CONFIRMED Cameron Archer signs for the Blades - 4 year contract

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


CoatesyBlade said:
Didn’t they burn a million pounds in the name of art? And I’m pretty sure they destroyed their entire back catalogue as a finger up at the industry. And best of all they got Tammy Wynette to sing about folk from a land called MuMu! Class!

Feel free to correct me if I’ve got any of that wrong everybody 😊
Click to expand...

Pretty much spot on.

There's a great doc called 'Who Killed the KLF?' which tells all. Well worth a watch.
 
CoatesyBlade said:
Didn’t they burn a million pounds in the name of art? And I’m pretty sure they destroyed their entire back catalogue as a finger up at the industry. And best of all they got Tammy Wynette to sing about folk from a land called MuMu! Class!

Feel free to correct me if I’ve got any of that wrong everybody 😊
Click to expand...
We ancients approve.
 
Begley said:
That is registration to play football, the contract between club and player is different. I can't remember the guys name (it will come to me) but about 15 yrs ago we signed a player and signed all the contracts before registering him. He subsequently couldn't get a work visa and we were stuck with him on the payroll and he wasn't allowed to play
Click to expand...
Bosko Balaban?
 
CaptainMorgans said:
I think it's us trying to force the obligatory buy-back upon relegation clause to protect ourselves financially.

There will also be a buy-back clause regardless of whether we are relegated but I assume this will be set much higher (£35-40m).
Click to expand...
Why would Villa want a mandatory buy back clause? Surely just a buy back clause at a certain figure if we are relegated is sufficient? That way Villa get to choose to buy him back if we're relegated and they get first dibs.

What if we are relegated and Archer turns out to be not very good / long term injured / ACL injury/ has a Mason Greenwood incident then Villa won't want him back. If I were Villa I'd want first dibs at a set price if Utd are relegated, I wouldn't want an Obligatory (or Mandatory) clause where I HAD to buy him back whatever the situation.
 
SouthStandGBlock said:
Why would Villa want a mandatory buy back clause? Surely just a buy back clause at a certain figure if we are relegated is sufficient? That way Villa get to choose to buy him back if we're relegated and they get first dibs.

What if we are relegated and Archer turns out to be not very good / long term injured / ACL injury/ has a Mason Greenwood incident then Villa won't want him back. If I were Villa I'd want first dibs at a set price if Utd are relegated, I wouldn't want an Obligatory (or Mandatory) clause where I HAD to buy him back whatever the situation.
Click to expand...
I did think similar to this… a mandatory buy back seems unnecessary. I can only assume it’s US that are pushing for it being definite if we’re relegated for our finances
 
SouthStandGBlock said:
Why would Villa want a mandatory buy back clause? Surely just a buy back clause at a certain figure if we are relegated is sufficient? That way Villa get to choose to buy him back if we're relegated and they get first dibs.

What if we are relegated and Archer turns out to be not very good / long term injured / ACL injury/ has a Mason Greenwood incident then Villa won't want him back. If I were Villa I'd want first dibs at a set price if Utd are relegated, I wouldn't want an Obligatory (or Mandatory) clause where I HAD to buy him back whatever the situation.
Click to expand...

What happens if he scores 25 goals for us and we still go down and then a top 6 club come in for him offering more than Villa?

Without this future contract from Villa to Archer he could easily snub them and go elsewhere.
 
jono_t2000 said:
What happens if he scores 25 goals for us and we still go down and then a top 6 club come in for him offering more than Villa?

Without this future contract from Villa to Archer he could easily snub them and go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
But Villa just need the buy back clause to be able to choose if they buy him back at a set price. They don't need it to be mandatory.

If he scores 25 goals and we are relegated, then Villa get him back at £20m.
 
SouthStandGBlock said:
But Villa just need the buy back clause to be able to choose if they buy him back at a set price. They don't need it to be mandatory.

If he scores 25 goals and we are relegated, then Villa get him back at £20m.
Click to expand...

It’s obvious to me that villa would sell him for less than £18.5m

Probably 13-15m would do it. But we are essentially paying a premium so that if we go down we don’t have another potential Brewster. Deal suits all parties - I think we WANT the clause to be mandatory. (As you say villa only need the option)

If we go down and he’s good villa win, if we go down and he’s bad. We win massively.

If he scores 25 goals we won’t be going down, it’s merely we are protecting ourselves from an expensive loss by paying a premium on the purchase price.

I’m Thinking of it as Brewster insurance for c£3 million. If he’s crap and we stay up irregardless it’s easier to Swallow that loss with more parachute payments and PL revenue

I also expect that if we really want to get rid of it and keep him we’d be ale to do what Bayern did with tiliman and buy out rangers option to purchase.
 
It’s not going to happen is it, great proposal but it’s going to go to shit……

if it does then plaudits…. It’s a really innovative deal.

if not then I hope there’s other replacements.
 
JayGreen17 said:
It’s not going to happen is it, great proposal but it’s going to go to shit……

if it does then plaudits…. It’s a really innovative deal.

if not then I hope there’s other replacements.
Click to expand...

Deadline day foreign loan for Origi
 

SouthStandGBlock said:
Why would Villa want a mandatory buy back clause? Surely just a buy back clause at a certain figure if we are relegated is sufficient? That way Villa get to choose to buy him back if we're relegated and they get first dibs.

What if we are relegated and Archer turns out to be not very good / long term injured / ACL injury/ has a Mason Greenwood incident then Villa won't want him back. If I were Villa I'd want first dibs at a set price if Utd are relegated, I wouldn't want an Obligatory (or Mandatory) clause where I HAD to buy him back whatever the situation.
Click to expand...
I am also struggling to get my head around why Villa are happy to agree to a mandatory buy back.
 
TJB. said:
Pretty much spot on.

There's a great doc called 'Who Killed the KLF?' which tells all. Well worth a watch.
Click to expand...
Did it stand for "kings of the low frequency"

I got told that, is it true?

I know they upset a few farmers on exmoor with that bass tank thing 🤣🤣
 
Aquifer007 said:
Must be something random for their finances somehow to keep their books happy some how carnt work it out though
Click to expand...
If you spin it round, maybe we wanted a loan with option to buy. And we'd not be able to afford the option if relegated. And Villa wanted the sale to balance FFP this season, but wouldn't mind buying him back for next season. So this was a clever compromise to suit all
 
blade86 said:
If you spin it round, maybe we wanted a loan with option to buy. And we'd not be able to afford the option if relegated. And Villa wanted the sale to balance FFP this season, but wouldn't mind buying him back for next season. So this was a clever compromise to suit all
Click to expand...
Bloody hell i didn't think it could get anymore complicated.....🤯🤯🤯 Thanks for that
 
Bladeinleeds said:
It’s obvious to me that villa would sell him for less than £18.5m

Probably 13-15m would do it. But we are essentially paying a premium so that if we go down we don’t have another potential Brewster. Deal suits all parties - I think we WANT the clause to be mandatory. (As you say villa only need the option)

If we go down and he’s good villa win, if we go down and he’s bad. We win massively.

If he scores 25 goals we won’t be going down, it’s merely we are protecting ourselves from an expensive loss by paying a premium on the purchase price.

I’m Thinking of it as Brewster insurance for c£3 million. If he’s crap and we stay up irregardless it’s easier to Swallow that loss with more parachute payments and PL revenue

I also expect that if we really want to get rid of it and keep him we’d be ale to do what Bayern did with tiliman and buy out rangers option to purchase.
Click to expand...
It has been reported for a long time that Villa values Archer at circa 20m and will insist on a buyback clause. The buyback clause is probably 30m/35m. Clearly Sheffield United are pushing for the relegation option as there is no benefit to Villa in making the buyback an obligation. Thus, to agree to an obligation the buyback amount will have been negotiated down, hence the rumoured 20m fee.
 
CoatesyBlade said:
Didn’t they burn a million pounds in the name of art? And I’m pretty sure they destroyed their entire back catalogue as a finger up at the industry. And best of all they got Tammy Wynette to sing about folk from a land called MuMu! Class!

Feel free to correct me if I’ve got any of that wrong everybody 😊
Click to expand...
The million pounds stunt was just that, a stunt.

They would have been pretty foolish to have burnt legal tender live as its a criminal act.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom