1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

I think at times people overlook how crucial self‑reliance is. You can be absurdly talented, but if you don’t back yourself when the pressure hits, you’ll never become who you should be.

RLC was, in my eyes, the most gifted Cobham product since Terry. The issue was never ability; it was that hint of timidness. With real mental steel and confidence, he’d have taken off the way Bellingham did.

100% spot on Sconnie. It is that self-confidence, call it swagger if you want, and also some natural agression are absolutely vital for any footballer to make it to the top.

You mention RLC and I'd agree. CHO was another. He had the confidence, but not one ounce of natural agression.

We should have accepted the loan offer from Roma and kept Mudryk. I do worry a bit that if Gittens is getting game time and Quenda is getting left out of the match day squad, how sh*te is he?

14 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

We should have accepted the loan offer from Roma and kept Mudryk. I do worry a bit that if Gittens is getting game time and Quenda is getting left out of the match day squad, how sh*te is he?

I'm hoping at this point it's just a question of Quenda's recent injuries making Alonso hold him back a little. Gittens should've been dealt with this summer, but with his long absence I can see why Alonso tried to see him firsthand before eventually shipping him out in January.

11 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Next summer, his book value will be £35m.

They'll be able to shift him off easily, imo.

To who? Roma were the interested party this summer, and as usual with Italian teams it was a loan with an option. No one is paying straight cash for a bust from us, and the Garnacho situation at Villa would be detrimental going forward.

Stinks of a loan every year until his contract expires.

12 hours ago, markpitts said:

To who? Roma were the interested party this summer, and as usual with Italian teams it was a loan with an option. No one is paying straight cash for a bust from us, and the Garnacho situation at Villa would be detrimental going forward.

I'm not going to doubt our sporting directors' ability to get rid of players anymore. Garnacho was a lost cause, and we still managed to get rid of him, with Villa covering all his wages and loan terms that are highly likely to be met, per Romano.

Gittens is only 22, and there is still a lot of potential there. There will be suitors. We are interested in Kone from Roma, so maybe they do something there.

On 11/09/2026 at 06:25, Sconnie Blue said:

I'm not going to doubt our sporting directors' ability to get rid of players anymore. Garnacho was a lost cause, and we still managed to get rid of him, with Villa covering all his wages and loan terms that are highly likely to be met, per Romano.

Gittens is only 22, and there is still a lot of potential there. There will be suitors. We are interested in Kone from Roma, so maybe they do something there.

Gittens could have really done with a loan this season. Would have been better so send him to Strasbourg and kept Essugo.

6 hours ago, forbzy said:

Gittens could have really done with a loan this season. Would have been better so send him to Strasbourg and kept Essugo.

In hindsight it may have been better to keep Essugo but I don't see how loaning Gittens helps anybody. Loaning a player you have spent big money on is basically broadcasting the player has failed and his value drops immediately. What if the loan fails? He's worth nothing. Let him play in cup games and/or put him on the bench and sell when you can.

I could be wrong but I can't think of one player that has been bought for £50-60m and is loaned out after one season.

1 hour ago, Andy North said:

In hindsight it may have been better to keep Essugo but I don't see how loaning Gittens helps anybody. Loaning a player you have spent big money on is basically broadcasting the player has failed and his value drops immediately. What if the loan fails? He's worth nothing. Let him play in cup games and/or put him on the bench and sell when you can.

I could be wrong but I can't think of one player that has been bought for £50-60m and is loaned out after one season.

Garanacho lmao

5 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Garanacho lmao

He was £40m ... not £50-60m !

10 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

He was £40m ... not £50-60m !

Also had multiple seasons in the premier scoring good numbers (more than Neto). Was a sensible bet that didn't work out, Gittens just made zero sense from the start.

6 minutes ago, All Barco no bite said:

Also had multiple seasons in the premier scoring good numbers (more than Neto). Was a sensible bet that didn't work out, Gittens just made zero sense from the start.

The lengths you go to with the Neto whataboutism every time someone critiques Garnacho is exhausting. It wasn’t a sensible bet in any universe.

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

The lengths you go to with the Neto whataboutism every time someone critiques Garnacho is exhausting. It wasn’t a sensible bet in any universe.

He can't help himself. Deflective response because he needs something to cling on to a losing battle. Garnacho was awful. He lingers on to him having scored more goals, ignoring the fact he has got worse with age and only registered 1 goal last season in the league. Neto may not be everyone else's fault but he is ten times the player Garnacho is. Garnacho can't even get in a Villa team chasing a goal yesterday against Forest, whilst they were losing.

2 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

The lengths you go to with the Neto whataboutism every time someone critiques Garnacho is exhausting. It wasn’t a sensible bet in any universe.

What did I say that was wrong? Garnacho was 21 when signed and had scored 6 and 7 PL goals in his previous two seasons. 6 and 7 are both more goals than Neto has ever scored in a PL season. £40m is relatively cheap when you consider we’ve paid £60m for Neto (who scored less) and Gittens (never done anything).

What don’t you agree with here?

59 minutes ago, STATS said:

He can't help himself. Deflective response because he needs something to cling on to a losing battle. Garnacho was awful. He lingers on to him having scored more goals, ignoring the fact he has got worse with age and only registered 1 goal last season in the league. Neto may not be everyone else's fault but he is ten times the player Garnacho is. Garnacho can't even get in a Villa team chasing a goal yesterday against Forest, whilst they were losing.

Which bit did you disagree with? Not my fault facts hurt your feelings.

3 hours ago, All Barco no bite said:

Also had multiple seasons in the premier scoring good numbers (more than Neto). Was a sensible bet that didn't work out, Gittens just made zero sense from the start.

I wouldn't go that far LOL.

Garnacho being a failure was obvious to all before we even signed him !

Edited Sunday at 15:585 days by Sexyfootball

3 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

I wouldn't go that far LOL.

Garnacho being a failure was obvious to all before we even signed him !

And made our money back with ease, do you think we'll manage to do the same with Gittens?

46 minutes ago, All Barco no bite said:

And made our money back with ease, do you think we'll manage to do the same with Gittens?

I wouldn't be too confident until the money is in the bank

On 11/09/2026 at 21:25, Sconnie Blue said:

I'm not going to doubt our sporting directors' ability to get rid of players anymore. Garnacho was a lost cause, and we still managed to get rid of him, with Villa covering all his wages and loan terms that are highly likely to be met, per Romano.

Garnacho will be back. If the terms were "highly likely" to be met it would be considered a swap deal with Rogers under UEFA's rules and limited Villa's ability to bank Rogers' full fee to fulfil their sanction agreement. Romano, as per usual, is full of sh*t.

Secondly, there is no way to compel a club to sign a player. The best case scenario is we get paid some compensation from Villa for reneging on the agreement.

Edited Tuesday at 01:414 days by SydneyChelsea

10 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Garnacho will be back. If the terms were "highly likely" to be met it would be considered a swap deal with Rogers under UEFA's rules and limited Villa's ability to bank Rogers' full fee to fulfil their sanction agreement. Romano, as per usual, is full of sh*t.

Secondly, there is no way to compel a club to sign a player. The best case scenario is we get paid some compensation from Villa for reneging on the agreement.

Yeah, I'll wait until the end of the season to start treating Garnacho coming back as definite instead of in September.