Yeah, we only wanted him on a six-month loan - we were never signing a 31-year-old on a longer contract
David Villa | Monday 'defining day' for Spurs: Villa signs for Atletico Madrid
- Thread starter Inigo Montoya
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Azerbaijan 
Who's going to put the lock on this topic.
Who's going to put the lock on this topic.
Both stories were on ESPN together yesterday. One under the other. Shameful website management.
Well the rumours (that is all we ever have to go on really) is that we were offering similar amounts but that Villa preferred to stay in Spain.
Which, considering his age and the fact that its a world cup year, is more than fair enough.
Athletico know how to buy good strikers though, that is for sure.
I think you dodged a bullet there (assuming you do buy a striker at some point).
Tottenham offered as little as €3m for Barcelona's David Villa
The football world was a bit taken aback at the sudden, if not illogical, move of David Villa to Atletico Madrid. The Barcelona man looked dead cert for a move and the favourite for some time had been Tottenham Hotspur. Figures were mentioned as high as €20m for the Spanish international striker but those were unrealistic given his age, contract situation, and the desire of both parties for a change.
At the weekend Mundo Deportivo, a Barcelona mouthpiece fiercely loyal to the club, printed an article saying that Tottenham hadn't come close to Barcelona's asking price of €10m and that the Catalan club were unhappy with the offer from the London club which Mundo themselves later described as ridiculous.
At the time we wondered how low that could be. We said that €6m or €7m would sound hilarious and be a huge bargain but he's gone for less than that in a deal which will hit €5.1m, with Barcelona keeping hold of 50% of the player's rights in case Atletico decide to sell him, this protects them from the low first payment of around €2m, with the rest to be paid over the next three seasons.
In hindsight many in the football world are saying it was obvious that Villa would remain in Spain but they weren't so outspoken before. In England and Spain, Tottenham Hotspur were singled out as the prime destination and it did seem that the player would be turning up at White Hart Lane.
So how little did Tottenham really offer, if it wasn't as good as Atletico's €5.1m? According to Mundo Deportivo tonight it was €3m to €4m, the halfway point of that converting to around £3m. As long as another club didn't come in there was always a chance Spurs could get the player for that amount, but Atletico did and they came up with a more attractive offer for club and, seemingly, the player.
If Tottenham really wanted Villa they should have secured him before now and this could be a Levy gamble which simply hasn't paid off.
- Posted by SPORT WITNESS on July 8, 2013 at 21:00 in Sport Witness Football
- View Discussions
The football world was a bit taken aback at the sudden, if not illogical, move of David Villa to Atletico Madrid. The Barcelona man looked dead cert for a move and the favourite for some time had been Tottenham Hotspur. Figures were mentioned as high as €20m for the Spanish international striker but those were unrealistic given his age, contract situation, and the desire of both parties for a change.
At the weekend Mundo Deportivo, a Barcelona mouthpiece fiercely loyal to the club, printed an article saying that Tottenham hadn't come close to Barcelona's asking price of €10m and that the Catalan club were unhappy with the offer from the London club which Mundo themselves later described as ridiculous.
At the time we wondered how low that could be. We said that €6m or €7m would sound hilarious and be a huge bargain but he's gone for less than that in a deal which will hit €5.1m, with Barcelona keeping hold of 50% of the player's rights in case Atletico decide to sell him, this protects them from the low first payment of around €2m, with the rest to be paid over the next three seasons.
In hindsight many in the football world are saying it was obvious that Villa would remain in Spain but they weren't so outspoken before. In England and Spain, Tottenham Hotspur were singled out as the prime destination and it did seem that the player would be turning up at White Hart Lane.
So how little did Tottenham really offer, if it wasn't as good as Atletico's €5.1m? According to Mundo Deportivo tonight it was €3m to €4m, the halfway point of that converting to around £3m. As long as another club didn't come in there was always a chance Spurs could get the player for that amount, but Atletico did and they came up with a more attractive offer for club and, seemingly, the player.
If Tottenham really wanted Villa they should have secured him before now and this could be a Levy gamble which simply hasn't paid off.
I still can't believe he went for such a small fee. He's easily one of the best strikers of his generation. A shame that Barca weren't really set up to get the best out of him when he finally got his big move, but then again he did win everything in sight.
He's 31, has no resale value, is on massive wages and is a long way from his peak. I'm surprised Barca got a fee.
I don't really see what's so shocking about this move. Look at it from David Villa's side.
Atletico Madrid are a Champions League team, who's won a few cups over the years and he wouldn't have to leave Spain. On the other hand, Tottenham aren't in the Champions League and their hopes are riding on a guy who it's only a matter of time before he goes to one of the bigger clubs.
Atletico Madrid are a Champions League team, who's won a few cups over the years and he wouldn't have to leave Spain. On the other hand, Tottenham aren't in the Champions League and their hopes are riding on a guy who it's only a matter of time before he goes to one of the bigger clubs.
Its a nice move from Villa's side. But you're nuts if you think he isnt going to be one of the better strikers in the world when he's getting regular gametime as a striker. The problem with Villa at Barcelona is that he wasnt starting every week on his return from injury, so its no surprise he was rusty and he's obviously more suited to get back into top shape playing in his most natural position as a striker, and there was a guy called Messi who took that spot every week so he wasnt going to be given those chances often. Even when he got a game as a striker (4) he's not Messi. Passing the ball to his feet 40 yards from goal isnt a key pass when your striker isnt Messi...So you'd have to play completely differently with a striker like Villa through the middle and as we all know, Barcelona don't believe in a plan B so they weren't adjusting to play more like a normal team, creating chances in the box for a number 9. Having said that, he still managed 10 goals in 16 matches on the left and 6 assists on top of it. Thats good productivity, better than Pedro for sure and better than Alexis Sanchez when he played on the left as well. Sanchez did well last season but only on the right hand side where Villa never played. Its just the Neymar effect - He's coming in and he's quality and he plays on the left. Villa is 31, Pedro and Sanchez are a lot younger so the call is made.
If Atletico play him as a striker like-for-like replacing Falcao, expect a lot of goals next season. As many as Falcao? Probably not as he did a great job. But also probably enough to make people ask if Atletico really missed him
If Atletico play him as a striker like-for-like replacing Falcao, expect a lot of goals next season. As many as Falcao? Probably not as he did a great job. But also probably enough to make people ask if Atletico really missed him