So the Jaden Philogene deal has been talked about again and I thought it might make a decent topic for conversation which can help take our minds off the borefest that was the international break.
As if anyone didn’t know, we sold him to Hull for £5 million and have first shout to buy him back if Hull end up in the same league as us. No doubt the assumption is that they get promoted to the Prem but I’d guess that also includes us being relegated too. Not that that’s going to happen is it?
Anyway, that first shout is at £15 million if we’re unopposed. Otherwise, we have to match any other club’s offer.
I’ve had a think about this and listed the pros and cons as I see them below. I’d appreciate your views on this, because I have seen comments where some fans are totally against this kind of deal;
1. We’re not paying to keep a player on the bench.
2. We get money for him, so it’s not just the wages we’re saving.
3 The player gets to play footy at a decent level.
4 The other club improve him for us (or not) and if he improves we get him at the agreed fee or first shout at the market fee (less what we got for him in the first place, in effect).
5. If he proves to be good, he’ll have helped the club improve.
6. It’s good for FFP.
7. He’s cost us very little, so it helps to pay for the Academy.
8. We may possibly be doing a smaller club a favour.
Possible downsides?
1. We may have to pay a fortune to get him back if he proves to be really good, but that’s only what normally happens anyway, so even then we haven’t really lost out.
2. There is a small chance that we lose “one of our own” (assuming that means he came though the Academy? He was born in Hammersmith, so not likely to be a Villa fan).
3. The only way we could see if he comes really good or not is to continue to play him, where he might prove to be a liability and actually lose value.
So 8 plus points and 3 negatives.
It’s just a no-brainer and the future imo.
Thoughts?
I’d be happy to see a lot more of this, as I feel it would improve the game generally.
Badger, I think it’s highly unlikely that we take up the option on any of the buy backs. More likely in the future is the academy is a nursery for young players to come to the peripheral whereby we might get a Jack Grealish or a Jacob Ramsey who break into our first team at an early age, or most of them are sold at a FFP 100% profit.
When it comes to signing players now we are shopping at M&S rather than Lidl.
Well, if we don’t take up the deals, it would mean we were right to get rid.
From now on, I’d expect it to be someone who looks a level above your average academy kid to be the only sort being retained.
I think it’s a tendency of fans to regard kids as better than they really are, purely because they’ve come through our ranks.
It’s admirable, but won’t win you anything, in my view.
You mention Ramsey.
It’s interesting that I know some people who knew the brothers and their opinions were all the same. Aaron is the better prospect.
Yet it doesn’t look like that’s how it’s going to pan out, with certainly Jacob being more successful up to now.
The point is things change at a young age.
As for the site, I know. I’ve looked at possible reasons and can’t find a solution.
There will be an update or something and it will sort it out.
In the meantime, please bear with it.
Ps. The site is as slow as Slothgates football 😉
Holte, this is my line of work. I’m seeing LOADS of sites running really slowly.
Buybacks? Unless the player turns into Ronaldo I don’t see the point. Do you know anyone that has been ‘bought back’? Sell them if they’re not going to make it and it’s a wins all around, for us, the buying club and the player.
Badger – overall I think this is a good way forward for both clubs and player.
I’ve never been a fan of season long loan deals for players in their early twenties who are neither good enough to be regular first team starters or ‘on the cusp’ as it were – what do they actually achieve?
My point being Philogene is nearly 22, Archer is a similar age but neither has yet shown enough to be regularly starting or playing in the EPL. Compare that with Jacob Ramsey who is just a year older but has been a regular in the first team for a number of years or even Jon Duran who is still just 19.
Given the financial restrictions imposed by FFP then selling these players and getting their wages of the books whilst still retaining a contracted interest makes a lot of sense.
I’ll add one more ‘pro’ to your list; it opens the door for other young talented players to progress – such as Omari Kellyman and looking further forward maybe Rory Wilson – whilst also creating opportunities for new recruits to join the Acadamy.
Hitch, your other “pro” is spot on.
The fact that we hung onto players like Davis, who was obviously never going to be a solution for us was exactly why I used to complain so much about our antiquated approach to an academy, as I’m sure you well remember.
I bored myself in saying it!
We’re now playing like a proper club.
And competing properly with the big boys.
I really don’t see a downside to this at all.
As you’ve all said, we often go overboard with the ‘next great hope’ when a 16/17 year-old shines in the youth team, only to find that at 21/22 they’ve made no progress at all and won’t get into the 1st team squad unless we have 15 first-choice players out injured at the same time.
It’s hard to see us ever really going back for Archer or Philogene, but if by some chance they do prove world-class, I hope that regardless of any buy-back, we have some lasting sell-on clauses in those contracts so that if any oil-rich club comes for them, we still gat some %’age of the next fee.
Phil Shaw’s piece has hit every nail square on the head. This is really worth a read.
https://myoldmansaid.com/aston-villa-get-back-on-track-as-the-gates-of-hell-open-in-the-loan-market/
The more I read about these deals the more I would like to see the full wording on the contract. ‘Aston Villa have first shout @ £15m’ if Hull join Villa in the same division. OK let us say Hull get promoted. What is implied is Villa call Hull and say we have £15m for you, sell us Philogene. Then If Hull say Spurs have offered £18m Villa match that and we get Philogene.
What is cock-eyed in this idea is
1/ Hull must sell Philogene at all. If they say we want to keep-him and we bought him so he is ours. What then? I do not think the buy back comes into play if Hull decline to sell.
2/ Same as above but Villa won’t match the £18m. Are Hull obliged to sell to Spurs – whose name wasn’t on the first contract?
UK contract law is my subject. I don’t believe a contract can be written in which the seller has any right to have the goods returned – if the buyer is not willing to sell at all. I would like to see the contract.
Well, you obviously know more about contracts than me, but I’m pretty sure you could have this type of agreement.
So are you saying that if Hull agreed in a contract to give the player back if the conditions are fulfilled and we wanted him at £15 mill, with no competing bid, it wouldn’t be binding?
I struggle to see that, personally.
What I do find iffy, is that it might be easy to “create” competing bids to jack the price up.
As for any other club, I’d guess it’s like any other player, Hull wouldn’t have to sell.
I suspect the agreement between the parties is similar to a release clause.
Hull have an obligation to sell Philogene if certain (contract) terms are met which includes a ‘release clause’ price of £15m or higher if alternative offers are made. However, where I agree with OLL is that the obligation to sell is personal between Hull and Aston Villa and not with any other third party.
So in the above example Spurs offer £18m – Hull return to Villa who decline to match the offer. In that case Hull are under no obligation to sell to Spurs – they can retain the player.
I did a bit of contract law as part of my profession but wouldn’t claim to be an expert.
Just a further thought.
As OLL says we are hypothesising based on media comment and we don’t actually know how these terms are written. If we use Luiz as an example according to the media there was, in addition to the time limited buyback clause, ManC were entities to a % of any sell on fee which has been suggested was the reason Villa wanted a higher offer from Arsenal.
I trust Villa have written a similar clause into the Philogene (Archer) contracts as it provides a degree of protection against Hull ‘creating competitive bids’ to artificially increase the price, as suggested by Badger.
*that in addition to the buy back clause ManC are entitled to a % of any sell on fee.
Hitchens, your example prompts me to suggest another possible way the first seller retains an interest in the player. That is the price of the player is say £10M but Villa agree Hull can pay £5M down and £5M later. Because the full purchase price has not been paid, the goods (player) remain the property of the seller – until the full price is paid. The registration though, which the FA agree, is now with Hull.
The sell-on clause states that out of any sale proceeds that Hull make, they must pay the balance of £5M to Villa, and because of that debt Hull need the agreement of Villa. That is where the ‘first option’ occurs.
Still, speculation until we see the actual contract.
Off topic but watching the Brentford v Arsenal game and I’m sure the Brentford fans are singing “You’re just a shit Aston Villa” to the Arsenal fans.
😁😂🤣
Massive game tomorrow. IF, IF we leave north London with 3 points, we’ll be 2 points off the top, joint 3rd with Liverpool. With the top 2, Arsenal and City, coming up at Villa Park in 10 days time. But not before a mouth-watering, winner takes all European tie at VP and a very tricky away game by the sea. Will it be an exciting, spectacular winter, like the good old days? Or will all this hope and anticipation peter out before 2024 arrives? Buckle up…
UTV!!!
As Unai has mentioned- one match at a time. Today is Spurs and they have suspension and injury issues. Trouble is old Villa were the gift that kept giving. On a bad run, Villa will help you out. Loads of injuries, no worry Villa won’t show up.
The progress made under Unai in just 12 months is remarkable. The area for improvement is away form this season. Losses against Newcastle and Liverpool were highly likely. Wins against Burnley and Chelsea expected. The draw against Wolves an improvement on the past few seasons, but below where we want to be and Forest was a bad result. And so for today, this is our biggest match of the season to date. There are certain matches in a season wheee you know any point achieved is positive. Win against a depleted Spurs side and we will have a +3 points (above expected outcome) in the bag, which is critical in final placement at the end of the season. Moreover, it keeps the chasing pack 5 points away from us.
UTV
Very sad news about Terry Venables. A great manager who was ahead of his time in his coaching methods. RIP
As for today’s game, I’m a bit surprised to see Carlos start ahead of Tielemans. I’m guessing he’s hoping Cash especially can beat their high line. I don’t think this is going to be an easy game as many think because of Spurs injuries and suspensions. First goal is crucial and whoever gets it goes on to win the game IMO.
Aston Villa XI: Martinez, Konsa, Carlos, Torres, Digne, Cash, Kamara, D Luiz, McGinn, Diaby, Watkins
Subs: Olsen, Lenglet, Moreno, Ramsey, Bailey, Tielemans, Iroegbunam, Dendoncker, Duran.
We’re just not moving it quick enough yet. I felt today may come down to who wants it more and Spurs seem really up for this. I’m concerned so far.
We’re not competing and it looks only a matter of time before we concede.
I spoke too soon 🙁
That was coming we’ve been awful. Just letting them press us all the time and not countering when we can and inevitably playing ourselves in to trouble time and time again.
Absolutely shit show so far! Game over!
Watkins offside when he shouldn’t have been. He is naive in those situations! A shame because we didn’t deserve it.
Far far too much high line getting the right hand side open Diarby throwing his arms and not tackling we are in for a sharp lesson in football here ,.