Italian/Spanish/French players going to England?
  5. And if the PR/marketing is good enough now then clubs will think they are getting a bargain by paying him a 10m+ sign on fee in June
  6. I am thinking he doesn't want to move in Jan and he wants a free transfer in the summer with a big sign on fee and huge wages due to lack of transfer fee. I think his agent is just generating the interest and profile of him for the summer. I hope I am wrong and that we can pick him up on the cheap now
  7. Sorry, I am not trying to down your discussion, I am just engaging. For me the priority at Villa should be defensive players. I think we need major upgrade on FB, CB and CDM. But as per comment above in response to Nick, this would cost major ££££. Coutinho is an interesting option for a loan because he is a proper world class player and signing him would be Villa punching above our weight imo
  8. I would prefer defensive players to attacking players, I think they are needed more. That hasn't changed. Coutinho is an interesting proposition as he is a genuinely world class player and the type of player I hadn't expected us to be linked with or had a chance of signing for quite a few years. The discussion above is about the opportunity cost of brining in Coutinho. My point is that unless we have something to compare it to then it can't be seen as a negative based on the opportunity cost. I would love to see us invest in a really top class full back, a really top class CB and a really top class CDM. But this would cost us 150m+ and maybe 500k a week in wages, so signing Coutinho doesn't compete with this. The cost of a loan signing for 6 months won't make much of a dent what I would like see done for our team. Would I take Coutinho for 6 months at the expense of playing our kids? Yes. The reason being is that he is a mega star. The non footballing benefits are very significant and he is one of the very very few players that is a game changer and could directly be responsible for us finishing higher up the table. I can't think of another player in the world that I feel is attainable that could make this difference. Signing Coutinho is like signing someone of deBruyne's quality.
  9. But what is the difference between that argument and saying that the cost of taking other opportunities and not taking the opportunity of signing Coutinho? Unless one knows what the propositions are it is impossible to assess an opportunity cost. For every single transfer every club make, it could be argued there is an opportunity cost of not pursuing a different strategy
  10. i know this is not the FFP thread and I don't want to derail, but I don't believe we are tight with FFP. We sold a player for 100m 6 months ago and with amortisation this gives us a huge amount of wiggle room. I am not sure I get the frees as being the most effective use of our money logic. Regardless of the cost of a player, whether free, 50m or on 40k a week or 200k a week, it is only effective use of money if they deliver on the pitch. Then the decision comes down to which player would be more effective for Villa Coutinho or unknown freebie. Also, we get about 3.5m extra per each finishing position in the PL. So even if we do not qualify for Europe, if Countinho can help us to finish 2 places higher in the league then that is worth 7m and will have paid for him.
  11. PC would cost a significant amount less than 10m, it would be a loan signing not a permanent transfer. I don't get your opportunity cost example, you are omitting any wages for these two players. Are u suggesting we would be signing 2 players anyway and the opportunity is to sign 2 players on higher wages with higher sign on bonuses?
  12. But do u not miss the days of ---------------------Wes/Davis--------------------------- ----------El Ghazi-------------------Trezeguet--------
  13. Yes, cardiac arrest and not failure, just a typo. I am in complete agreement with what u are saying
  14. I just can't see that transfer happening. If it does happen it would be quite exciting but I don't think I would be a fan of it. That said, I wasn't a fan of Gerrard becoming our manager when he was first linked with us but I am very happy with him now so I will keep an open mind
  15. That depends on the diagnosis as to why the heart failure occurred. If CE has the issues with his heart related to ventricular arrhythmia he would not pass a medical at Villa and would not be playing football
  16. That's total nonsense. Heart failure has nothing to do with the body not being able to handle the stress.
  17. And would Freddie fit the bill as RB to cover for Cash during the next 18 months? I hope he would
  18. Obviously if he decides that he doesn't want to play and it was a mistake he can leave football and leave Villa. With no transfer fee there isn't much risk to this. If he leave it would be a mutuel agreement and we wouldn't continue to pay his wages. What is the major risk to Villa?
  19. I am completely with u on that. He would be a rat if he was a Villa player doing that. But taking money out of Levy's pocket and pulling the rug out from under a transfer fee for Levy actually moves him up in my estimation. Yes, that is probably petty, but Levy is the guy that tried to exploit Villa when we were at our most vulnerable and offered us 3.5m + Josh Onomah and a pack of toffos for Jack
  20. I would assume insurance would have a heart related clause that wouldn't cover it so it should be just a normal insurance policy and it would be down to CE to take the risk of being uninsured for heart failure issues. My thinking is that clubs would view him as a risk because we all saw him 'die' for a couple of minutes live on TV. It is natural that the initial reaction would be to avoid at all costs. If the guy wants to play football, which he said he does, and he is massively financially independent for the rest of his life, then he could be available relatively cheaply.
  21. It is only human for a player of that age and quality to let his contract expire to get a massive payday. Why should he sign a contract which would in effect give Daniel Levy money that CE could have? By going on a free he got 400k a week and a big sign on bonus. If he went for a fee then Levy would have got the sign on bonus and about 60% of the weekly age as opposed to CE.
  22. The health scare issue is a non issue. Yes, if your heart stops it is potentially very serious, but it is 'just' your heart stopping, it is an electrical issue and not a mechanical or plumbing issue. Once the heart is restarted in sufficient time then there are zero negative impacts. The fact that it happened would raise concern that it could possibly happen again but CE has got a little device installed which will kick start the heart if it happens again. So it is a choice of the selfish conniving player or the brilliant player. Are these actually mutually exclusive? I think CE would add so much to the dressing room and his skill as a player cannot be ignored. Furthermore, after a near death experience people often want to live life to the full and have a wonderful attitude to what they do. Its a Yes from me
×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â