Deal accepted for Morgan Rogers.

Morgan Rogers has produced several of the best bits of skill we’ve seen this season.
His first touch, vision and execution to create goals against Millwall and Rotherham were Premier League class.

However, he is not good enough to be in our starting eleven when everyone is fit.

Nevertheless, it’s a shocking bit of business to accept a deal that quadruples the cost of signing him in six months.

But the deal creates a profit that is equivalent to the sum of our financial losses last year, revealed in our recently published accounts.

What is the point of signing these young players and watching them struggle for consistency and then sell them on as soon as a Premier League club comes calling?

Our useless recruitment team don’t know what they are doing!

Because we have let Rogers go, we will now have to buy someone, before the window closes, with just two days to go, otherwise we will only have signed that young lad we brought in to replace him, a fortnight ago!

Be prepared (not a Villa pun) because we will lose more young players over the next year or so, as soon as PL club offers us a wedge; and we will then have to go and buy a load of other young players to replace them!

We haven’t got a clue, a plan, or any chance of going up!

Keiron Scott?! Keiron Sh!te more like!

We should be looking to emulate Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford and the other clubs who have been promoted recently.

We shouldn’t be getting in talented young players, giving them match experience and watching them improve and then selling them for a profit and recycling the money.

It all goes straight into Gibbo’s pocket anyway!

Poor Michael Carrick. We’ll lose him. He’ll get fed up of this!

You can’t build a team that plays entertaining, skillful technical football if you keep selling your best players and then going out and buying more!

Pullis and Warnock wouldn’t put up with this. Nor Wilder!

Carrick is useless, man!!!
 
Merlin said:
We could have just said no and kept a very good asset who would most likely have increased in value and benefited our squad on the pitch. If this is “the model” it’s not a very forward thinking one.
Click to expand...
No. It is "forward thinking" but not in the way that you mean. Rogers has gone but we need to attract the next guy who might be in Rogers' situation, he has stagnated at a "big club" been out on loan and in danger of falling out of view. We give him a chance to come and prove himself here and part of the deal is that when/if he gets a better offer we don't stand in his way. That doesn't mean we roll over and take the first offer that comes in but we will not hold players once they express a wish to move on.

It is where we are now and what we do.
 
People saying we should have held out for £20-£30m are mental. If Villa have identified they want him because he's a good value signing then that is only true when they are getting him for a reasonable fee. He's a great value signing for them at £5m, good at £15m and if they are spending £20m+ they can get proven quality elsewhere instead. There's a max they will pay. He's a championship player with no top level experience.

If you saw a house that you think could be worth £200k available for £100k and with a bit of development it would be worth £200k then the most you are going to spend is £200k. No matter how good you think it'll be when it's developed if it's not going to be more than £200k then you are never going to pay £300k for it.

If the seller bought the house for £50k a few months ago and they are holding out for £300k then they're never going to sell it. Even if they want a £200k house themselves they are going to have to put the money into it themselves or sell up now and start on the next project.
 
Nano said:
People saying we should have held out for £20-£30m are mental. If Villa have identified they want him because he's a good value signing then that is only true when they are getting him for a reasonable fee. He's a great value signing for them at £5m, good at £15m and if they are spending £20m+ they can get proven quality elsewhere instead. There's a max they will pay. He's a championship player with no top level experience.

If you saw a house that you think could be worth £200k available for £100k and with a bit of development it would be worth £200k then the most you are going to spend is £200k. No matter how good you think it'll be when it's developed if it's not going to be more than £200k then you are never going to pay £300k for it.

If the seller bought the house for £50k a few months ago and they are holding out for £300k then they're never going to sell it. Even if they want a £200k house themselves they are going to have to put the money into it themselves or sell up now and start on the next project.
Click to expand...

Chelsea have just offered £3 million pounds for this house you've mentioned. No they don't need to see it. They've got a 100 year mortgage so it's all good.😎😎😎
 
Muttley said:
No. It is "forward thinking" but not in the way that you mean. Rogers has gone but we need to attract the next guy who might be in Rogers' situation, he has stagnated at a "big club" been out on loan and in danger of falling out of view. We give him a chance to come and prove himself here and part of the deal is that when/if he gets a better offer we don't stand in his way. That doesn't mean we roll over and take the first offer that comes in but we will not hold players once they express a wish to move on.

It is where we are now and what we do.
Click to expand...
"It is where we are now and what we do."
We have been there before to be fair.
 
Just the realities of football. Villa are bigger than us and have taken a good player off us. Same as we took Azaz from Plymouth. Dog eat er dog pal. Hopefully we can get a good player in
 
I think the whole puts into light some over exuberant fans around demanding 20 million etc

The sell on fee is brilliant. We sell for 10 million now and if he reaches his potential of becoming a 40/50 millions player we could get more. If he doesn’t we’ve extracted great value. Add in the money saved on wages it’s looks an excellent deal
 
northernrower said:
Horrendous deal.

Means we will initially pocket £6m after Man City have taken their cut.

Minus the £1.5m we paid for him and that's £4.5m profit.

As for add ons, we have to assume we cannot count them until he hits those milestones.

Just to reiterate, £4.5m profit.

Appalling business.
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely we paid Man City the full £1.5m more like £400k. The £1.5m is usually paid over the length of his contract, which was 4 years. So if Villa have to pay £10m upfront that’s a profit of over £9.5m, if City have a 20% sell on clause that’s £1.9m. So that’s a nice profit of £7.6m for 6 months as our player + the adds ons. Good bit of business for the Boro
 
Boro_Interlinked said:
There are quite a few circumstances that can thwart any of these add-ons. I am surprised Boro have accepted a deal where 45pc of the players top valuation has been accepted as optional. I'm guessing its to with Villa not having the wriggle room right now , but they would have had more in summer.
I'm not even trying hard for this one
Emery gets poached by a top Euro club in summer
New guy comes in, doesn't fancy Rogers that much reduces his game time, the squad time then basically hes an unused player just a registered squad place
100% of Boro's add-ons goes south with just that 1 scenario can think of at least another 7 of these type of things
Click to expand...
In which case we've got a wad of cash for a dud.
 
I get that it's a sizeable profit after only a few months and that the player will have wanted to go - and that it kinda fits this ' new model', BUT...maybe I'm old skool etc, what it has done is undeniably weaken our team.
Football has changed with the huge influx of money, freedom of contract etc, but if our new model includes having to sell our better players on a very regular basis, then I don't see Carrick hanging around for long...and I'm beginning to feel similar. I understand the financial realities and we're certainly not alone in being in this position, but maybe it's just not for me. See the season out and have a think.
 
If we were sat rosy in 1st / 2nd no way would the deal happen - fact is, if he stays here he's in the Championship next season... We've made good money on him, he's got a more to the premier league win win. Now we move on
 
Merlin said:
I can’t believe how easily pleased some of you are - this is by no means a good deal for us. If City are getting 25% of the alleged £10m up front that’s only £7.5m profit, or about £5.75m if you knock off what he originally cost plus wages. Ok there may be more to come down the line but that could be some way off. We could have just said no and kept a very good asset who would most likely have increased in value and benefited our squad on the pitch. If this is “the model” it’s not a very forward thinking one. In fact right now it feels more like backwards thinking rather than forwards.
Click to expand...

You criticize the model and say we could have rejected the bid and kept an asset who in your words "would most likely have increased in value". However, the alternative is we turn down the deal on the table and are left with a disgruntled player on our hands who has made it clear he wanted the move. He doesn't try a leg for the rest of the season and we end up with an unhappy player who unsettles the rest of the dressing room. Everyone in the football world then knows he wants out and so the offers become extremely lowball until we're forced to accept anything just to get rid of him in the summer.

Now I know nothing about Rogers or his attitude and he may well have been the model professional if we denied him the move. However, what I will say is its all too easy to criticise without the knowledge of what conversations have taken place between Rogers, his agent and the club behind the scenes. Those conversations would have played a big part in any decisions we made as a club about whether to even enter into negotiations, let alone accept a bid or not.

I'm confident we didn't want to sell as we only gave him a 4 year deal 6 months ago so he was part of our longer term plans, but sometimes plans have to change at short notice once you're presented with new information. Whilst we are a Championship club we are going to have to make tough decisions we don't want to make from time to time.
 
You'd honestly think he was Merson and De Bruyne's lovechild since he signed, the way some people are going on.
He's had a decent last two months in the league as a starter.
He has the potential to possibly be a 20mill plus player, but he definitely has work to do to be that.
" Creating chances" alone isn't enough.
He's actually quite 'unadaptable' in terms of positional responsibility currently.
The value of where he's at right now is probably correctish.
We're 15 points + off 4th , and our best run came with him not starting.
Is he a better player than Brownhill , Hamer, Akpom, Summerville, Rutter, Barkley, etc.
 
People saying he won't get a game when everyone is back, apart from McGree coming back who else is potentially keeping him out? Silvera no chance, Jones potentially injured for a while now to add to the mix too.

We've made a decent profit on him and the move is too good for him to turn down, but only a good deal if we use the money and invest in a new striker for me.

It's a shame he's not staying, I thought back end of this season and next season he was going to become a top player for us.

Hope the moves works out for him and he develops into the player most of us can see him becoming.
 
Last edited:
morrissey said:
I get that it's a sizeable profit after only a few months and that the player will have wanted to go - and that it kinda fits this ' new model', BUT...maybe I'm old skool etc, what it has done is undeniably weaken our team.
Football has changed with the huge influx of money, freedom of contract etc, but if our new model includes having to sell our better players on a very regular basis, then I don't see Carrick hanging around for long...and I'm beginning to feel similar. I understand the financial realities and we're certainly not alone in being in this position, but maybe it's just not for me. See the season out and have a think.
Click to expand...

This is my concern, people keep pointing to the Brentford/Brighton model but that model to the best of my knowledge was never to sell players 6 months into their deal. It was always one season minimum, mostly two seasons.

If the club are going to identify hidden gems and Carrick is going to coach them into better players and they’re going to be sold mid-season despite being on long-term deals what’s the point? We’re not going to get anywhere with that strategy. I wouldn’t blame him for thinking what’s the point and going elsewhere.
 
Andythetouch said:
only a good deal if we use the money and invest in a new striker for me.

People saying he won't get a game when everyone is back, apart from McGree coming back who else is potentially keeping him out? Silvera no chance, Jones potentially injured for a while now to add to the mix too.

We've made a decent profit on him and the move is too good for him to turn down, but only a good deal if we use the money and invest in a new striker for me.

It's a shame he's not staying, I thought back end of this season and next season he was going to become a top player for us.

Hope the moves works out for him and he develops into the player most of us can see him becoming.
Click to expand...

Guess the point of " everyone is back " .. is Everyone is back .
Without a fit Jones , ELL , Silvera , Coburn , Crooks , Mcgree then of course he starts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top