ARTICLE: Heaton signs for Villa

[joey13]

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/995400979?-919:978" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes you are not the only one Dean

[ksrclaret]

It beggars belief that there posters on this board that can’t see something for what it is

Tom got offered more money and decided to do the right thing for his family

We couldn’t compete with Villas wages without a mutiny

Nothing else

Do you not think the situation with Pope played a part?

With Pope signing that new deal it was all but confirming he was going to be first choice.

[Down_Rover]

Do you not think the situation with Pope played a part?

With Pope signing that new deal it was all but confirming he was going to be first choice.

I have not got a clue and will never know because I wasn’t there

There are too many potential permutations

[ksrclaret]

I have not got a clue and will never know because I wasn’t there

There are too many potential permutations

Quite right.

So it was really silly of you to say 'nothing else', when you admit you don't know what went on.

[Down_Rover]

Quite right.

So it was really silly of you to say 'nothing else', when you admit you don't know what went on.

I said I wasn’t there when Pope signed a contract. I think that is quite independent of Tom leaving. He left for the money that was never offered to Pope. Tom only did what everyone else would do and looked after his family

[Cheshireclaret]

Tom wanted first team football. He knew that wasn’t guaranteed at Burnley and the contract we offered him may well have reflected that, given the contract Pope has just signed.

Smith made him an offer that was clearly higher than we were prepared to offer a keeper that was viewed as being back up in the not too distant future, along with being told he’d be number 1 at a club that, no matter their recent travails, are a big club.

It has been said elsewhere on this thread by people with more knowledge than I that we tried to keep him, but that was within the realms of how we run this football club and in the interests of togetherness. Tom went with Sean’s blessing, they’ve both shown huge mutual respect to each other, but things move on in football and by 4:45pm on Saturday I’d got over my disappointment at Tom’s departure.

He’s a Villa player now and good luck to him. Me and my lad Jacob (who worshipped the ground he walked on) look forward to hopefully meeting him and chatting with him again on New Year’s Day but he’s moved on as he was always going to do eventually. That’s what happens in football.

Pope is our new number 1 and you could tell how chuffed he was after the game on Saturday - and I’m delighted for him too.

Cheshire

[Long Time Lurker]

Go on then. How much more?

£10-£12m would have still represented a very good price for Villa.

Taking into account what adding Tom to their squad will bring I don't think it would have been hard to push them up to the £10m - £12m bracket. Given all the circumstances £15m would have been a good result for us.

However, if the rumour mill is correct asking for £10m in response to their initial bid set us up for a poor price. If the other transfers in this window are anything to go by asking for your lowest amount plus a hefty chunk ( even if you don't expect to get it ) is the way to go.

It might not seem like much ( especially to a club like Villa who are spending money like water ), but £2m - £4m is a lot of money in my book.

Selling players can be a regretable necessity, but selling a player on the cheap is a questionable business decision ( and arguably it reperesents poor negotiation ). It doesn't tally with " the minimum expectation is maximum effort " from a financial standpoint.

A lot of what we are doing or trying to do is a bit strange from a financial stand point. Like the recent rumour of Vydra plus cash for Phillips. Vydra still has a contract of a reasonable length, whether he wants to be here or not ( and it is looking like he is a bit fed up, not that I can blame him given the game time he has received ).

If we were to sell Vydra for £10m ( or add him onto a deal on the basis that he is worth that amount ) a lot of people would say good business. £10m for Vydra, wow, he is unhappy and we had to cash in on him. Good business.

However, they would be overlooking the fact that it could mean that we have to go into the season with three strikers or keeping Wells. The first of those outcomes is risky and Nahki is in the last year of his contract. If he has to sit on our bench for another season I would say that he is more likely to leave on a free transfer than sign a new contract ( if we stay up ). If Wells was to leave on a free we would forfeit the 3-5m we might get for him in this window.

So we would have to deduct that from the Vydra amount in terms of our overall net gain. 5-7m for Vydra would look like bad business. Some people will say, but it's a separate transfer it doesn't count and it doesn't work like that. Sadly it does, because of causality and interdependance. It is the difference between a nieve and linear approach to business ( or even worse a compartmentalised approach ) and one that is focussed on a more holisitc approach.

Good business is about taking everything into account, not just the obvious front and centre details. Tom has gone, it is done and we move on, all hail Pope. However, it shouldn't stop us from questioning our responses and performance in relation to his transfer as a means of " highlighting things we could look to improve on ".

When it comes to the fabric of the club good business and strength over time isn't about concentrating on a single strand of cotton it is about considering all the materials involved in weaving and all of the interlinked processes. It is about the warp and weft, how everything ties together.



We still have two days left to turn things around, but our transfer business and overall strategy is currently looking like a raggedy jumper that is coming apart at the seams.

[HunterST_BFC]

and breath...

[CFS]

I read this article earlier which had a surprising titbit about why Crouch decided to retire.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... ed-up.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" To go from being a regular starter to someone whose role is limited to 10 or 15 minutes off the bench has been hard to accept. I will be 39 in January but I am physically fit and could have carried on. What I didn't want to be was someone who was thrown on to have balls smashed up to them ".

Which was pretty much the role we brought him in to play.

If I'm wrong isn't that how he earnt a wage throughout his career at any club. We didn't sign him to try do a Messi.

[Tread Warily]

Pope will be a regular for England soon,given the chance.

[jojomk1]

Just to give another scenario
We offered Heaton an extended contract (some say just one extra year) which he turns down. Villa could well have already held "informal" discussions with his agent which persuaded Tom that Villa was a better option for his future
At that point, we then had two GK's (Hart being the other) who we were expecting/looking to lose in the near future
It made sense therefore to offer Pope an improved, extended deal to get him to stay
It doesn't necessarily mean Pope was told he would be the No 1 especially given the consistent form that Heaton was showing
Had Heaton stayed I still think he would have started Sat even if Pope was fit
It also doesn't alter the fact that Heaton was under contract and we did not have to take what seems a derisory offer for him - play him and let him go next summer (is £8m worth that much to us if it keeps us up?)

[Top Claret]

Heaton only had 10 months left on his contract and then would have walked away on a free. Selling him was the correct decision and a fee of 8 million was a decent wedge, for a player who could have easily have run his contract down.