Villa Fans Want Well Over £20mill + Ireland For Milner.....

zapbranny said:
samharris said:
And we,ve just bought (jan) Adam Johnson for 6 mill...are you really telling us that James is worth 20 million more.....ah doont fink soo.
Click to expand...

Yep for exactly the reasons I have listed. Footballers are not simply valued on their talent... there is age, length of contract, injury record, competition for signature, how much the club has to spend (in Man City's case a lot and everyone knows it), how much profit the club would make selling.

Hence why Milner is worth more than £20M, as is indicated by Villa rejecting the offfer. It is straight forward Capitalism, something is worth what soemone is prepared to buy and sell it for.
Click to expand...
Thats right, as odd as it sounds the value of a player has much less to do with his talent than many other factors. Just look at RSC and Crouch one goes for 9m and one for 14m yet pretty much no one in football would claim RSC is the more talented player. The only thing that matters is the value the player has to both clubs.
 
Anything above 15m for Milner is crazy imo. We could get much more for that money and if Mancini looked elsewhere I bet he would get two Milners from european clubs for that money. 50m for Lescott and Milner, we would be a laughing stock, more so than now.
 
Bluefinn said:
Anything above 15m for Milner is crazy imo. We could get much more for that money and if Mancini looked elsewhere I bet he would get two Milners from european clubs for that money. 50m for Lescott and Milner, we would be a laughing stock, more so than now.
Click to expand...

We're not always going to get bargains when we shop abroad. NDJ cost well over the odds from Hamburg whereas Adam Johnson didn't from Boro. It isn't an exact science but by and large all clubs know we are loaded (including those on the continent) and they will all get as much out of us as they possibly can, and I don't blame them, it happened to Chelsea too. If we want a specific player we are going to be held to ransom and whilst we need to draw the line somewhere, if we want to build the desired team we are going to have to pay what clubs ask. It may be embarrassing to spend 50 million on Lescott and Milner but it is better than having tons of cash, not spending it over a matter of principle and coming outside the top 4 again next year. I know it is frustrating and lots of people on here think we should just give up on deals that aren't good value but I seriously believe that won't work. We have the money, everyone else knows we have it and we can not undo that situation. Ultimately, it's still better than not having the money.
 
zapbranny said:
SamTheGuru said:
Hold on, that £12m is with the City premium on it. Who says we will still be in for him next year?

But....seeing as you are basing it on losing a 1/3 of the value you would be willing to see him go for £15-17m and lose out on £8-10m for the sake of having 1 more season out of him? (I am assuming he will go for £25m which is likely to be the next bid.)

And wait....you can speak for Milner himself? Amazing..... It is all down to what the player wants to do.
Click to expand...

Who cares if you are not in for him next season, I hope you aren't. Just because you wouldn't be bidding it wouldn't mean that nobody else will.

Yep I personally would keep him, even if he doesn't sign a contract extension with Villa, which he may well do seeing as he is 24. Lose out on £8-10M or make £8-10M same point of the argument from different sides. It stands to reason that if an £8M profit doesn't really get the board excited then an £8M loss (even though its not a loss it, as it would still be profit based on what we paid) wouldn't concern them either.

You're assuming he is going to go for £25 Million based on what? £20 M was rejected out of hand.

At what point did I say I was speaking for Milner? and no it wouldn't be down to his decision it would be the Clubs as they own his registration for the next two years.

My guess is City move onto another target.
Click to expand...

I really think you are missing the point. It is down to the player BECAUSE if he will not sign a new contract then his value will go from whatever you could get for him now down to a free transfer over the next 2 years. He will be worth nowhere near what Villa could get for him this year by this time next year if he does not sign a new contract. If City are not in for him next year and he has 1 year left on his contract then he would more than likely go for even less again. As for the £8m profit/£8m loss argument....that really doesn't make sense apart from the fact that you should never be put in charge of a business. But who is to say that Milner is not simply using this as a tool to get the best out of a new deal.
 
This is kinda like the joke when the stupid meet with the thief, but anyway I digress...

I would not give them that kind of money to reinforce their team.
 
TheMightyQuinn said:
Thankfully, Villa's fans have no control over the club and as a result have fuck all input into these kinds of decisions.

Another summer of bitter small time losers complaining that we're ruining football looms.
Click to expand...
You know what.....I kind of agree with them...Villa are close rivlas to us and it does take something away for me when we can just but their best players ,,,e.g Barry and now Milner.....I and loads of you used to moan when Chelsea just bought all the best players and we called them wankers and loads on here moaned they are ruining football, just because the boot is on the other foot I am not going to change my views....yes I am uncomortable that we can just buy out nearest rivals best players like this....it has take something out of my soul to be honest.
 
really think you are missing the point. It is down to the player BECAUSE if he will not sign a new contract then his value will go from whatever you could get for him now down to a free transfer over the next 2 years. He will be worth nowhere near what Villa could get for him this year by this time next year if he does not sign a new contract. If City are not in for him next year and he has 1 year left on his contract then he would more than likely go for even less again. As for the £8m profit/£8m loss argument....that really doesn't make sense apart from the fact that you should never be put in charge of a business. But who is to say that Milner is not simply using this as a tool to get the best out of a new deal.

SamtheGuru I think you are missing the point..... Villa hold his contract for the next two years. If we let him go on a free he would be available in the 12/13 season. Who knows where Villa and City will be then. That clearly doesn't concern Villa as shown with Barry.

I am in charge of a successfull Business, and fortunately we don't run it the way Premier League Clubs do for good reason, maybe you haven't realised this but how many Premier League Clubs made a profit last season? Not many, why, for the most part they are vanity projects/ hobbies for Rich Men.

I also think you have an insular view, and don't see City the way an outsider would. From My eyes, City are the 5th most attratctive team to move to in the Prem, mostly because you don't have Champs League. Would Milner risk going to City and hope to get Champs league ar wait for a move to an established Champs league club?

Like I said the only way Milner will end up at City is if they pay top Dollar, anything else and Villa will refuse, and if it is lower then other interested more atteractive teams as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.