David Villa
- Thread starter ammarfcb
- Start date
abual3bed1
New member
Aren't they getting Drogba??
Cule4life
The Culest
Now we know why Tito played Villa in the meaningless champions league matches- To make him cup tied so that if we end up meeting Juventus later he wont be able to play against us 
Will be thrilled to see him play regularly and be appreciated. But MVP will be missed :
Will be thrilled to see him play regularly and be appreciated. But MVP will be missed :
Last edited:
Cule4life
The Culest
Tell that to "the best liga start ever due to Messi" Tito
evilhita666
Barçapocalypse NOW!
I totally agree... If he's going to leave the club then it better wait till the summer...
P
PhilS
Guest
This is not plausible. Llorente, yes, his team is done with him, they have to cash in before his contract runs out. Anything happening with Villa would be next summer at the earliest, and it won't be a loan. Cuenca could be loaned and then come back later, Dos Santos will be loaned but never come back.
ammarfcb
ze special one
new rule: juve are getting every striker
M
mitkoa7x
Guest
Why do they need Villa, they already have Bendtner
Aryagorn
Improvin' Perfection!!
Why do they need Villa, they already have Bendtner
.
.
.
Bendtner out for 4 months... That's why the loan deal till the end of season. Does make sense
M
mitkoa7x
Guest
Juve are doomed in that case
lessthanjake
New member
Even city would'nt pay 38m for Alexis. On his current form 10-15m is the max we can get on him. Transfermarket is not always accurate
Talking about sunk costs- If a club keeps a player for a longer time they can recover some of his transfer cost in terms of his performance(match or tournament winning winning goals, shirts sold etc) hence letting them go early before the end of contract will cause a loss. (But alll this doesn't apply to Alexis as he's not adding any value :But Barca seems to think he'll come good)
Right, what's your point? You are saying Alexis has no playing value to Barca, so with that logic, they wouldn't be losing anything by selling him. I think other teams think he could have a lot of playing value to them like he did for Udinese, so they would be willing to pay close to what Barca paid for him. We could sell him for a lot, and certainly a fair bit more than Villa (mostly because Villa is so old, so there is less potential performance benefit from him).
Let's say we need to sell one of these guys to buy Neymar (which is the proposition I was initially responding to). Here are our concerns: We want to get a lot of money for the player we sell. We also want the player we keep to be one that performs well. Alexis can be sold for more than Villa. You also say Villa performs better than Alexis. If both of those things are true, there is NO reason to sell Villa instead of Alexis. We'd get more money if we sold Alexis AND be left with a better player still on the team.
You might say that Villa plays better now but there is a reason to sell Villa instead because Alexis is younger. However, you still say Alexis is not good. If he is not very good, and we get Neymar, then it won't matter how young Alexis is. Neymar will easily take virtually all his playing time within a couple years, and Alexis will likely be moved on at that point anyways. In that sense, the long term benefit of keeping Alexis is not better than the long term benefit of getting Villa (who would likely retire within a few years) because both would be gone in a similar amount of time. Of course, the logic is different if you believe that Alexis will become quite good with time, but then that's a reason to play him now instead of Villa (allow Alexis to reach his potential), so I don't think it's an argument you would want to make for your point.
GiantKiller
New member
Can someone explain the rules of engagement for the Pep smiley?
The way I see it is:
= Trolling
Am I right?
Not necessarily.
Loaning out a player is too generic.
Sell him with a buyout clause.
Home of Barca Fans
