Aston Villa, like Newcastle United, could become victims of their own success and by that we mean victims of a corrupt Profit and Sustainability ruling.
Clubs like Newcastle and Aston Villa are on the rise when it comes to on-pitch performances with the Magpies breaking into the Premier League top four last season and Villa hoping to do the same this season.
However, Villa, like Newcastle before them, will soon realise that there is a barrier to that success in the form of Financial Fair Play/Profit and Sustainability Rules. In order to continue at the same level next season, when those around them in the 'big six' will be splashing the cash, Newcastle and Villa must also spend to keep up, but the problem is, we aren't allowed to.
That leads to clubs trying to find success having to sell players they'd rather keep, just so they can unlock the power to spend more, which is why Bruno Guimaraes and Alexander Isak are always linked in the media with a move away from Newcastle as journalists know the club is at their limit with FFP and selling a prize asset is the best way to increase the spending power.
Aston Villa now find themselves in a similar position with The Athletic claiming that Unai Emery may have to look to sell £50million-rated Jacob Ramsey this summer to free up transfer funds.
This could work out pretty well for Newcastle who were eyeing up the 22-year-old in January as it means that Eddie Howe could get his man, and at the same time it weakens an opponent, much like the Chris Wood deal.
Of course, the flip side is that the £50million we sent Villa's way will translate to a lot more in terms of FFP meaning they could go on a spending spree which more than covers Ramsey's absence.
The England U21 midfielder has only managed 16 Premier League appearances this season, however, having picked up several injuries. He is currently out with a toe injury, an absence which began in early March.
We don't really see this being one Newcastle will pursue in the summer if we're being honest. For all Ramsey has bags of potential, the idea that we unlock all that FFP headroom for a rival just doesn't feel like a wise move, nor does forking out £50million plus for a player who has missed 50% of the games this season.
Add to that the fact that he's predominantly a left-sided forward, a position in which we have more than adequate cover, this one just doesn't make sense.
PL | GD | PTS | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Liverpool
|
13 | 18 | 34 |
2 |
Arsenal
|
13 | 12 | 25 |
3 |
Chelsea
|
13 | 12 | 25 |
4 |
Brighton
|
13 | 5 | 23 |
5 |
Manchester City
|
13 | 3 | 23 |
6 |
Nottingham Forest
|
13 | 3 | 22 |
7 |
Tottenham Hotspur
|
13 | 14 | 20 |
8 |
Brentford
|
13 | 3 | 20 |
9 |
Manchester United
|
13 | 4 | 19 |
10 |
Fulham
|
13 | 0 | 19 |
11 |
Newcastle United
|
13 | 0 | 19 |
12 |
Aston Villa
|
13 | -3 | 19 |
13 |
Bournemouth
|
13 | 1 | 18 |
14 |
West Ham United
|
13 | -7 | 15 |
15 |
Everton
|
13 | -11 | 11 |
16 |
Leicester
|
13 | -11 | 10 |
17 |
Crystal Palace
|
13 | -7 | 9 |
18 |
Wolves
|
13 | -10 | 9 |
19 |
Ipswich
|
13 | -11 | 9 |
20 |
Southampton
|
13 | -15 | 5 |