Archer

[Greg.]

Not as much as £4.5m

My understanding was it was around that ballpark e.g. explained in this thread

 

[wizadry]

Whatever the fee we paid it was way too much, just shite recruitment and shite use of limited funds for a Premier league club. How can a Prem club have limited funds these days anyway? That’s how badly we have been ran, an utter shambles!

 

[brownblade]

Whatever the fee we paid it was way too much, just shite recruitment and shite use of limited funds for a Premier league club. How can a Prem club have limited funds these days anyway? That’s how badly we have been ran, an utter shambles!

I'm not sure which striker we'd have realistically got that's better than Archer.

He showed his finishing abilities at times. Understandably struggled plenty and understandably he might never make it at the elite elite level of the Prem.

 

[wizadry]

I'm not sure which striker we'd have realistically got that's better than Archer.

He showed his finishing abilities at times. Understandably struggled plenty and understandably he might never make it at the elite elite level of the Prem.

It was the fact we were paying £4M out or whatever it was just for a loan when all the evidence was we didn’t have a cat in hells chance of staying up before a ball was kicked. It was dead money and stupid money spent if he wasn’t going to be our player which he never was, we just bent over and helped Villa out with their FFP bollocks without any lube!

 

[Jacobsenthecrab]

It was the fact we were paying £4M out or whatever it was just for a loan when all the evidence was we didn’t have a cat in hells chance of staying up before a ball was kicked. It was dead money and stupid money spent if he wasn’t going to be our player which he never was, we just bent over and helped Villa out with their FFP bollocks without any lube!

Papers reporting is was a £3m fee, not at all unreasonable for a player of his potential and sensible business by the club as we are not lumbered with his wages and £15m that was still to be paid had we stayed-up and retained his services.

Guessing Mcatee was similar as well.

 

[ancientblade]

Papers reporting is was a £3m fee, not at all unreasonable for a player of his potential and sensible business by the club as we are not lumbered with his wages and £15m that was still to be paid had we stayed-up and retained his services.

Guessing Mcatee was similar as well.

yeah although it didnt work for us 3m was a good deal no brainer really if he had got us the goals to keep us up 18m would have been a great deal as well i think he will end up at a top end championship club for 10m

 

[mancunianblade]

It will be revealed in the accounts

So it could be more then?

 

[Silent Blade]

So it could be more then?

No

 

[mancunianblade]

No

So how much is it then?

 

[Silent Blade]

So how much is it then?

Dont have the exact figure but it is much less than £4.5m

 

[djbaldken]

As I understand things:
They sold him to us but we didn't actually buy him. We really loaned him but it wasn't a loan deal. They still owned him but he was our player. If we had stayed up we would have to buy him even though he was our player that we'd already bought. Because we went down we hadn't really bought him so he has to go back. And because we haven't bought him they don't owe us anything for him to go back. If he does come back even though we bought him already we then have to buy him again. Failing that he can go somewhere else and we don't get anything out of that deal.
I hope that explains it to anyone who was unsure.I

 

[LBA_Blade]

As I understand things:
They sold him to us but we didn't actually buy him. We really loaned him but it wasn't a loan deal. They still owned him but he was our player. If we had stayed up we would have to buy him even though he was our player that we'd already bought. Because we went down we hadn't really bought him so he has to go back. And because we haven't bought him they don't owe us anything for him to go back. If he does come back even though we bought him already we then have to buy him again. Failing that he can go somewhere else and we don't get anything out of that deal.
I hope that explains it to anyone who was unsure.I

I think there will be a few other random deals like this one to be fair in the not so distance future. Especially with FFP and some of the squad sizes of certain clubs, Chelsea and Fulham had a loan deal for Broja where if (and he didn't meet the requirements) played x games or minutes however the deal was structured, Fulham had to pay Chelsea £4million from January to end of the season, Chelsea wanted £50million out right, Fulham took the gamble and they ended up being ok as some other full contracted players, played Broja out of the startling line up such as Muniz etc who couldn't stop scoring and he was about £6million bought out right.

It is a strange one as in effect Fulham have just given Chelsea £4million for no apparent reason but on the flip side one of their own strikers hit form and gained experience where he might not have done if they have invested in a £30-40 million striker.

 

[Mendi]

Flop signing

 

[mattbianco1]

 

[10-0 win]

Gone to Sotton £ 15 mill. Teaming up with Ben Diaz again.