| Philogene 15:52 - Sep 3 with 5891 views | BiGDonnie |
Hasn't played much for Villa. Didn't even make the squad last weekend, was/is he injured? |  |
| |  |
| Philogene on 15:58 - Sep 3 with 5455 views | flettonblue |
Feels like villa getting a bit Chelseaesque with signings and transfer business. They bought him back cheaply (13mill?) and less than our bid due to their own sell on clause then I think will just either loan out and sell in the summer for a profit. Think they view buying him back (albeit a lot more than what sold him for a year ago - 5 mill?) as an easy way to make money eg they know he's worth least 18 mill as that's what w bid for him etc. |  | | |
| Philogene on 16:34 - Sep 3 with 5134 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Philogene on 15:58 - Sep 3 by flettonblue |
Feels like villa getting a bit Chelseaesque with signings and transfer business. They bought him back cheaply (13mill?) and less than our bid due to their own sell on clause then I think will just either loan out and sell in the summer for a profit. Think they view buying him back (albeit a lot more than what sold him for a year ago - 5 mill?) as an easy way to make money eg they know he's worth least 18 mill as that's what w bid for him etc. |
It was still £18m, as although they paid Hull £13m, they would also have received £5m if he had gone elsewhere.
£13m + £5m = £18m.
The idea that he 'cost' Villa £13m is a fallacy. |  |
| |
| Philogene on 16:40 - Sep 3 with 5036 views | greyhound |
| Philogene on 16:34 - Sep 3 by Marshalls_Mullet |
It was still £18m, as although they paid Hull £13m, they would also have received £5m if he had gone elsewhere.
£13m + £5m = £18m.
The idea that he 'cost' Villa £13m is a fallacy. |
If we go back for him next summer I would feel so hacked off |  | | |
| Philogene on 16:44 - Sep 3 with 4995 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Philogene on 16:40 - Sep 3 by greyhound |
If we go back for him next summer I would feel so hacked off |
Why? | |
| |
| Philogene on 16:44 - Sep 3 with 4989 views | Stenvict |
Tbf, I have no issue with him choosing Villa over us. They are playing in the Champions League and are almost guaranteed to be a Premier League team next season, whereas from the outside, we're one of the favourites to go down. | |
| |
| Philogene on 16:45 - Sep 3 with 4970 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Philogene on 15:58 - Sep 3 by flettonblue |
Feels like villa getting a bit Chelseaesque with signings and transfer business. They bought him back cheaply (13mill?) and less than our bid due to their own sell on clause then I think will just either loan out and sell in the summer for a profit. Think they view buying him back (albeit a lot more than what sold him for a year ago - 5 mill?) as an easy way to make money eg they know he's worth least 18 mill as that's what w bid for him etc. |
Plus, the 2 lads they got in the swap deal which saw Douglas Luiz go to Juventus have both ended up going back out on loan.... |  |
| |
| Philogene on 16:57 - Sep 3 with 4832 views | BiGDonnie |
| Philogene on 16:40 - Sep 3 by greyhound |
If we go back for him next summer I would feel so hacked off |
Naaaa, we'll get him on loan in January. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Philogene on 17:02 - Sep 3 with 4767 views | MK1 |
We don't need him. |  |
| |
| Philogene on 17:05 - Sep 3 with 4737 views | Churchman |
| Philogene on 16:40 - Sep 3 by greyhound |
If we go back for him next summer I would feel so hacked off |
That ship has sailed. He chose Villa as he was perfectly at liberty to do. If he gets a game, good for him. If he doesn’t and is peddled out on loan, he chose Villa. |  | | |
| Philogene on 17:10 - Sep 3 with 4679 views | positivity |
| Philogene on 16:40 - Sep 3 by greyhound |
If we go back for him next summer I would feel so hacked off |
i prefer clarke anyway, think it's unlikely! | |
| |
| Philogene on 17:21 - Sep 3 with 4596 views | Wacko |
| Philogene on 16:34 - Sep 3 by Marshalls_Mullet |
It was still £18m, as although they paid Hull £13m, they would also have received £5m if he had gone elsewhere.
£13m + £5m = £18m.
The idea that he 'cost' Villa £13m is a fallacy. |
Eh?
Stays at Hull: Villa receives £0
Goes to Ipswich: Villa receives £5m
Goes to Villa: Villa pays £18m but receives £5m = total cost £13m | |
| |
| WOW, you guys dont get it. on 17:27 - Sep 3 with 4555 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Philogene on 17:21 - Sep 3 by Wacko |
Eh?
Stays at Hull: Villa receives £0
Goes to Ipswich: Villa receives £5m
Goes to Villa: Villa pays £18m but receives £5m = total cost £13m |
Someone else signs him: Villa get £5m in their bank account.
Villa sign him, they don't receive that £5m, so they are effectively £5m down.
So... they have missed out on a £5m capital receipt, AND have laid out £13m.
The total cost to Villa is £5m (the income they have foregone) plus £13m (capital outlay). That's £18m.
Yes they paid Hull £13m, but the vital part you missed is that they have also foregone £5m in income.
Its simple maths. No worries if you cant get your head around it. [Post edited 3 Sep 2024 17:30]
| |
| |
| Philogene on 17:41 - Sep 3 with 4384 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Philogene on 17:10 - Sep 3 by positivity |
i prefer clarke anyway, think it's unlikely! |
Think Philogene is different gravy to Clarke to be honest and that's no disrespect to Clarke who is a good signing. Philogene I think will be a top player once he gets the chance. | |
| |
| Philogene on 17:45 - Sep 3 with 4338 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Philogene on 17:02 - Sep 3 by MK1 |
We don't need him. |
Depends how broady gets on. |  |
| |
| Philogene on 18:54 - Sep 3 with 4006 views | Churchman |
| Philogene on 17:41 - Sep 3 by Nutkins_Return |
Think Philogene is different gravy to Clarke to be honest and that's no disrespect to Clarke who is a good signing. Philogene I think will be a top player once he gets the chance. |
I don’t. Having seen them both, I think Clarke has just as much chance of becoming a top player as Philogene. They’re both top prospects. I would add that Hutchinson might just prove better than both of them. | | | |
| Philogene on 19:31 - Sep 3 with 3805 views | Heathlander |
| Philogene on 16:40 - Sep 3 by greyhound |
If we go back for him next summer I would feel so hacked off |
I think had he come we would not have J Clarke. J Clarke is a much better player and cheaper. |  | | |
| Philogene on 21:26 - Sep 3 with 3399 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Philogene on 18:54 - Sep 3 by Churchman |
I don’t. Having seen them both, I think Clarke has just as much chance of becoming a top player as Philogene. They’re both top prospects. I would add that Hutchinson might just prove better than both of them. |
I agree Hutchinson is right up there. I like Clarke, I just wonder whether he has the physicality and the raw pace to be a top player in the prem. Really hope so. He's an exciting player and I think he'll be great at coming on and being dangerous (and hopefully can force his way as a starter).
Philogene when I've seen him looks more complete, quicker and multiple ways to beat a man. Real prospect.
I'll be very happy if Clarke grows into a top class player. Already a good one and I think we got value in that deal. | |
| |
| Philogene on 21:54 - Sep 3 with 3258 views | Churchman |
| Philogene on 21:26 - Sep 3 by Nutkins_Return |
I agree Hutchinson is right up there. I like Clarke, I just wonder whether he has the physicality and the raw pace to be a top player in the prem. Really hope so. He's an exciting player and I think he'll be great at coming on and being dangerous (and hopefully can force his way as a starter).
Philogene when I've seen him looks more complete, quicker and multiple ways to beat a man. Real prospect.
I'll be very happy if Clarke grows into a top class player. Already a good one and I think we got value in that deal. |
It surprised me but he looked bigger than Hutchinson and isn’t short of pace. Likes to get involved too. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. | | | |
| WOW, you guys dont get it. on 22:35 - Sep 3 with 3140 views | 2-5-7 |
| WOW, you guys dont get it. on 17:27 - Sep 3 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Someone else signs him: Villa get £5m in their bank account.
Villa sign him, they don't receive that £5m, so they are effectively £5m down.
So... they have missed out on a £5m capital receipt, AND have laid out £13m.
The total cost to Villa is £5m (the income they have foregone) plus £13m (capital outlay). That's £18m.
Yes they paid Hull £13m, but the vital part you missed is that they have also foregone £5m in income.
Its simple maths. No worries if you cant get your head around it. [Post edited 3 Sep 2024 17:30]
|
Maths yes on a cashflow projection
Accounting wise you are either £5m banked or £13m spent
Can't place possible revenue in your accounts if it doesn't materialise
Villa already banked £5m on the sale to Hull in first place
Technically coat them £8 net
Could have made £10 in total revenue if he was sold to us
Unless you were messing about then I am officially whooshed and well done sir! |  | | |
| WOW, you guys dont get it. on 00:52 - Sep 4 with 2962 views | bluestandard |
| WOW, you guys dont get it. on 17:27 - Sep 3 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Someone else signs him: Villa get £5m in their bank account.
Villa sign him, they don't receive that £5m, so they are effectively £5m down.
So... they have missed out on a £5m capital receipt, AND have laid out £13m.
The total cost to Villa is £5m (the income they have foregone) plus £13m (capital outlay). That's £18m.
Yes they paid Hull £13m, but the vital part you missed is that they have also foregone £5m in income.
Its simple maths. No worries if you cant get your head around it. [Post edited 3 Sep 2024 17:30]
|
I concur.
With the small revision that they didn't actually 'forgo' anything. They effectively 'cashed in' their sell on clause and netted it against the total required fee of £18m. | | | |
| Philogene on 02:37 - Sep 4 with 2835 views | ArchiRob |
| Philogene on 16:34 - Sep 3 by Marshalls_Mullet |
It was still £18m, as although they paid Hull £13m, they would also have received £5m if he had gone elsewhere.
£13m + £5m = £18m.
The idea that he 'cost' Villa £13m is a fallacy. |
I think they sell him in the next window for 25 so they don't get their 5 from Hull sell but they make a quick 7 million for 6 months and Phil O Gene learns a life lesson.
He could have allready been embedded in the team. |  |
| |
| Philogene on 07:26 - Sep 4 with 2573 views | Churchman |
| Philogene on 02:37 - Sep 4 by ArchiRob |
I think they sell him in the next window for 25 so they don't get their 5 from Hull sell but they make a quick 7 million for 6 months and Phil O Gene learns a life lesson.
He could have allready been embedded in the team. |
It’s possible, but surely they’ll only get that kind of money if they play him? Who knows in the current crazy environment.
I do wonder if Billy Jean Philogene/his agent has put money before his career. Would playing regularly and doing well for a lesser team than Villa but better than Hull week in week out have been a better long term option? Time will tell. | | | |
| Philogene on 07:35 - Sep 4 with 2533 views | ITFCBlues |
| Philogene on 16:45 - Sep 3 by Kieran_Knows |
Plus, the 2 lads they got in the swap deal which saw Douglas Luiz go to Juventus have both ended up going back out on loan.... |
They didn't want to sell Luiz. It was. More down to PSR issues which I guess is why there's been so many chelseaesque signings. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
