Archer

[Bell4]

If we don’t invest next season then it could well be a third division club he’s trying to offload.

He might be “tight”, but I hope and don’t think he’s that daft.

I think he is a bit daft

 

[alcoblade]

I think he is a bit daft

Well he’s a businessman and will want to protect his investment.

In his defence, which I know will be received badly right now, in the championship we held on to players in a way we’d never done previously, and that got us promoted.

Of course, that’s turned in to the current shit show, but we should always remember the lifetime of misery we’ve had as Blades fans, times when we’d kill for 2 stints in the top flight in quick succession.

 

[Carlton Blade]

stringer article confirming an obligatory buy back on relegation

 

[Alex Cheeseright]

When we went from div 1 to the Prem we had a consistent base of players. We had a style. If we can get a good base of talent next season, Archer and Osula would be a great forward line to get us promoted. But they both need service unlike right now where they feed off scraps.

 

[Champagneblade]

stringer article confirming an obligatory buy back on relegation

It will be interesting if them buying him back puts them over FFP. I’m sure they’d happily negotiate!

 

[Bladezz]

Would offer them the same deal with inflated prices surely can help aid them with FFP and we get our striker.

 

[Wards]

I'd keep him at the right price but I wouldn't break the bank for him. £10m or so? Do/will we have that sort of cash to spend?

 

[Younger Dryas Blade]

It will be interesting if them buying him back puts them over FFP. I’m sure they’d happily negotiate!

How can it? He's home grown so our fee paid and their buy back agreement equals £0 outlay.

 

[gooseh]

If I was Archer I’d piss off from this club faster than shit off a shovel. I can see him going to a mid to lower half Premier side, Bournemouth or Brentford perhaps.

Could replace Toney, good shout

 

[s20Blade]

I'd keep him at the right price but I wouldn't break the bank for him. £10m or so? Do/will we have that sort of cash to spend?

Very much doubt it. Can't see us having more than 10-15m to spend to build a new squad spine.
Probably average about 1m a player with how many we will need to replace.

 

[Champagneblade]

How can it? He's home grown so our fee paid and their buy back agreement equals £0 outlay.

But selling him to us created a FFP advantage didn’t it? Buying him back must reverse that, mustn’t it?

I haven’t overly studied this tbh but we gave them some leeway by taking him if we send him back, don’t we undo that?

 

[mattbianco1]

But selling him to us created a FFP advantage didn’t it? Buying him back must reverse that, mustn’t it?

A sale goes into the accounts in full as a profit.

A purchase is offset over the contract length.

Villa will show a £18m profit on him last summer.
United will show a £3.6m purchase, and again each year for the remaining 4y (assuming it was a 5y contract).

If Villa buy him back again, it's prorata'd over the contract length so isn't like they've spent £18m in one go.

It's essentially a debt consolidation loan

 

[vas borbokis]

Same old.
You make any money related rules and bent accountants and lawyers find ways to get round them.
Basically it's cheating in a way not open to any normal straight thinking folk!

 

[Tarqs]

Same old.
You make any money related rules and bent accountants and lawyers find ways to get round them.
Basically it's cheating in a way not open to any normal straight thinking folk!

How can they be bent if they're following the rules set?

 

[MagnifiqueShorehamStreet]

Well he’s a businessman and will want to protect his investment.

In his defence, which I know will be received badly right now, in the championship we held on to players in a way we’d never done previously, and that got us promoted.

Of course, that’s turned in to the current shit show, but we should always remember the lifetime of misery we’ve had as Blades fans, times when we’d kill for 2 stints in the top flight in quick succession.

He’s a disinterested, absent landlord, who cares not one jot about his tenants, just their rent.
Worse still he’s out of his depth.
And still we have fans who are devoted to.and defend him, whilst the roof is falling in, above their heads.

 

[alcoblade]

He’s a disinterested, absent landlord, who cares not one jot about his tenants, just their rent.
Worse still he’s out of his depth.
And still we have fans who are devoted to.and defend him, whilst the roof is falling in, above their heads.

Well I'm certainly not devoted to defend him, so that's your first bit of emotional nonsense out of the way.

You might try to address the only point I did make in his defence though?

 

[Balham]

A sale goes into the accounts in full as a profit.

A purchase is offset over the contract length.

Villa will show a £18m profit on him last summer.
United will show a £3.6m purchase, and again each year for the remaining 4y (assuming it was a 5y contract).

If Villa buy him back again, it's prorata'd over the contract length so isn't like they've spent £18m in one go.

It's essentially a debt consolidation loan

Mostly correct but not entirely. The bit in bold is wrong; United's accounts for 23/24 will show an £18m addition and a £4.5m cost. Villa's will show an £18m profit (and another similar amount from selling Jacob Ramsey to Burnley).

Archer is a Villa academy product so his registration had at most a nominal value in their accounts. We agreed a deal worth a guaranteed £18m last summer so Villa were able to book a FFP-eligible profit on disposal of £18m. It seems from most outlets that the cash was to be paid in two instalments so we will have paid Villa £9m over the course of this season.

At the start of the season therefore United had a new £18m asset. That £18m is, as you say, written off over the length of the player's contract. In this case, Archer signed a 4 year deal so his FFP-impacting P&L cost is £4.5m per season. At the end of this season, probably on June 30th, Archer's registration will have a book value of £13.5m.

Villa are rumoured to have a compulsory buyback clause. It's not clear whether it's £2m higher or lower than the £18m we paid for him but let's, for argument's sake, assume it's a £20m fee. I'd also assume that the fee will be paid in at least two instalments but as it would involve netting the £9m we have outstanding from the initial purchase Villa would actually only return our £9m plus the £2m additional.

Villa resign Archer on July 1st for £20m on a five year deal. United book an FFP-eligible £6.5m sale on disposal. Villa register a new player with an FFP and P&L cost of £4m per season. If they choose to sell him on for £25m in the summer they will book a further £5m profit on disposal which, again, will be counted towards FFP.

 

[Caveblade]

The stories currently doing the rounds are that Villa are not going to take up the option to buy him back. It doesn't appear to be a compulsory option.

I have to say that is good news in my book. Having a proven Championship striker next season would be a step forward.

 

[JayGreen17]

The stories currently doing the rounds are that Villa are not going to take up the option to buy him back. It doesn't appear to be a compulsory option.

I have to say that is good news in my book. Having a proven Championship striker next season would be a step forward.

I’m hoping this too tbh, he’ll be great in the champ.

 

[HarryHaslam]

The stories currently doing the rounds are that Villa are not going to take up the option to buy him back. It doesn't appear to be a compulsory option.

I have to say that is good news in my book. Having a proven Championship striker next season would be a step forward.

Not true, Danny Hall clarified it in yesterday’s Star, Villa are contractually obligated to sign him back.

As others have mentioned the only hope of him staying is if Villa really don’t want him and offer us some cut price deal to get out of the obligation to sign him back.

 

[Balham]

The stories currently doing the rounds are that Villa are not going to take up the option to buy him back. It doesn't appear to be a compulsory option.

I have to say that is good news in my book. Having a proven Championship striker next season would be a step forward.

If Villa don't have to buy him back we will have a £20m hole to fill (more importantly a £10m cash shortfall)

 

[Lord Eddard Muir]

He looked the real deal on his debut v Everton but since then dare I say his contributions have been Brewsteresque. Getting that money back to spend on someone else is going to be a boon.

 

[Revolution]

He looked the real deal on his debut v Everton but since then dare I say his contributions have been Brewsteresque. Getting that money back to spend on someone else is going to be a boon.

Brewsteresque? He’s scored 4 times and we’ve got 8 points in those games.

That’s the same league goals as Brewster has in 4 seasons.

 

[Varkanoid]

Not true, Danny Hall clarified it in yesterday’s Star, Villa are contractually obligated to sign him back.

As others have mentioned the only hope of him staying is if Villa really don’t want him and offer us some cut price deal to get out of the obligation to sign him back.

Well is it clarifed though because this is a) The Star who are known to get things wrong and b) there may be unknown triggers and clauses we are not aware of.
They could just be obligated to trigger a clause that starts the discussion of a buy back. Without us seeing the actual contract (which we wont) its not 100% certain or clarified what the conditions are. Seeing is believing is probably the truth here.

 

[HarryHaslam]

Well is it clarifed though because this is a) The Star who are known to get things wrong and b) there may be unknown triggers and clauses we are not aware of.
They could just be obligated to trigger a clause that starts the discussion of a buy back. Without us seeing the actual contract (which we wont) its not 100% certain or clarified what the conditions are. Seeing is believing is probably the truth here.

Well I assume Danny Hall who is the one who asks United questions as the reporter will have have found out from the club so I’d say it’s correct myself. Below is what he said and I’m sure he wouldn’t be staying this unless the club clarified the situation.

Archer's future is once again the subject of debate this week after a report suggested that Villa may not exercise their option to bring the 22-year-old back to Villa Park in the summer, given their financial fair play situation. However as The Star confirmed earlier in the summer the agreement struck to bring Archer to Bramall Lane in the summer contained the obligation for Villa to re-sign the striker in the summer if the Blades are relegated.

If they pull off a great escape act and survive this season then Villa still have the option to take Archer back, at a pre-agreed price that is higher than the obligated one if United drop back into the Championship. But as things stand, with United bottom of the Premier League table and 10 points off survival with 10 games left, Archer is bound for a Midlands return.

 

[secretchief]

Archer is a million times better than Brewster soley on the premise that Archer will be in the Premier league irrespective of what happens next season and Brewster literally cannot be given away.

 

[jt64]

The stories currently doing the rounds are that Villa are not going to take up the option to buy him back. It doesn't appear to be a compulsory option.

I have to say that is good news in my book. Having a proven Championship striker next season would be a step forward.

If you'd had said to me we're dropping ~20 million on Archer on a permanent last summer, I'd have been "mediocre signing", and he's done nothing to make me think he's got any better since then. Also it appears that becoming a proven Championship striker is just reliant on having a couple of alright loan spells - we know this because we already spent 20 million on a striker with one alright Championship loan spell, and he's front and centre of the forum shit list

 

[vas borbokis]

How can they be bent if they're following the rules set?

Haha.
Are you a lawyer or accountant perchance?
In my mind "rules" for PL finances, and UK taxes, should be "principles" and folk should pay based on what the intent was when setting the rules.
Clever buggers thinking creatively about how to get around the intent of the rules costs normal people money in extra taxes, and maybe relegations in football, because the "clever buggers" don't pay what should be due based on the intent of the rules ..
Obv it'll never change. Greed n all that. Money the root of all evil. Maybe that's a tad OTT!
No doubt they'll look at the Archer contract and write more rules someone else will work out how to circumnavigate..

 

[Headshrinker]

The stories currently doing the rounds are that Villa are not going to take up the option to buy him back. It doesn't appear to be a compulsory option.

I have to say that is good news in my book. Having a proven Championship striker next season would be a step forward.

That could create another problem though, that he would end up being sold to another team, at a much lower price...

 

[bladesince64]

Would love it if the rumours about Villa not being contractually obligated to re-sign Archer are true.

If we can keep him for next season along with Hamer, Souza, Davies and the quality younger players eg Brooks, Osula Arblaster, Jebbo? and maybe a few others, we will bounce straight back up to the PL no problem.