He´s a young 29. Not been injured much in his career. One thing that has always stood alongside his ability to score goals is the fact that he is not a passenger off the ball and can press.
If the price is right we should be going for him. We need a goalscorer and he has a pretty consistent record.
No that’s not logical. Massive outlays beyond a certain age usher in very different factors and considerations and outlay is most definitely one of them.
My point is extremely clear. Cannot actually be clearer. In fact I have stated why you make the risks you do when you do with players in that age bracket and Watkins doesn’t fit the profile there, for me. He never was an elite player, which makes for greater risk at a very heavy outlay unless he can be bagged in a loan or some kind of swapping shenanigans if any of our lot can be offloaded to Villa.
The amount of times clubs take the risk on non-elite players in that age bracket for the kind of outlay required would be thread worthy in itself.
I like the player but it's hard to see Villa selling him to us for a fair price, and if we're getting Mbeumo I'd rather spend big on a CM and get a cheaper ST option
Watkins would be moving for what he would expect to be the biggest and most secure contract of his career (let’s assume he’s not one who will go off to Saudi Arabia). That’s a 5 or a 4+1, taking him up to 34 by its end. By the sound of your post, you believe we’d get maybe a 4 or 3+1 where you believe we’d get at least two acceptable seasons out of him and then a taper into a loan. Do you believe Watkins is a player who will get by with reduced athleticism enough for teams to want to take him on at 33? Even at a half subsidy for £100k on their end, do you buy into that?
A lot of the players being mentioned as examples of older signings were elite players in the first place. For them, a slide from being the very top bracket to the next down is them being better than Watkins peak as they slide, or having their means of being extremely useful for their teams via their technique, know-how and presence. It’s a very different ballgame from the outset and justifiable when an S becomes an A or an A becomes a B. Watkins is already just a B (not an insult); he doesn’t have wiggle room for a slide. That makes him very high risk for what he is and is steeped in too much of a leap of faith to be comfortable with. You generally take players like this on at low cost or even no transfer and that’s perfectly sound and logical.
It’s pretty clear that those who are strongly behind this at cost, envisage Watkins coming here and hitting the ground running with no issues and no injuries. Does that belie what tends to happen to 30 year-olds or is it the more reasonable assumption? Why would you take that gamble on a non-elite player?
This is all hypothetical and assumes the worst. Best case scenario is that by 34 he'd still be a 15 goal contribution player and therefore able to stay and play a part. We don't know how his career will pan out hence I put reasonable expectations I'd have because a player doesn't just decline by hitting a certain age.
Watkins moving to a team who are doing worse than his current team for the last two seasons, upending his life and family, on his final big European contract will come at a premium. Why else would he do it? So I believe that £150k p/w is £200k. 26 is not 29 (going into 30 this December), but you wouldn’t get 26-year old Watkins for the fee you would now.
Salah should be removed from the conversation as he is one of the elites therefore has a skillset and profile that tells us his game is not utterly reliant on athleticism - even in his decline he will be very potent, not £400k p/w potent, but certainly one of the better players in the league, more likely to fall in with the pack than fall out beneath them. I think an important point is that the 29+ players are more likely to stay put than be bought by another side for a hefty fee plus an increase in their current wage - Watkins staying where he is is more par for the course than him being bought now for the outlay being spoken about.
When you talk about the trials and tribulations of 26-year old players, it’s a different bracket to those shortly turning 30.
Moving from the Midlands to Manchester isn't exactly a massive move, he might not even have to move his family to be honest. You even said yourself, he's not necessarily a mainstay in Aston Villa and he may feel the manager doesn't particularly fancy him? No, but that's the point why I don't think the fee would be the £60m, they got a 26 year old Watkins for £30m.
Fair point on Salah, but Wood had his best ever season at 32/33, not like he relied on his athleticism and it's not like Watkins is utterly reliant on pace.
Everyone has their own trials and tribulations, that's the point and that's why you value the deals differently. Have you got a comparison of what you think would be a more appropriate deal? I think you're attirbuting more risk to the fact he's 29, but he's also way further in his development and league ready than other potential strikers who'd likely give us ~15 goals next season.
I can see how we’ve gotten here with the limited alternatives available, but I can’t bring myself to get excited about an Ollie Watkins transfer. I really hope the club have an ace up their sleeves and this is a just a backup plan we don’t have to exercise.
True, but we could easily get Europa which has the potential to be a reasonable earner and offers another route into the CL the year after. Also, we finish higher with him than without him and the higher we finish, the greater the prize.
This is all hypothetical and assumes the worst. Best case scenario is that by 34 he'd still be a 15 goal contribution player and therefore able to stay and play a part. We don't know how his career will pan out hence I put reasonable expectations I'd have because a player doesn't just decline by hitting a certain age.
All things posted are hypothetical until we see the outcome; he may have the Vardy path, he may not, but at the price it would cost to buy him from Villa, it’s not worth the risk. You get this level of player on a free or very low cost or you avoid.
By the way, Watkins has his merits under certain circumstances so I hope it’s not misconstrued that I think he’s rubbish, and as I’ve said before, if we’re stuck come the end of the window and can get him on loan, that’s a very different story.
Moving from the Midlands to Manchester isn't exactly a massive move, he might not even have to move his family to be honest. You even said yourself, he's not necessarily a mainstay in Aston Villa and he may feel the manager doesn't particularly fancy him? No, but that's the point why I don't think the fee would be the £60m, they got a 26 year old Watkins for £30m.
Fair point on Salah, but Wood had his best ever season at 32/33, not like he relied on his athleticism and it's not like Watkins is utterly reliant on pace.
Everyone has their own trials and tribulations, that's the point and that's why you value the deals differently. Have you got a comparison of what you think would be a more appropriate deal? I think you're attirbuting more risk to the fact he's 29, but he's also way further in his development and league ready than other potential strikers who'd likely give us ~15 goals next season.
C’mon, it’s an inconvenience to travel every day just as it’s a big upheaval to upend a family.
Honestly, my concern is the guy has to come in, remain the player he is and be one of those anomalies who are just fine at 32, 33 and 34 years old - the Vardy type of unicorn otherwise you’ve spent a fortune on an ordinary player who can’t even deliver that.
Can you name many big moves in the PL of players 29 years old and above? I’ll maintain Villa would want £40m or more (why wouldn’t they?) so this is the kind of bracket to refer to players from. Ask yourself why they are so scarce.
He's probably reached his ceiling but it's not a bad one at all. Could be one that has a massive season or two in a suitable system. Is Amorim's that? I don't know. Do we have the players around him to also achieve it? If we add Mbuemo, I'd say quite possibly.
All things posted are hypothetical until we see the outcome; he may have the Vardy path, he may not, but at the price it would cost to buy him from Villa, it’s not worth the risk. You get this level of player on a free or very low cost or you avoid.
By the way, Watkins has his merits under certain circumstances so I hope it’s not misconstrued that I think he’s rubbish, and as I’ve said before, if we’re stuck come the end of the window and can get him on loan, that’s a very different story.
C’mon, it’s an inconvenience to travel every day just as it’s a big upheaval to upend a family.
Honestly, my concern is the guy has to come in, remain the player he is and be one of those anomalies who are just fine at 32, 33 and 34 years old - the Vardy type of unicorn otherwise you’ve spent a fortune on an ordinary player who can’t even deliver that.
Can you name many big moves in the PL of players 29 years old and above? I’ll maintain Villa would want £40m or more (why wouldn’t they?) so this is the kind of bracket to refer to players from. Ask yourself why they are so scarce.
Of course, but it's not exactly a massive commute, I think the move from Birmingham to Manchester is probably the smallest consideration in this.
But he doesn't really, he just has to be the same player he is now until 32 and then he'll take up a much needed senior role in the squad? Right now, we simply have to get back into CL football next season of we have any ambition, so gambling on a striker from outside the league or young prodigy is just as big of a gamble.
No, but that's doesn't mean that this can't happen. There's lots of different circumstances that are different from a normal transfer. A) he might want to move if he's not guaranteed to be Emery's first choice, b) they were happy to sell him before, c)villa need money and he's a good psr d) as you mention, this is possibly last chance to get any real money for him.
I'm certainly not condoning a transfer for £60m and 200k a week, but I think it would come out less and then you're comparing to other possible transfers, it actually starts to be less of a risk and that's before you even think of who even will feasible come to us.
Agree to an extent with your post, but this is a bit too much. Past three seasons he average 15 goals and 9 assists in the PL.
I think Watkins is likely to do well until 33. He was a bit of a lye bloomer, and they often keep it up longer. That would likely give a buyer four seasons with a good PL-proven striker. At £40 mill, that is £10 mill a year?
A player like Gyokeres is what? Two years older? Probably cost £60-70 mill. That is a similar cost per season. Gyokeres obviously give you two more «prime years», and that has a high value. But he is also at a much higher risk of failing. His likely output is probably around Watkins average, but with a bigger variance (where I would probably argue that the lower part of that variance is more likely).
Buying players with zero value when their contract expires if awful. But Watkins at £40 mill is probably close to fair when you see some prices quotes this summer.
Straight swap for Rashford would be good, but not sure how good he is back to the goal, probably just about good running in channels and playing counterattackign football, which doesnt suit us.
Agree to an extent with your post, but this is a bit too much. Past three seasons he average 15 goals and 9 assists in the PL.
I think Watkins is likely to do well until 33. He was a bit of a lye bloomer, and they often keep it up longer. That would likely give a buyer four seasons with a good PL-proven striker. At £40 mill, that is £10 mill a year?
A player like Gyokeres is what? Two years older? Probably cost £60-70 mill. That is a similar cost per season. Gyokeres obviously give you two more «prime years», and that has a high value. But he is also at a much higher risk of failing. His likely output is probably around Watkins average, but with a bigger variance (where I would probably argue that the lower part of that variance is more likely).
Buying players with zero value when their contract expires if awful. But Watkins at £40 mill is probably close to fair when you see some prices quotes this summer.
This seems a crazy stat. So your average 32 yr-old striker scores at slightly above 1 in 2?! This is one of those facts that my head tells me can't be true, but maybe it is?
This seems a crazy stat. So your average 32 yr-old striker scores at slightly above 1 in 2?! This is one of those facts that my head tells me can't be true, but maybe it is?
Yeah it seems crazy really, strikers goal scoring actually peaks at around 32/33? Significantly better at 32 than they are at 28? Certainly didn't expect that.
Agree to an extent with your post, but this is a bit too much. Past three seasons he average 15 goals and 9 assists in the PL.
I think Watkins is likely to do well until 33. He was a bit of a lye bloomer, and they often keep it up longer. That would likely give a buyer four seasons with a good PL-proven striker. At £40 mill, that is £10 mill a year?
A player like Gyokeres is what? Two years older? Probably cost £60-70 mill. That is a similar cost per season. Gyokeres obviously give you two more «prime years», and that has a high value. But he is also at a much higher risk of failing. His likely output is probably around Watkins average, but with a bigger variance (where I would probably argue that the lower part of that variance is more likely).
Buying players with zero value when their contract expires if awful. But Watkins at £40 mill is probably close to fair when you see some prices quotes this summer.
A face value reading of that table is very flawed, for the reasons the article the table was taken from highlights:
When thinking about ageing players, it is important to remember that many older players simply do not play in Europe’s top leagues once they are past a certain age, so information on them at this level is sparse, as most retire, move abroad or drop down to the lower leagues. And so there’s a survivorship bias — because of extraordinary talents such as Thiago Silva and Zlatan Ibrahimovic, who continued to produce into their late thirties, we can overestimate the ability of players to stay productive.
However, it is worth recognising the most important aspect of a player’s game — and one of the most underrated — is availability. No matter how good a player is, if they cannot consistently get on the pitch, they are a financial burden. Over time, older players tend to play less as they pick up injuries and those injuries recur.
Generally, players tend to record their most playing minutes in matches from the ages of 22 to 30, then they decline; 31-year-old forwards make up four per cent of overall minutes played, five percentage points lower than the peak (26 years old).
On first glance, it looks like good news for Salah. The players aged between 30 and 35 score at a decent rate. But this is where we need to return to survivorship bias: the best players can still score some goals. But look at the rates after 33 — the trend slopes sharply downwards — even the golden oldies can’t resist it.
That table isn't telling you that the goalscoring rate of forwards doesn't drop off significantly until after 33. It's telling you that the goalscoring rates of forwards who are still good enough to get substantial minutes into their 30's at the highest level doesn't drop off significantly until after 33.
In other words the players whose goalscoring drops off earlier don't get those minutes, so it follows that the players who are still getting significant minutes at that age will be sustaining a good rate. As the article states, it's survivorship bias.
The table also doesn't reflect how many total minutes the players who are still getting good per 90 returns are physically able to play, or whether fitness issues (that inevitably become an increased factor with age) restrict their overall goal contributions.
Which is why, despite the table seemingly suggesting the drop off doesn't occur until 33, the actual drop off begins much earlier. Again, taken from the same article:
What all these tables combined demonstrate is that Watkins is already at the age where strikers' minutes, fitness and goalscoring typically start to decline. Backing him to continue at his current level for several more years is an ongoing bet against the odds. It can happen, but it's more likely it doesn't.
As @Fortitude said. This will be his last big pay day so even if we got him for say 35m his wages will be more than we'd want to pay him I'd expect. So unless we get him on loan I can't see how it happens.
As @Fortitude said. This will be his last big pay day so even if we got him for say 35m his wages will be more than we'd want to pay him I'd expect. So unless we get him on loan I can't see how it happens.
Straight swap for Rashford would be good, but not sure how good he is back to the goal, probably just about good running in channels and playing counterattackign football, which doesnt suit us.
With Cunha and Mbeumo either side do we think that Rasmus or Zirkzee might actually be more productive next season and use our money to strengthen elsewhere?
I've seen £40mil mentioned a few times on here as a transfer fee. Why would it be so low when in January they rejected a £50mil bid from arsenal and said they wanted £60mil?
Signing a 29 year old Watkins would just prove nothing has changed at Utd. Might as well have Woodward and. Arnold back in charge.
I've seen £40mil mentioned a few times on here as a transfer fee. Why would it be so low when in January they rejected a £50mil bid from arsenal and said they wanted £60mil?
Villa were going into the knockout stages of the CL, were chasing a CL spot in the league and had just sold Duran to a Saudi club, so they didn't want or need to sell at the time. So they stuck a "make it worthwhile" price tag on him. No-one can seriously think he's worth £60M, so if that's what they want, he'll stay at Villa.
Signing a 29 year old Watkins would just prove nothing has changed at Utd. Might as well have Woodward and. Arnold back in charge.
Im not quite sure what kind of transfer you're talking about here. If you look through all our transfers (link) the only comparable transfer in the last decade is Matic. Nothing about this is really a Woodward or Arnold style transfer.
Instead of just listing our many bad buys or examples of ill-judged contracts like Rashford, think about how the club is run.
We're not in the SAF era now, we have manager turnover and you also move players on to freshen the squad.
Think how Chelsea have raked in loads from prudent sales, so have Pool, Real etc...Sure you keep some players til the end, but you need to be able to get rid of players too when needed, which we're awful at.
I get the point you are trying to make, but it is irrelevant in the case of Watkins. Chelsea have been able to game the PSR system by stockpiling youth players with potential and loaning them out until they can sell them for pure profit. They have there fair share of botched transfers like even at the moment Chilwell, Sterling, Nkunku and Mudryk to mention just a few, who are impossible to move on and surplus to requirements.
It looks like the new ownership is trying the same strategy with players like Chido Obi, Heaven and Diego Leon. Youth players with potential for very low fees, which even if they don't work out the club can sell for pure profit for PSR purposes. City have been doing it for years, also.
In the case of Watkins, he is a player with stellar injury record, seems like a model professional and will improve out attack massively. At 29 this player has at least 3 years still at top level if not more. If he is available and it is possible to make a deal at sensible numbers it is a great transfer for us in my opinion.
It's telling you that the goalscoring rates of forwards who are still good enough to get substantial minutes into their 30's at the highest level doesn't drop off significantly until after 33.
Or peak later. Like Chris Wood (and maybe even Vardy). I’m not suggesting that Watkins is a Lewandowski/Salah who will still be quite good even after dropping off. And I’m not suggesting that Watkins is a Vardy that probably peaked in his thirties. But I do think Watkins look like a player that peak a bit later, and that there is a good chance he will be able to keep it up for a few more years.
Sixty million for a striker who is 30 in December is a joke. More so when you consider Arsenal were making a £40m bid a year ago when he was banging em in.
As @Fortitude said. This will be his last big pay day so even if we got him for say 35m his wages will be more than we'd want to pay him I'd expect. So unless we get him on loan I can't see how it happens.
I've seen £40mil mentioned a few times on here as a transfer fee. Why would it be so low when in January they rejected a £50mil bid from arsenal and said they wanted £60mil?
Signing a 29 year old Watkins would just prove nothing has changed at Utd. Might as well have Woodward and. Arnold back in charge.
They wanted £60m in the middle of the season to a direct rival, when they were gunning for champions league football. There was an obvious premium attached there, so I don't believe they'd ask for that now - maybe they would, but then they just won't sell him and with their PSR position, I reckon they will want to cash in.
Sixty million for a striker who is 30 in December is a joke. More so when you consider Arsenal were making a £40m bid a year ago when he was banging em in.
Of course, but it's not exactly a massive commute, I think the move from Birmingham to Manchester is probably the smallest consideration in this.
But he doesn't really, he just has to be the same player he is now until 32 and then he'll take up a much needed senior role in the squad? Right now, we simply have to get back into CL football next season of we have any ambition, so gambling on a striker from outside the league or young prodigy is just as big of a gamble.
No, but that's doesn't mean that this can't happen. There's lots of different circumstances that are different from a normal transfer. A) he might want to move if he's not guaranteed to be Emery's first choice, b) they were happy to sell him before, c)villa need money and he's a good psr d) as you mention, this is possibly last chance to get any real money for him.
I'm certainly not condoning a transfer for £60m and 200k a week, but I think it would come out less and then you're comparing to other possible transfers, it actually starts to be less of a risk and that's before you even think of who even will feasible come to us.
You won’t often see me type anything about ‘full cost’ and outlay, but beyond a certain age and quality of player (the offset of decline), it’s an extremely important factor in assessing whether making such a move is a good or bad idea. This is the age of the last mega contract in Europe for most players and they need assurances, security and incentive to move otherwise most stay where they are, or they’ve already planned for said final contract by having their current one run down to its end or where they call the shots on what is viable because they can talk to other clubs on their terms with their current club risking losing them for free or at least getting a considerably reduced fee ( hello RVP) on what would have been if they were halfway through their current contract (hello Watkins).
I think Kane was the obvious anomaly as even in his final year, and even with his age at the time, he would have cost an English club over £100m and still was sold for a fortune abroad. But as I said before S and A tier players are different; their slide is factored in and they remain lethal on the way down for a much longer period of time, and depending how clear of the pack they were in the first place, their bad/awful is going from elite/top dog to being very, very good or very good, so they offset risk differently. On top of that, they are a well of experience and know-how for others to learn and develop their own game from. They generally bring a lot more to the table beside their quality. Watkins is none of these things. He’s a not far above average player and his potential slide (when his athleticism betrays him) isn’t something I would back for the outlay. It’s just too much of a gamble. To your bolded, what is a good deal for Watkins? Bearing in mind he does have a good thing going in a more successful team than ours who are not going to give up their status quo because we come begging for “a fair price”. We’re a rival who could prove to be a hindrance to their own ambitions, so not only would it be prudent to stick it to us on that score, but also for the very real fact that’s taking a chunk of their goals away. Unless their PSR issues force their hand, there is no reason at all for them to do us a favour, especially one that could come back to haunt them.
Agree to an extent with your post, but this is a bit too much. Past three seasons he average 15 goals and 9 assists in the PL.
I think Watkins is likely to do well until 33. He was a bit of a lye bloomer, and they often keep it up longer. That would likely give a buyer four seasons with a good PL-proven striker. At £40 mill, that is £10 mill a year?
A player like Gyokeres is what? Two years older? Probably cost £60-70 mill. That is a similar cost per season. Gyokeres obviously give you two more «prime years», and that has a high value. But he is also at a much higher risk of failing. His likely output is probably around Watkins average, but with a bigger variance (where I would probably argue that the lower part of that variance is more likely).
Buying players with zero value when their contract expires if awful. But Watkins at £40 mill is probably close to fair when you see some prices quotes this summer.
As above; your numbers don’t really mesh with the true cost and risk as you’ve not factored wage into what you’re saying. Chris Wood was mentioned earlier; pure serendipity as neither party expected him to have the season he did, otherwise his contract wouldn’t be what it is.
Gyökeres carries his own risk, yes. All the strikers available this summer do and it is a pick your poison on them, but not as much because of age like with Watkins.
The only way I can see this making sense is if we get to the end of the transfer window and Rashford has not found a new club. Selling Rashford for £60m and buying Watkins for £60m* would get rid of a player we don't want, decrease our wage bill, get us a good striker in and help with PSR. For Villa it would help with PSR and get them a player the manager seems to value.
Watkins is on the wrong side of 25 but if the alternative becomes keeping Rashford and not getting a striker in I think we'd go for it.
*Maybe we'd need to sell them Rashford for £50m instead to cover his extra wages but it would still be a good deal for us.
I'd be positive towards a "PSR-transferswap" with us buying Watkins for 50m and them buying Hojlund for 30m. Our actual outlay of 20m could be spread over a few installments. That would give Villa a needed PSR boost as Watking represents a low book value for them, and we will be able to offload Hojlund withouth a big PSR hit while we strengthen without a massive cash outlay up front. Wishful thinking I know - but it's a deal that could favour all parties.
I'd be positive towards a "PSR-transferswap" with us buying Watkins for 50m and them buying Hojlund for 30m. Our actual outlay of 20m could be spread over a few installments. That would give Villa a needed PSR boost as Watking represents a low book value for them, and we will be able to offload Hojlund withouth a big PSR hit while we strengthen without a massive cash outlay up front. Wishful thinking I know - but it's a deal that could favour all parties.
Why would they do that? They'd be left with the worst striker in the league and just 20 million in compensation. Sounds like a recipe for them to end up in the bottom half.
I'd be positive towards a "PSR-transferswap" with us buying Watkins for 50m and them buying Hojlund for 30m. Our actual outlay of 20m could be spread over a few installments. That would give Villa a needed PSR boost as Watking represents a low book value for them, and we will be able to offload Hojlund withouth a big PSR hit while we strengthen without a massive cash outlay up front. Wishful thinking I know - but it's a deal that could favour all parties.
It's crazy to me that so many struggle to understand nuance. You can have a policy such as that as your primary focus but simple minds seem to think that then must be all or nothing.
Is it really that hard to grasp that we would primarily target players under 25s but still be open to certain deals for players outside of that criteria, should the deal make sense and we need the player? You can't just have a single hard and fast rule that you never deviate from.
I can't believe this even needs saying, but sadly yours isn't the only comment I see like this.
