The Jack Grealish Thread | Page 70 | Vital Football

The Jack Grealish Thread

Depends on the conditions of the agreement. Clubs often cover a lot of the wages they send out on loan.

Whether it would be a good move or not, not sure. If Jack goes then it may be better making a clean break, for everybody. However, can't see a point in selling him unless it is cash down.
 

david-avfc

Vital Football Hero
The Grealish sell and loan back arrangement originated from team talk so I would assume it is a load of crap

I don’t really get why Chelsea would want him just to loan him out to us, what is the benefit to them? He could get more experience but he has already made 100 appearances so he’s not exacfly youth development player in need of general match experience, and championship experience isn’t exactly what Chelsea are after. As for Grealish himself, if he really wants to stay at villa he could help us financially and football wise with that deal but apart from that he’d be signing probably a 5 year deal for a club who from the outset make it clear they don’t see him as part of their first team plans.. I don’t see the appeal for him in the long term.
 
With us he'd play every game, potentially. Going to a top side he'd have to wait his turn. He's at an age where he needs to play. That's why players get sent out on loan.

Ideally, he'd stay with us, for a minimum of a year. If we can afford it.
 

CDX_EIRE

Vital Football Hero
They'd never go for it but I'd agree to it with the following stipulations, assuming things are that dire for us.

1. On top of loaning him back in the Championship, if we get promoted he must be loaned to us for our first season in the EPL.
2. If we survive our first season back in the EPL we can buy him back for 40M (assuming they buy him for 30M).

Advantages are we'd get access to the money short term and keep the player while having an arrangement in place to potentially keep him.

Disadvantage, well the terms speak for themselves it assume things are that dire we'd end up spending extra money just to retain a player we currently employ direct.
 
Clean break or not, there is no way that having one of the top performers in the championship back on loan would do us any harm. Yes it might not be ideal if we got back into the Premiership and deal without him, but even going up and getting a year of TV money + extra parachute payments after relegation would be a massive boost to us.

Every year we aren't up, we are competing with another 3 clubs with big parachute payments. i.e. we keep falling further behind.
 
Same David, don't believe the loan back, why on earth would you spend £30m to send him back!?
Because they can. Typical of the likes of Chelsea, City, etc: hoover up all the potential, unproven talent just in case. There is no way Grealish is currently consistent enough to hold down a place in the Chelsea first team, but they might be prepared to take a punt on him just to stop rivals getting in I guess.
 

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
As follow ons yes but they'd already game time and needed more I think.

Must admit those were the only 3 I could think of, plus didn't Ampadu return to Exeter until the end of that season but it tied in with his Welsh call up? Nobody else is coming to mind though.
 

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
No they haven't Sky are clickbaiting. Read the report, Organ deliberately 'painted' a more rosy picture in a board meeting that involved people who know 'everything' about our situation.

They are word filling for effect.
 
From the Sky story...

"However, despite their precarious financial state, senior sources at the club believe they may not be forced to sell their star academy graduate."

Is that what you're referring to Mike?