Date: 7th June 2018 at 7:07pm
Written by:

It’s being reported this evening that Italian side Atalanta have now enacted the buy-clause they held on Pierluigi Gollini.

Despite the 23-year-old only making 13 appearances for the club in his 18 month spell out with them, it had earlier been reported that they were interested in taking him on a permanent basis and it was pretty much music to Villa fans ears as the move was far from a success from the point of view of either party.

Villa Goalkeeper Reportedly On The Verge Of £3m Move

Gianlucadimarzio are this evening reported that the deal is now done.

The buy-clause they report stands at 4.3million Euros and he has now signed a new long-term deal with the side, keeping him at the Serie A club until the summer of 2023.

There’s no confirmation at this stage from Aston Villa directly, nor from Atalanta that I can see, but it was expected it would only be a matter of time as Gollini wanted to return to Italy permanently to work with an Italian goalkeeping coach and he never sounded that enamoured about returning to B6 and fighting for his place, so once confirmed best for everybody really.

Another tiny chunk of money to chip away at our current issue as well.

Click for the forum

6 Replies to “Villa Goalkeeper Makes Permanent Move To Italy”

  • This is not a tiny chunk of money. People are over stating the size of the problem.
    Even if we complying fully with FFP (which I doubt we will) we have about £40m to find from all sources. We have already let millions of £s of wages go with Terry, Grabban, Hutton, Snodgrass, Gabby and Johnstone. This deal is £3m cash in plus wages off the budget another significant c. 10% of the gap made up. There’s similar money for Gil along with Losing his wages. There is potentially money coming in from clauses for Westwood and Traore. Sell a bit of ground for another £4m and suddenly £40m doesn’t seem so far away. If we could lose (and sorry to sound ungrateful) Taylor, Jedinak, Whelan, Lansbury and Hogan) with say £10m coming in for the 5 in total and loss of their wage and we’d be nearly there. If we could somehow get some money for McCormack and persuade Richards to go we’d be there I reckon.

    Point is not that this is what will happen but just pointing out you can do this without selling the Crown Jewels and it is more likely that we just ignore full compliance with FFP because if we show good progress sanctions will be mild. Also, if Xia wanted to and gets over his cash restraint issue he could do some financial engineering with a sponsorship deal it would reduce the impact on playing staff.

    Even losing all these players we would have a 1st team line up with Steer or Bunn in goal, Chester and Elphic CB, Bree and Elmohamady FB, BB, Grealish and Horahane CM, Albert and Green on Wing and Jimmy Damger up front. This is before using the kids, or loans or free signings, how many better 1st teams than that are there in the championship. Lack of depth would be a problem but we have some very talented kids who could at last get a chance.

    With a bit of will, guile and strength we can still come out of this leaner fitter and better.

    Of course it could go to sh1t as well but there can be a light at the end of the tunnel

    • It is tiny in the grand scheme of things but tiny things add up Cowans. Nobody is overstating our issues either. We continue to lose more than we make, and no, we don’t get Gollini’s fee (if confirmed) in a lump sum, Atalanta can spread it over his contract as is now commonplace.

      Ergo we financially factored – as reported – the Amavi and Sanchez fee. We get a lower sum upfront whilst losing out on its true worth.

      You cannot reduce the situation we are in – nobody can say selling Jack Grealish for £40million solves everything either because that transfer fee will be spread over the course of his new contract, unless we are prepared to accept less for quicker payment.

      I get, and am on board, with your main thrust – but trying to simplify a reality does nobody a favour. And we can’t ignore FFP, progress and showing willing is irrelevant. As are claims of artificially inflated self-sponsorship.

      It really isn’t that simple.

  • Mike, I respect your comments and only mildly disagree!

    Of course we are spending too much money but if we lost all those players I mentioned we wouldn’t be.

    One of the points I was trying to make was the FFP isn’t about cash it’s about budget and if we reduced the playing staff significantly the budget would come down significantly although we might have cash problems still

    I didn’t suggest we ignore FFP but many clubs are in breach or close and the only British club I know who have been severely hit are QPR who were fined (a lot) but have never paid a penny and are still years later fighting in court. I would much rather we complied by the way but I don’t believe we would be seriously sanctioned if we are showing significant progress towards compliance with the worst of the losses being in the past. FFP is cumulative over 3 years and if we had a surplus in year 3 but cumulative losses in previous year there’s no way FFP rules would be applied, it would go straight to court and be thrown out

    Also, lots of clubs (Manchester City!) have done financial sponsorship deals through the owners/ associates and as long as they are not obviously over market value this is acceptable. Xia could do something like this.

    Most importantly there are ways of attacking this which don’t include selling Grealish, Chester, Conor or Green, the other seniors I’m not too worried about. It’s more a question of will, if Grealish and Chester are sold it shows me that Xia hasn’t got the will to hang in and find a more difficult but better way.

    Anyway, keep up the good work Mike, love the site and read it all the time but rarely comment but wanted to counterpoint the more extreme positions (not yours) while accepting we are in a very difficult financial position, but not insurmountable

    • Well Mr Cowans if you’re not going to completely disagree with me, with respect, then you’re not going to let me get on my high horse are you! lol

      Again, I do agree with the thrust of your post and we certainly have wriggle room with players – albeit it seems we’ve already dragged our wage bill down to 39m which is fantastic given where it was – but FFP is about loss and debt. I agree with FFP as a system, but not in how it’s been implemented. Obviously shedding players would have a double knock-on effect for both debt (predictions) and cash flow (but lesser so as cancelling contracts require a settlement so it could actually make things worse in the short term).

      QPR have gone the court route out of desperation, Hull and Leicester fought and then settled. So FFP can’t be ignored and QPR are going to have problems when they run out of Court options in my humble. Other clubs wouldn’t have settled otherwise. Back when QPR started the court route FFP was about sanctions ie fines, since then Forest have been placed under a transfer embargo, they now have points deduction powers as well. FFP has strengthened, other clubs have settled and fallen into line and QPR kept going the legal route which has an endpoint. And again ‘willing’ is not a defence, you either breach or you don’t – there’s little room for mitigation in FFP. It’s totally down to them so you cannot rely on goodwill.

      Because our worst losses aren’t in the past, even that argument falls down with Xia’s year 1 spending on transfers as we went sh** or bust in my humble. The outstanding RL year he can’t lean on. We didn’t have a surplus in year 3 either, the club admitted we just about fell within the FFP remit – hence loans. And again it doesn’t go to Court and it wouldn’t be thrown out – QPR keep appealing because they have been dismissed to the best of my knowledge.

      Man C were found to be within the spirit of Prem FFP (totally different from Championship FFP) on their training ground sponsorships etc…it is a route we should explore more though, but as you say and are spot on, it has to be market value so VP remains an option depending on our owner.

      I also agree Grealish and Chester sales are the simple option.

      And I thank you Squire, but it takes folks like you to read, interact etc for this site to be what it is – so keep piping up chap – it’s welcomed! Enjoy your weekend matey.

  • I don’t see why we cannot do what Man City did and sell the naming rights of the ground for 10 years… if calling it Rancon Villa Park gets us more money for ffp then sign the the fook up…

Comments are closed.