Not finding life in the EPL as easy as they thought it would be 😁
They're not this season's FFC as I keep hearing, they're worse!
Has Little Jack lost something like 20 games on the trot now?
Grealish isn't settling into the EPL like many thought he would. Not. So. Easy. Is it?
Quote from: Sgt Fulham on August 17, 2019, 07:22:21 PM
Grealish isn't settling into the EPL like many thought he would. Not. So. Easy. Is it?
No surprise, it's hard competing when you spend most of the time on the floor.
As we all know the Championship is a difficult Division to get out of but is the Premiership becoming a difficult league to stay in for promoted Clubs?
We wouldn't wish for them to be relegated now would we? :022:
They were a bit unlucky today,2 bad mistakes cost them early,you can't get away with that in the premier or you'll get punished.
As we found out to our cost ....
Quote from: Fernhurst on August 17, 2019, 08:00:39 PM
We wouldn't wish for them to be relegated now would we? :022:
I would
I would
Like mcginn he looks a player.
It's a shame there are only 3 teams relegated as there are a few I'd happily see relegated
Careful. I recall in recent memory a team in a similar position and the talisman just shrugged and looked bemused and the head coach was coming out with some very strange statements about being braver. Grealish has acknowledged his own failings and their coach has some decent players to work with. Villa won't set the league on fire but they are only a couple of games away from settling into that 11 to 16th void.
Quote from: ScalleysDad on August 18, 2019, 08:56:21 AM
Careful. I recall in recent memory a team in a similar position and the talisman just shrugged and looked bemused and the head coach was coming out with some very strange statements about being braver. Grealish has acknowledged his own failings and their coach has some decent players to work with. Villa won't set the league on fire but they are only a couple of games away from settling into that 11 to 16th void.
+1
Bias aside who would have thought after the first two games of last season it would turn out the way it did for us? Keep faith with what you have and wait for fortunes to turn, and if they don't then don't do anything stupid.
I'd love it if they went down, just love it!!!!!
Who wants to put bias aside? 😂
Why do people particularly want Villa relegated? Not sure what they have done to become an object of dislike?
Quote from: Twig on August 18, 2019, 10:27:17 AM
Why do people particularly want Villa relegated? Not sure what they have done to become an object of dislike?
I've seen numerous comments from their fans (enough to conclude it's the general sentiment of their fans) that, essentially, because they're such a "big" club it's better for English football to have clubs like them in the PL than "little" clubs like Fulham (and Norwich, Burnley, Watford, Bournemouth et al) who'll never challenge for the top spots. Being one of the five English clubs to win the European Cup seems to make them think they're still/eternally entitled to be treated as a top club like Liverpool and Man Utd and will challenge those teams again sometime soon. Leeds fans seem to have similar views. Feel a bit sorry for them really... but would still love to see relegation being them back to reality.
I couldn't have put it better myself Statto. Apart from the feeling a bit sorry for them part!
Yes, they have a sense of entitlement - we BELONG in the Prem.
I've seen numerous comments from their fans (enough to conclude it's the general sentiment of their fans) that, essentially, because they're such a "big" club it's better for English football to have clubs like them in the PL than "little" clubs like Fulham (and Norwich, Burnley, Watford, Bournemouth et al) who'll never challenge for the top spots. Being one of the five English clubs to win the European Cup seems to make them think they're still/eternally entitled to be treated as a top club like Liverpool and Man Utd and will challenge those teams again sometime soon. Leeds fans seem to have similar views. Feel a bit sorry for them really... but would still love to see relegation being them back to reality.
« Last Edit: Today at 11:11:54 AM by Statto »
Plus - John Terry
On Sky (where else!!), "Villa are a Premier League club, they have a massive stadium, big fan base....have spent £140m....they deserve to be in the Premier League.... "064.gif
,
I just want them relegated so pundits can shut up about "doing a Fulham". Gets tedious when you're looking for team news and half of the articles are about Villa.
Quote from: Statto on August 18, 2019, 10:55:12 AM
Quote from: Twig on August 18, 2019, 10:27:17 AM
Why do people particularly want Villa relegated? Not sure what they have done to become an object of dislike?
I've seen numerous comments from their fans (enough to conclude it's the general sentiment of their fans) that, essentially, because they're such a "big" club it's better for English football to have clubs like them in the PL than "little" clubs like Fulham (and Norwich, Burnley, Watford, Bournemouth et al) who'll never challenge for the top spots. Being one of the five English clubs to win the European Cup seems to make them think they're still/eternally entitled to be treated as a top club like Liverpool and Man Utd and will challenge those teams again sometime soon. Leeds fans seem to have similar views. Feel a bit sorry for them really... but would still love to see relegation being them back to reality.
Whilst i care not if they stay up or go down, i am aware that many people think that it is better to have the prem populated with so called big clubs. Big meaning traditional big city clubs with large stadium that won things when the dinosaurs still ruled the planet.
Unfortunately that would mean forrest and derby under clough would not have happened, or wimbledon and all the other aspirational clubs that turn the cosy old order on its head. I believe you should be there on merit not because of your past. Villa have been run dreadfully so desrved what they got because they were delusionally living in the past. It is a shame for supporters when owners are poor, we should know. But i hate the media obsession with big clubs. Leeds is a particular gripe, the media keep saying they deserve to be in the prem. No they don't, their team and management do not merit it.
In fact the rules are endlessly changed to favour the rich, particularly substitutes. The idea originally was a substitute just for injury, then ce tactical changes were allowed and them multiple substitutes it meant the rich could expand squads and destabilise the idea of it being a fair contest. No replays, penalty shoot outs, the loan system all work in favour of the richer clubs. I personallthink football is morally bankrupt.
Quote from: Statto on August 18, 2019, 10:55:12 AM
Quote from: Twig on August 18, 2019, 10:27:17 AM
Why do people particularly want Villa relegated? Not sure what they have done to become an object of dislike?
I've seen numerous comments from their fans (enough to conclude it's the general sentiment of their fans) that, essentially, because they're such a "big" club it's better for English football to have clubs like them in the PL than "little" clubs like Fulham (and Norwich, Burnley, Watford, Bournemouth et al) who'll never challenge for the top spots. Being one of the five English clubs to win the European Cup seems to make them think they're still/eternally entitled to be treated as a top club like Liverpool and Man Utd and will challenge those teams again sometime soon. Leeds fans seem to have similar views. Feel a bit sorry for them really... but would still love to see relegation being them back to reality.
Fair enough
I'm from Birmingham and can't stand villa. Birmingham City fans are neanthdretheals. West Brom are the nicest people.
Grealish and Villa struggling could not be more delish. Entitled supporters for no reason, I can't wait for them to come back down.
I've given some thought to my huge dislike of Villa.
Its not the comments of their delusional fans. it's not the John Terry connection or their location.
It's Grealish......and I can't put my finger on why.
Just something about the guy that makes me cringe.
Quote from: Luka on August 18, 2019, 03:11:31 PM
I've given some thought to my huge dislike of Villa.
Its not the comments of their delusional fans. it's not the John Terry connection or their location.
It's Grealish......and I can't put my finger on why.
Just something about the guy that makes me cringe.
His constant throwing himself on the floor and a poo hair cut
Quote from: Tabby on August 18, 2019, 12:48:09 PM
I just want them relegated so pundits can shut up about "doing a Fulham". Gets tedious when you're looking for team news and half of the articles are about Villa.
I haven't heard a pundit say the truth that spending £100m on a team apart from Big Sam unless it already has 6-8 players that are already premier league ready. The media invented a narrative that suited them that TK spent poorly and that's why Fulham went down.
The truth is that their are only three ways to stay up i) spend £200m over a few years like Southampton or ii) develop a cohesive over a few years that can play Premier League (like Brighton, Burnley and Cardiff). Fulham tried to do a bit of both and did neither.
Pundits don't want to admit the truth that the Premier League is becoming a forgone conclusion, even recruitment is become more predictable. The only guy that told the truth was Big Sam implied Fulham should have bought three more expensive players (ie £30m+) as opppse to equivalent european players with PL experience (ie €30m euro players).
The lesson is Fulham need to start own promotion season with 6 premier league players, discover another two during the season, buy one in the winter transfer window and buy (or call back from loan) another four stars during the summer.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on August 19, 2019, 03:33:50 AM
Quote from: Tabby on August 18, 2019, 12:48:09 PM
I just want them relegated so pundits can shut up about "doing a Fulham". Gets tedious when you're looking for team news and half of the articles are about Villa.
I haven't heard a pundit say the truth that spending £100m on a team apart from Big Sam unless it already has 6-8 players that are already premier league ready. The media invented a narrative that suited them that TK spent poorly and that's why Fulham went down.
The truth is that their are only three ways to stay up i) spend £200m over a few years like Southampton or ii) develop a cohesive over a few years that can play Premier League (like Brighton, Burnley and Cardiff). Fulham tried to do a bit of both and did neither.
Pundits don't want to admit the truth that the Premier League is becoming a forgone conclusion, even recruitment is become more predictable. The only guy that told the truth was Big Sam implied Fulham should have bought three more expensive players (ie £30m+) as opppse to equivalent european players with PL experience (ie €30m euro players).
The lesson is Fulham need to start own promotion season with 6 premier league players, discover another two during the season, buy one in the winter transfer window and buy (or call back from loan) another four stars during the summer.
We seem to have learnt something - I think all of our loans are with an option to buy, so if were good enough to be promoted the squad will be intact this time.
We're in the process of discovering if SS can fulfil his promise and hopefully it will be a breakthrough season for one or more of our other promising youngsters.
At the moment all eyes are on us because we're said to have the best squad in the Championship and our start is showing promise (Oh Lord - please don't let me down when we play Millwall, Forest or Cardiff).
I think Scott has been given the chance of a lifetime. So what can go wrong? (so no negativity please)
I believe the sense of entitlement has always been present among supporters, pundits and even the authorities in one way or another since I have followed football. Villa have certain things that have always lead fans to believe they are entitled. The regular size of the gates you draw always equates to lots of money attracted into the game, or in audiences drawn to watching on TV, and in sales of add-ons, etc. Those factors have always been significant and the sight of Arsenal and Spurs building larger stadia shows the way the game has been and is moving. Advertising and betting, which are the big profiteers from large followings, reinvest at the margins and so the gravy keeps flowing for those governing the development of football. It may look successful but what if it is really myopic and the tide slowly turns people away from a stagnant model that rarely shows competition in its true light?
Sky and others have had it their own way for quite a time and the climate is due for a change, but it'll take less greedy leaders to make an impact and get football healthy and thriving again from top to bottom everywhere it is played. Money has to be in the right hands to be effective and that has always been true.
Quote from: Roberty on August 19, 2019, 07:13:59 AM
We seem to have learnt something - I think all of our loans are with an option to buy, so if were good enough to be promoted the squad will be intact this time.
We're in the process of discovering if SS can fulfil his promise and hopefully it will be a breakthrough season for one or more of our other promising youngsters.
At the moment all eyes are on us because we're said to have the best squad in the Championship and our start is showing promise (Oh Lord - please don't let me down when we play Millwall, Forest or Cardiff).
I think Scott has been given the chance of a lifetime. So what can go wrong? (so no negativity please)
A "loan with the option to buy" is much more expensive option than a "pure loan with an open price afterwards". Not getting any "options to buy" allowed Fulham to still have enough money to loan Mitrovoic, it was the right decision not to get any options to buy. We have more money now so it makes sense to sacfrice more of our budget to having a plan if we get promoted.
We got promoted by making sure every pound was spent on loans rather than "options to buy". TK sacfriced everything for getting up and that was one of the reasons we went down, but really not sure it was a mistake or a lesson we didn't already know.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on August 19, 2019, 07:52:57 AM
Quote from: Roberty on August 19, 2019, 07:13:59 AM
We seem to have learnt something - I think all of our loans are with an option to buy, so if were good enough to be promoted the squad will be intact this time.
We're in the process of discovering if SS can fulfil his promise and hopefully it will be a breakthrough season for one or more of our other promising youngsters.
At the moment all eyes are on us because we're said to have the best squad in the Championship and our start is showing promise (Oh Lord - please don't let me down when we play Millwall, Forest or Cardiff).
I think Scott has been given the chance of a lifetime. So what can go wrong? (so no negativity please)
A "loan with the option to buy" is much more expensive option than a "pure loan with an open price afterwards". Not getting any "options to buy" allowed Fulham to still have enough money to loan Mitrovoic, it was the right decision not to get any options to buy. We have more money now so it makes sense to sacrifice more of our budget to having a plan if we get promoted.
We got promoted by making sure every pound was spent on loans rather than "options to buy". TK sacfriced everything for getting up and that was one of the reasons we went down, but really not sure it was a mistake or a lesson we didn't already know.
I'm confussed - I don't think a loan with option to buy costs any more than just a loan because the buy option is not being paid upfront and as we found out when we were promoted the "open price" skyrocketed when we did get promoted - so Targett. Norwood and Kalas were offered to us at grossly inflated prices and more than they were subsequently sold for to their new clubs. As for Mitro - he was worth far less before we made him a star.
The advantage with options is that we have negotiated the buy price we would have to pay before the loan begins and I doubt we would have to buy any or many of them if we didn't get promoted - I think that is the plan - it would leave a successful team more or less intact - ready to be supplemented next January and again in May
Agree with this.
Look at Villa splashing out 20 mil on loanee Tyrone Mings. Don't believe "open loans" are cheaper when you get promoted. Just the opposite. So TK approach is sensible this time - although maybe it's sensible not because of careful consideration but simply because of FFP and Sess sale dragged on. Like the opportunity to try before buy.
What are the agreed prices for option to buy? Knockaert 15 mil, Reid 10 mil? What about others? So we know if we get promoted and we are happy with all the lads, we need to spend about 50 mil to make their contract permanent and probably invest another 50 mil in reinforcements. Therefore another 100 mil spending of a new promoted side, something for press to talk about... :003:
They've Everton home, Palace away and West Ham at home coming up, a nice run of games by PL standards. If they don't get three points from one of those games, things will start to turn sour.
Quote from: Nero on August 19, 2019, 12:01:16 AM
Quote from: Luka on August 18, 2019, 03:11:31 PM
I've given some thought to my huge dislike of Villa.
Its not the comments of their delusional fans. it's not the John Terry connection or their location.
It's Grealish......and I can't put my finger on why.
Just something about the guy that makes me cringe.
His constant throwing himself on the floor and a poo hair cut
Totally agree, always in the refs face trying to get someone booked. Watching Zaha yesterday for Palace he is the same.
@TheRationalFan
I can understand why the exercise price on an option to buy would be generous (no doubt it factors in how much the player's value will increase if they have a great season) but I'm not sure why the loan fee would be any higher.
In any case, the argument that we couldn't afford deals structured that way in 17/18, but can this season, is complete rubbish, sorry. Straight after the window closed in 2017, AM confirmed to the FST that we'd made a last-minute move for Gayle, the fee for which was reported to be £15m+. We evidently had plenty of money left over that summer. In contrast, TK's post-window video this year was all about how skint we are.
The approach in 17/18 showed a lack of foresight and football knowledge. It was a mistake, plain and simple, but fortunately one we've learnt from.
There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.
It's funny yes they have a big fan base and have had more glory than us, but our results against them is better, very close I know so why do they class themselves as a big / massive club, can't be that big and better than us!
v Aston Villa
Games won: 24
Games drawn: 22
Games lost: 23
Quote from: Sting of the North on August 19, 2019, 09:45:50 AM
There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.
True... but the difference is very stark: in 17/18 we didn't have options on any of Piazon, Kalas, Targett, Mitro or Norwood (0 out of 5) whereas in 19/20 we have options on all of Cavaliero, Knockaert, Reid and Reed (4 out of 4).
I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that is purely down to the selling clubs' positions, ie purely a coincidence that this year all the other clubs were amenable. Clearly there's been a significant change in our approach.
Either we weren't trying at all to get options to buy in 17/18, or we weren't trying anywhere near as hard as we tried this summer.
This is reinforced by TK in the video, where he talks about persuading clubs to agree this sort of structure.
Quote from: Statto on August 19, 2019, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on August 19, 2019, 09:45:50 AM
There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.
True... but the difference is very stark: in 17/18 we didn't have options on any of Piazon, Kalas, Targett, Mitro or Norwood (0 out of 5) whereas in 19/20 we have options on all of Cavaliero, Knockaert, Reid and Reed (4 out of 4).
I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that is purely down to the selling clubs' positions, ie purely a coincidence that this year all the other clubs were amenable. Clearly there's been a significant change in our approach.
Either we weren't trying at all to get options to buy in 17/18, or we weren't trying anywhere near as hard as we tried this summer.
This is reinforced by TK in the video, where he talks about persuading clubs to agree this sort of structure.
I agree. and didn't mean to come of as though I didn't really.
Quote from: Statto on August 19, 2019, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on August 19, 2019, 09:45:50 AM
There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.
True... but the difference is very stark: in 17/18 we didn't have options on any of Piazon, Kalas, Targett, Mitro or Norwood (0 out of 5) whereas in 19/20 we have options on all of Cavaliero, Knockaert, Reid and Reed (4 out of 4).
I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that is purely down to the selling clubs' positions, ie purely a coincidence that this year all the other clubs were amenable. Clearly there's been a significant change in our approach.
Either we weren't trying at all to get options to buy in 17/18, or we weren't trying anywhere near as hard as we tried this summer.
This is reinforced by TK in the video, where he talks about persuading clubs to agree this sort of structure.
The other change is that we are not developing younger players for PL clubs but loaning experienced players who could reasonably expect time on the pitch for most matches and who we would probably have purchased if FFP was not an issue
Quote from: Sting of the North on August 19, 2019, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: Statto on August 19, 2019, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on August 19, 2019, 09:45:50 AM
There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.
True... but the difference is very stark: in 17/18 we didn't have options on any of Piazon, Kalas, Targett, Mitro or Norwood (0 out of 5) whereas in 19/20 we have options on all of Cavaliero, Knockaert, Reid and Reed (4 out of 4).
I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that is purely down to the selling clubs' positions, ie purely a coincidence that this year all the other clubs were amenable. Clearly there's been a significant change in our approach.
Either we weren't trying at all to get options to buy in 17/18, or we weren't trying anywhere near as hard as we tried this summer.
This is reinforced by TK in the video, where he talks about persuading clubs to agree this sort of structure.
I agree. and didn't mean to come of as though I didn't really.
It's one area where we may contemplate that TK has indeed learned his trade and perhaps understood how his previous errors (shared with others) have impacted upon the success of the Club he co-owns. It is another reason why clubs always benefit from savvy negotiators on their side.
Quote from: Roberty on August 19, 2019, 11:49:07 AM
The other change is that we are not developing younger players for PL clubs but loaning experienced players who could reasonably expect time on the pitch for most matches and who we would probably have purchased if FFP was not an issue
Fair point, the loanees' average age must be higher this time around. It may also be that we never pushed for options in 17/18 because we just didn't think players like Norwood, Piazon and Kalas would ever be good enough for the PL. But whatever the explanation, it was still a mistake, still shortsighted, still something that increased the player turnover and disruption when we were promoted, and still something TK has clearly and deliberately changed this time around.
Also just realised I forgot Arter in my previous post.
