Speculation Summer Speculation 2015

[dn1982]

Do players actually lose that much in the last year of their contract these days?? If next summer we were to sell Benteke their would be an auction for him. Didn't we get £17m for young and £12m for Barry in their last years? Which is roughly their value anyway!

[Isa]

Benteke earns Villa money. He is an excellent player and raises the game of those he plays with because they know if they can do their job and get the ball to him he poses a threat. In a better team Benteke would be just another very good player, and consequently he is worth more to us than he is to another team, and that would be reflected in the money we get for him. Benteke is the beast. If you were a sponsor looking to associate your brand with Villa, you'll want Benteke standing by your car, or drinking your sports drink. In another team they'll again have plenty of players that can perform such a function for sponsors. Again worth more to us, than to them. 

 

Without him we're left with a disheartened team missing its focal point, no real saleable personality for the sponsors and a massive gap up front with no idea where the goals are going to come from. I think if you offered Benteke to West Ham tomorrow for £30 million on a three year contract, they'd jump at the chance and every West Ham fan in the country would be absolutely delighted with the business that had been done. We bought Darren Bent potentially for £24 million. Let's say the final tally was closer to £20 million. We were all delighted with the signing. It's an example of some very bad business that can be done for a lot of money. And now we've no Benteke and only £10 million left. 

 

Again I'll say that we got £12 million for Gareth Barry in the last year of his contract. Keep him for one more year under Sherwood. If Benteke isn't worth twice in the last year of his contract what Gareth Barry was in the last year of his, then I'll eat my hat.

I don't think this reasoning is grounded in reality. If it was then lesser sides would display the same resolve in keeping their best player/s and see their values reduced on the premise that 'they are worth more to them then they are to the bigger clubs'. What examples are there of other clubs doing this?

Also, comparatively valuating has it's problem - i.e. this player went for X so we're bound to get Y for Benteke. If I were to calculate Benteke's value now (the definition of value being what other clubs would be willing to pay), then I think around the £30m marker is likely. If you consider that Bony was sold for £28m on the back of being the highest league scorer over a calender year and not long after signing a new contract. Ok, we know that Benteke is better (although I rate Bony also so I wouldn't say by much) and he's a little younger but that is the closest recent example you can elude to. I don't see a precedent to suggest that anybody would go as high as the £40m being floated around in this thread. If Benteke is circa a £30m player, then he could only be worth maybe £20m with a year left on his deal. I for one would deem it a travesty if he went for that sort of fee.

I don't think you did a good job of arguing against me there apart from a little supposition. The statement was that you could see absolutely no legitimate justification for it when there clearly is, even if you don't agree that it is the right course of action.

I think 2/3 places is a big underestimate. I think he is worth 5/6 places over an average striker, minimum, which is in turn worth much more than the extra £5-6m in extra prize money. Perhaps that is our disconnect.

I qualified it with the word 'legitimate'. As in I didn't see listed any argument in which I felt the benefits of retaining Benteke another season outweigh the financial hit in doing so. That wasn't to say there is absolutely no benefits from retaining him.

As for my claim about places, I feel that even is an average (in context) squad which should never have been in a relegation battle. If we assume we will have an improved squad next season and continued on-field upturn under Sherwood's stewardship, then we should be on the edge of a top-half finish even without Benteke. So at best Benteke might help push us to 8th or something? Therefore 2/3 places being the difference in that respect.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

The upturn in form is with Benteke leading the way though isn't it?

Regardless, can you not see the commercial benefit to the club finishing 8th next season as opposed to 11th in fairly basic terms? Do you not think that to be worth the £10m we might lose on his value?

Listen anyway, those top, top clubs don't care how long is left on a players contract. If they want, they go and get. You are overstating the value of his contract length. Big time.

[YLN]

 

Benteke earns Villa money. He is an excellent player and raises the game of those he plays with because they know if they can do their job and get the ball to him he poses a threat. In a better team Benteke would be just another very good player, and consequently he is worth more to us than he is to another team, and that would be reflected in the money we get for him. Benteke is the beast. If you were a sponsor looking to associate your brand with Villa, you'll want Benteke standing by your car, or drinking your sports drink. In another team they'll again have plenty of players that can perform such a function for sponsors. Again worth more to us, than to them. 

 

Without him we're left with a disheartened team missing its focal point, no real saleable personality for the sponsors and a massive gap up front with no idea where the goals are going to come from. I think if you offered Benteke to West Ham tomorrow for £30 million on a three year contract, they'd jump at the chance and every West Ham fan in the country would be absolutely delighted with the business that had been done. We bought Darren Bent potentially for £24 million. Let's say the final tally was closer to £20 million. We were all delighted with the signing. It's an example of some very bad business that can be done for a lot of money. And now we've no Benteke and only £10 million left. 

 

Again I'll say that we got £12 million for Gareth Barry in the last year of his contract. Keep him for one more year under Sherwood. If Benteke isn't worth twice in the last year of his contract what Gareth Barry was in the last year of his, then I'll eat my hat.

I don't think this reasoning is grounded in reality. If it was then lesser sides would display the same resolve in keeping their best player/s and see their values reduced on the premise that 'they are worth more to them then they are to the bigger clubs'. What examples are there of other clubs doing this?

Also, comparatively valuating has it's problem - i.e. this player went for X so we're bound to get Y for Benteke. If I were to calculate Benteke's value now (the definition of value being what other clubs would be willing to pay), then I think around the £30m marker is likely. If you consider that Bony was sold for £28m on the back of being the highest league scorer over a calender year and not long after signing a new contract. Ok, we know that Benteke is better (although I rate Bony also so I wouldn't say by much) and he's a little younger but that is the closest recent example you can elude to. I don't see a precedent to suggest that anybody would go as high as the £40m being floated around in this thread. If Benteke is circa a £30m player, then he could only be worth maybe £20m with a year left on his deal. I for one would deem it a travesty if he went for that sort of fee.

I don't think you did a good job of arguing against me there apart from a little supposition. The statement was that you could see absolutely no legitimate justification for it when there clearly is, even if you don't agree that it is the right course of action.

I think 2/3 places is a big underestimate. I think he is worth 5/6 places over an average striker, minimum, which is in turn worth much more than the extra £5-6m in extra prize money. Perhaps that is our disconnect.

I qualified it with the word 'legitimate'. As in I didn't see listed any argument in which I felt the benefits of retaining Benteke another season outweigh the financial hit in doing so. That wasn't to say there is absolutely no benefits from retaining him.

As for my claim about places, I feel that even is an average (in context) squad which should never have been in a relegation battle. If we assume we will have an improved squad next season and continued on-field upturn under Sherwood's stewardship, then we should be on the edge of a top-half finish even without Benteke. So at best Benteke might help push us to 8th or something? Therefore 2/3 places being the difference in that respect.

 

Ten million pounds for a year of Benteke doesn't seem like good value to you? Then there is nothing to discuss. 

 

Players are not owned by clubs anymore. They drift between teams as per the terms of their contract. Each time a contract is renewed, the player gets a signing on fee that reflects the amount of money that the player would get from a club were he to move on a free. Every contract renewal contains within it this sort of a fee. When a player plays for your team he is yours for the duration of the contract. When you buy him, you pay the fee and his wages for the duration of the contract. When you renegotiate a contract it's like buying him all over again, because each time as a bargaining chip he has, 'if my contract runs down, I'll get mega bucks from someone else'.

 

Say Man City were looking at Bony and also Benteke, but Benteke was at the end of his contract. They go to Swansea and Swansea say they want £30 million. Bony wants £70k per week. They go to Benteke. Benteke says he wants £70k/week plus a £25 million pound signing on fee. They save five million for an equivalent player. They'll go with Benteke, and he gets his £25 million pocket money. This is as clear an example as I can make. 

 

All parties to a contract know that the money is for the duration of the contract, and that when it's over, they have to have the awkward conversation about how if they don't renegotiate it like he's a new player, and they're negotiating with club and player (both of whom are player), then he'll say he'll just hang around til the end of his contract and then go to City and get his £25 million bonus. Yes there's the stand off of we won't play you, we're transfer listing you, but that weakens the bargaining position of the selling club because they are motivated sellers, but the inverse is that they can benefit from having a Benteke in their side who is angling for a move to a club, and trying to make himself look every bit as good if not better than a player Man City would have to pay £30 million for if he was under contract. 

 

What I'm basically saying is that new contract negotiations are transfer negotiations to all intents and purposes, and any transfer is for the duration of the contract and no longer. We are paid up to have Benteke play for us for another two years. Negotiate a new contract with him now, or in two years time, the conversation will be generally the same. Sell him now, or in two years time the same, the only difference being whether or not you think he represents value to the club, paying as we are his wages and his decrease in value, over the duration of the contract, as is the case for every other good player in the premier league. I think the cost to us over the next two years of his wages, and the money we won't get from him in transfer value is worth it. It's the price of having an excellent player play for your team. 

 

Consider Falcao. He is reported to have cost Man Utd £26 million for the season he's with them including his wages. Adding Benteke's wages of around £3 million and you get £13 million pounds for the year, and you don't think Benteke represents value at that?

 

Well you're dead wrong.

[Isa]

The upturn in form is with Benteke leading the way though isn't it?

Regardless, can you not see the commercial benefit to the club finishing 8th next season as opposed to 11th in fairly basic terms? Do you not think that to be worth the £10m we might lose on his value?

Not really, no. I'd rather just invest that £10m on another asset for the squad. Eighth is another also-ran position, there won't be any significant boost from that other than the increased money for finishing a few places higher. And like I say, I don't believe it's out of reach even without Benteke.

[John]

 

 

 

 

Did we replace Barry, Milner, Young or Downing like for like or did selling them help our owner's bank ballance

Neither?

 

The myth that Randy is making money from Aston Villa continues

 

He was not "making money" but he was taking money back that had previously been spent on these players and a bit more on top (it was once called "profitable player trading" at our club). This reduced the gap between overall spending on players and income from player sales at the cost of performance on the field but not to the extent that he has added to his wealth during his time as our custodian.  

So basically, nothing like you said first time around at all? Instead you meant to say "The money was used to help keep the club afloat financially".

 

That Randy, what a heartless bastard!

 

No that is not what I meant to say.I do not consider our current custodian to be a heartless B** either.

 

He tried to spend in order to make us a CL club which would have made that money very well spent given the impact it would have had on the value of the club he had bought,

 

When that did not work because Manchester City and to a lesser extent Spurs had deeper pockets he then took a very big risk in order to try to balance the books with a view to a sale and by balancing the books he will get a larger amount of his money back when selling than he would have done had he replaced like for like.

 

But this is water under the bridge now. We are looking at the summer window now rather than at Randy (who may have left by then) and I like others would like to bring in players to add to a team that includes Benteke rather than to look for replacements for him if that proves to be possible.            

[YGabbana]

Its got to be 40million hasnt it? If they want to lower the fee by including a player then 39million + Borini will do

[sexbelowsound]

They should pay us more to take their flops off their hands, not lower the initial fee.

That being said I'd imagine that both us and Benteke would laugh at Liverpool. He has surpassed them now and when he leaves it will be to a consistent champions league side, not a Europa league side.

[Folski]

Not Liverpool anyone but then, I dont think I can bare to watch CB play for another PL team, if we have to sell him, send him to PSG.

[Dr_Pangloss]

If they rated Andy Carrol at 30 odd million then Benteke should cost them £40m minimum. £30m is wide of the mark IMO, that's only £5m more than what they paid for Lallana and Benteke has done way more in football and has way more potential to become a genuinely great player than Lallana.

[Demitri_C]

If they rated Andy Carrol at 30 odd million then Benteke should cost them £40m minimum. £30m is wide of the mark IMO, that's only £5m more than what they paid for Lallana and Benteke has done way more in football and has way more potential to become a genuinely great player than Lallana.

This

[HeyAnty]

 

If they rated Andy Carrol at 30 odd million then Benteke should cost them £40m minimum. £30m is wide of the mark IMO, that's only £5m more than what they paid for Lallana and Benteke has done way more in football and has way more potential to become a genuinely great player than Lallana.

This

 

But they didnt.  They rated Torres at 20million or something more than him so it was Chelsea who rated him at 30mill.  We should pick out a striker we want and tell liverpool we rate Bentekke at 10-20 mill more than him so go and do the deal like Chelsea.

[Danishlad]

Liverpool want Benteke cause they know we are going to overtake them. Tell them to get lost. 

We should put in an offer for Coutinho.

[lexicon]

Benteke'll go there if they pony up 30mil and we're not going to overtake Liverpool. Let's be realistic here guys. 

[sexbelowsound]

Liverpool want Benteke cause they know we are going to overtake them. Tell them to get lost. 

We should put in an offer for Coutinho.

 

We already did, he went to Liverpool....

[Folski]

Is all this coming from the Metro link? If so I'd say forget about it.

[NeilS]

When I see people rating Benteke at £20-£25 million, and then see the likes of McCormack and Rhodes who are basically Championship level forwards being valued at £10-£12m, then that tells me their is something drastically wtong with Bentekes valuation. If we sold Benteke with the idea of using it to improve more than one area of the team, then we aren't going to get far with that £25m based on the values I am seeing other players going for. If we are looking to sell to improve our team, then it has to be £40million minimum in my eyes. That then would need to go on 2-3 players.

 

Anyway, in my opinion we should be looking to keep hold of Benteke and offering a contract extension this summer, he appears to be enjoying himself here again, and has built up a decent understanding with Grealish and Delph.

[rodders0223]

If resigned to selling I would definitely take Borini.

[bobzy]

 

The upturn in form is with Benteke leading the way though isn't it?

Regardless, can you not see the commercial benefit to the club finishing 8th next season as opposed to 11th in fairly basic terms? Do you not think that to be worth the £10m we might lose on his value?

Not really, no. I'd rather just invest that £10m on another asset for the squad. Eighth is another also-ran position, there won't be any significant boost from that other than the increased money for finishing a few places higher. And like I say, I don't believe it's out of reach even without Benteke.

 

 

But the not also-ran positions (terrible term) would be out of reach without Benteke?

[dn1982]

Benteke is a 1 in 2 striker he's 24 and coming into his prime £30m should be the starting point of any bidding war.