Transfer Rumours Summer 2025 Transfer Thread…

Probably because we need to bring in 10 decent players that the monbey is being capped for what we will pay for Barry. If Villa are squeezing then we just walk away, simple. We have strikers to spend money on that are far more important to us.

 

Baz’s Update:

Louie Barry’s move to Hull City hangs in the balance amid discussions over the overall financial package.

City have agreed a fee in the region of £3.5m to sign the 22-year-old playmaker from Aston Villa, but the size of the overall financial package makes the deal difficult at this stage.

Villa have inserted a significant sell on clause into the deal, though there is no buy-back agreement as was the case with Jaden Philogene’s move two years ago. The Tigers remain locked in discussions with Villa and Barry’s representatives in a bid to thrash out the terms of the deal, which would see the former Barcelona youngster sign a long-term contract at the MKM Stadium.

Villa have inserted a significant sell on clause into the deal, though there is no buy-back agreement as was the case with Jaden Philogene’s move two years ago. The Tigers remain locked in discussions with Villa and Barry’s representatives in a bid to thrash out the terms of the deal, which would see the former Barcelona youngster sign a long-term contract at the MKM Stadium.

As things stand, the deal could yet happen and owner Acun Ilicali continues to talk to Villa owner Nassef Sawiris and Monchi, the Premier League club’s president of football operations.

It’s understood the highly-rated playmaker is keen to make the move to City, having endured a nightmare spell in East Yorkshire in the second half of the season where he was struck down by a knee injury early on in the crucial win at Sunderland in what was his fourth outing.

Should the Barry deal completely fall through, the Tigers are understood to have other options they are actively pursuing. A deal for Oscar Zambrano continues to progress and could be completed in the coming days, while the wait goes on for Oli McBurnie, though the club remain hopeful of getting that completed.

They’re also in talks with a left-back, midfielder and striker over moves to the MKM Stadium with a desire to get those deals completed before the first team fly to Turkey for their pre-season training camp on Sunday week.

 

Where has the 'we cant afford him' thing come from? I have not read the Athletic piece but I saw a headline which didnt state that. Looks to me like Villa are squeezing, someone else has come in or we have got a celing and we cannot get them below it.

 

Maybe, but decent players aren’t going to come a whole load cheaper than the reported deal for Barry?

 

Are player sponsorships not in the region of about £2000? Not sure that is the difference here!! Looking at the Baz piece above Villa are trying to stay in control of his future despite us buying him and Acun quite rightly wants to ensure if we buy him and develop him we will get a good fee.

 

I dont understand? Why do they need to come cheaper? If we have got £10M to spend and £6.5m is already allocated in fees and wages for players we desperately need from elsewhere then we are limited to what we can pay for Barry. Why do other players need to come 'a whole load cheaper'? We clearly have a celing on Barry and Villa are trying to poke us through it. If we dont get him we move on.

 

Also it was not officially on sale. Someone who works for the club posted on Linkedin that Barry was unavailable for sponsorhsip and already sold along with a picture of him. That is what myself and OLM (I assume) saw and was referring to.

 

His availability has been no secret.

 

Can't rely on Millar alone though. Especially with the type of injury he's coming back from.

 

Many thanks.


The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

 

You’re welcome.

 

I'd say a fair deal would be a 50/50 split if the player is sold at a profit within the time of his first contract, two or three years with the initial transfer fee paid deducted from any sale, dropping down to 10% to Villa for any transfer fee after that, again minus the initial fee paid. Win win all round.

 

A sell on clause doesn't put them in control of his future.

 

Thats what profit means.

 

Because that’s the going rate for decent players these days.

If we believe the reports (and I have no reason not to) we’d agreed a fee. There’s no suggestion that Villa have moved the goalposts if I’m not mistaken?

We probably need a winger this summer - if we can’t afford this fee for Barry, other decent players aren’t going to come too much cheaper. It’s one thing scouting for bargains (which will be available as ever I’m sure) but we can’t fill a squad with them.

 

No it does not. Profit is any money made up and above the price paid. If we get the money back we initially paid plus share any surplus profit with Villa then both parties win. We get the player and we get our money back and 50% of any subsequent transfer fee if the player is sold within the time limit of his first contract.

 

Yeah seems fair enough. Villa have spent a lot of time and money on him so I get why they want a pay day. The fact is nobody really knows whats stalled this but to immediately pile on Acun saying he doesnt have any money is getting boring now. It clearly isnt that.

 

-> "None of Acun’s comments in the room as far as I can remember said it was anywhere near done. He spoke about them having spoken, how good he thinks he is and there was interest from all 3 in getting this done."
-> "It wasn’t done. It wasn’t even briefed on our end that it was done. It came from the Villa end as a ‘done deal’. Cooper was still talking yesterday as it was being in progress."
-> "He didn't say any player any specific coach pushed for was a huge waste of money. Just that 5 of the 10 biggest flops were manager picks"
-> "As was said by both Dublin and Acun yesterday. Nobody at the club said anything to suggest more than what had already been known in the media."

Oh please stop it posting facts that inconveniently get in the way of the pathetic drama making, kicking of our own club, plain lies and made up stuff!!

 

The article from Baz in this thread literally states we agreed a fee and the issue is now thought to be the sell on clauses Villa want.

And I still dont know what you mean about the 'going rate for players'. For all you know we could have £50M to spend, it still does not change the fact we agreed a fee, thought to be £3.5M, and now Villa appear to be hanging on for extras which we dojnt want to pay.

I dont see how that worries you or anyone else about us not having money to buy the other players we need?

 

I know they're standard fayre these days, but sell on fees are pretty ridiculous; we're paying what they think he's worth at a price they've agreed to, but that apparently isn't enough because they also want a cut of any future deal we make having developed him and given him the game time they refused to.

I understand if it's a smaller club selling to a bigger one, like we did with KLP or Bowen, but the other way round is essentially kicking the chair from under smaller clubs who could really do with that money going forward.