Purse Strings
#1
Posted 30 October 2014 - 07:30 PM
For example
Boco on pay as you play, don't play him don't pay him, he's probably got a part time evening job to help him by
Same situation with Lamb, Dawes and others
Armand out on loan with someone else paying his wages, even though it leaves us short of strikers
Johnson not playing, does games played and minutes on pitch determine what Villa pay for his wages
Only players we take on loan where the other club pays the wages
All the rumours about player interest to prepare us for players being sold in January
I am probably totally wrong but I am trying to justify in my head why things have gone so badly wrong recently
Hopefully back to winning ways on Saturday
COYB
#2
Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:14 PM
Benno Spire, on 30 October 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:
For example
Boco on pay as you play, don't play him don't pay him, he's probably got a part time evening job to help him by
Same situation with Lamb, Dawes and others
Armand out on loan with someone else paying his wages, even though it leaves us short of strikers
Johnson not playing, does games played and minutes on pitch determine what Villa pay for his wages
Only players we take on loan where the other club pays the wages
All the rumours about player interest to prepare us for players being sold in January
I am probably totally wrong but I am trying to justify in my head why things have gone so badly wrong recently
Hopefully back to winning ways on Saturday
COYB
All that based on total speculation so I guess your feeling that you are totally wrong may be correct
#3
Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:45 PM
Premier League team desperate to get game time for a youngster to either prove he can step up or so that he can be sold. So they set a loan deal that means if he does play it costs the loaning club extra money. Yes that makes perfect sense to me.
#4
Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:54 PM
dalekpete, on 30 October 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:
Premier League team desperate to get game time for a youngster to either prove he can step up or so that he can be sold. So they set a loan deal that means if he does play it costs the loaning club extra money. Yes that makes perfect sense to me.
Is this nail on the head time? For all the waffling about not a long term solution, not our player, etc, the reason he is not playing is that we cant afford him any more? Fair enough, I suppose.
Although, when he originally came, there were strong hints he wasn't going to cost much at all, as it served Villa's purposes to get him playing.
#5
Posted 30 October 2014 - 09:32 PM
dalekpete, on 30 October 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:
Premier League team desperate to get game time for a youngster to either prove he can step up or so that he can be sold. So they set a loan deal that means if he does play it costs the loaning club extra money. Yes that makes perfect sense to me.
I'm sorry but I think you have got it the wrong way around
depending on the loan deal, NOT playing him can cost the loaning club money
It is a bit obvious, as you stated "Premier League team desperate to get game time for a youngster to either prove he can step up" so what point would there be in discouraging his new club from playing him.
Anyway back to Johnson, Cook stated Villa were helping us with his wages, and as we have dropped him it suggests there is no insidious tie ins.
#6
Posted 30 October 2014 - 09:53 PM
60s 70s Spireite, on 30 October 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:
No it is more nailing a lie.
#7
Posted 30 October 2014 - 10:42 PM
dalekpete, on 30 October 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:
please explain, with facts
#8
Posted 30 October 2014 - 11:37 PM
azul, on 30 October 2014 - 10:42 PM, said:
I cannot imagine any loan deal for a developing player where the parent club places a financial restriction that might mean their player wont play. For an established player I could see a clause where meeting specific league objectives are recognised financially; even then a pay to pay would not suit either party.
#9
Posted 31 October 2014 - 12:19 AM
dalekpete, on 30 October 2014 - 11:37 PM, said:
ah
So I think we are in agreement
Your original statement "So they set a loan deal that means if he does play it costs the loaning club extra money"
This post has been edited by azul: 31 October 2014 - 01:12 AM
#10
Posted 31 October 2014 - 01:25 AM
It clearly confused not just me but "70s 80s" as well given his response in post 4
If that sort of deal was in place we would be paying Villa for not playing him, so we can put that theory to bed
This post has been edited by azul: 31 October 2014 - 01:35 AM
#11
Posted 31 October 2014 - 07:54 AM
#15
Posted 31 October 2014 - 09:53 AM
LuSiVe, on 31 October 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:
Amazed anyone didn't see it!!!!!
#16
Posted 31 October 2014 - 09:57 AM
60s 70s Spireite, on 31 October 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:
Indeed. What happened to cross the bridge when you get to it?
If the lads need game time, arange. Few friendly matches then banks Gardner gboly onovwigun raglan broad head can get up to speed
#17
Posted 31 October 2014 - 11:24 AM
a kick in the balls, on 31 October 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:
If the lads need game time, arange. Few friendly matches then banks Gardner gboly onovwigun raglan broad head can get up to speed
Will he bite the bullet and play Johnson tomorrow
Will he see that as admitting he was wrong (which he was)
#19
Posted 31 October 2014 - 11:49 AM
brianclose, on 31 October 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:
He's resisted that temptation in the last thee games but you never know
#20
Posted 31 October 2014 - 04:12 PM
azul, on 31 October 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:
Will he see that as admitting he was wrong (which he was)
I hope so, we need a win to give the team some confidence back. What better chance than Johnsons last game against a struggling side at home?