CONFIRMED Cameron Archer signs for the Blades - 4 year contract

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


Addison said:
The relegation buy back clause raises a number of issues for the EPL to consider when reviewing the terms of the contract drawn up by Villa and the Blades. Firstly that a compensation fee has been paid and it is not a loan in disguise. The terms of the contract should clearly state the initial down payment and payment terms thereafter.

The EPL rules require a compensation fee to be paid so despite some views to the contrary money will have to be exchanged between the Clubs. It can not be an accounting exercise as some are suggesting.

The deal is likely to be open to question across a number of fronts. As far as the big clubs are concerned it seems to be another attempt to avoid FFP requirements. This will raise concerns at the EPL, FA and FIFA. The EPL will have to assess if this work around impacts significantly on their loan process and potentially makes redundant the current clause that limits 2 EPL loans per EPL club.

Finally and possibly of more far reaching concern for the smaller clubs like SUFC there may be ramifications regarding the future payment of parachute payments. The whole idea of PP's are that they are a financial buffer for relegated clubs to stop them going under as a consequence of having to continue to pay high transfer fee installments and wages. There is an argument that by invoking relegation buy back clauses this negates the need for PP's in the future. It would be so Sheffield United to find a way to lose out on future PP's. The EPL have been very firm in their view that PP's stay to protect their members against relegation despite Rick Parry at the EFL fronting a campaign to remove them. If they see their own members finding ways to circumvent their existing rules they may not be as supportive in the future.

I suspect there will be a considerable amount of scrutiny concerning this deal with the usual suspects at the Daily Fail accusing the Club of foul play again. For all the reasons above I expect this loophole to be closed for future transfers.
Click to expand...
Is this just your view? Or do you know the EPL are scrutinising the deal in the way you describe?
 
Addison said:
The relegation buy back clause raises a number of issues for the EPL to consider when reviewing the terms of the contract drawn up by Villa and the Blades. Firstly that a compensation fee has been paid and it is not a loan in disguise. The terms of the contract should clearly state the initial down payment and payment terms thereafter.

The EPL rules require a compensation fee to be paid so despite some views to the contrary money will have to be exchanged between the Clubs. It can not be an accounting exercise as some are suggesting.

The deal is likely to be open to question across a number of fronts. As far as the big clubs are concerned it seems to be another attempt to avoid FFP requirements. This will raise concerns at the EPL, FA and FIFA. The EPL will have to assess if this work around impacts significantly on their loan process and potentially makes redundant the current clause that limits 2 EPL loans per EPL club.

Finally and possibly of more far reaching concern for the smaller clubs like SUFC there may be ramifications regarding the future payment of parachute payments. The whole idea of PP's are that they are a financial buffer for relegated clubs to stop them going under as a consequence of having to continue to pay high transfer fee installments and wages. There is an argument that by invoking relegation buy back clauses this negates the need for PP's in the future. It would be so Sheffield United to find a way to lose out on future PP's. The EPL have been very firm in their view that PP's stay to protect their members against relegation despite Rick Parry at the EFL fronting a campaign to remove them. If they see their own members finding ways to circumvent their existing rules they may not be as supportive in the future.

I suspect there will be a considerable amount of scrutiny concerning this deal with the usual suspects at the Daily Fail accusing the Club of foul play again. For all the reasons above I expect this loophole to be closed for future transfers.
Click to expand...

I canā€™t ever see the Premier League removing parachute payments. The Premier League want clubs to spend money in order for the league to be as competitive as possible.

Remove parachute payments and a good number of clubs would be forced to reduce their transfer/wages budgets. The weaker teams will inevitably get even weaker, which is not good for the ā€œbest league in the worldā€.
 
YES Blade said:
I canā€™t ever see the Premier League removing parachute payments. The Premier League want clubs to spend money in order for the league to be as competitive as possible.

Remove parachute payments and a good number of clubs would be forced to reduce their transfer/wages budgets. The weaker teams will inevitably get even weaker, which is not good for the ā€œbest league in the worldā€.
Click to expand...

Might be wrong but I thought they had already put a timeline on it to be phased out..
 
jono_t2000 said:
Might be wrong but I thought they had already put a timeline on it to be phased out..
Click to expand...
No not yet theyā€™re talking with the EFL about reforming them rather than abolishing them but who knows what that will entail. Theyā€™ve offered to EFL a few hundred million in additional solidarity payments as a sweetener to try and get a deal but I donā€™t think anythingā€™s been agreed as yet.
 
YES Blade said:
I canā€™t ever see the Premier League removing parachute payments. The Premier League want clubs to spend money in order for the league to be as competitive as possible.

Remove parachute payments and a good number of clubs would be forced to reduce their transfer/wages budgets. The weaker teams will inevitably get even weaker, which is not good for the ā€œbest league in the worldā€.
Click to expand...

Yogi said:
No not yet theyā€™re talking with the EFL about reforming them rather than abolishing them but who knows what that will entail. Theyā€™ve offered to EFL a few hundred million in additional solidarity payments as a sweetener to try and get a deal but I donā€™t think anythingā€™s been agreed as yet.
Click to expand...
If they removed parachute payments they would have to remove promotions and relegations
 
If Archer doesn't like it here it would be in his interest if we are relegated.
 
1973Blade said:
If Archer doesn't like it here it would be in his interest if we are relegated.
Click to expand...
Hope you're not suggesting he'd play poorly to ensure a move back to Villa!
He'll enjoy it here, most players do from what I can tell... and I wouldn't worry about his commitment to the cause, he's one of England's brightest young talents, he's a winner and will want to show the World what he can do
 
YES Blade said:
I canā€™t ever see the Premier League removing parachute payments. The Premier League want clubs to spend money in order for the league to be as competitive as possible
Click to expand...
Part of the parachute payment use is for risks taken in transfers, in particular losses. If you remove that loss, it has to be removed from the parachute payment.

If all transfers start going like this then it will be seen and adjusted. Not gone altogether.
 
Addison said:
The relegation buy back clause raises a number of issues for the EPL to consider when reviewing the terms of the contract drawn up by Villa and the Blades. Firstly that a compensation fee has been paid and it is not a loan in disguise. The terms of the contract should clearly state the initial down payment and payment terms thereafter.

The EPL rules require a compensation fee to be paid so despite some views to the contrary money will have to be exchanged between the Clubs. It can not be an accounting exercise as some are suggesting.

The deal is likely to be open to question across a number of fronts. As far as the big clubs are concerned it seems to be another attempt to avoid FFP requirements. This will raise concerns at the EPL, FA and FIFA. The EPL will have to assess if this work around impacts significantly on their loan process and potentially makes redundant the current clause that limits 2 EPL loans per EPL club.

Finally and possibly of more far reaching concern for the smaller clubs like SUFC there may be ramifications regarding the future payment of parachute payments. The whole idea of PP's are that they are a financial buffer for relegated clubs to stop them going under as a consequence of having to continue to pay high transfer fee installments and wages. There is an argument that by invoking relegation buy back clauses this negates the need for PP's in the future. It would be so Sheffield United to find a way to lose out on future PP's. The EPL have been very firm in their view that PP's stay to protect their members against relegation despite Rick Parry at the EFL fronting a campaign to remove them. If they see their own members finding ways to circumvent their existing rules they may not be as supportive in the future.

I suspect there will be a considerable amount of scrutiny concerning this deal with the usual suspects at the Daily Fail accusing the Club of foul play again. For all the reasons above I expect this loophole to be closed for future transfers.
Click to expand...

Didnā€™t Burnley do a similar deal with Villa? If so do you think we may have a protection against sanction on the basis that it would be inequitable to punish us when allowing the Burnley deal and you shouldnā€™t be able to impose a retrospective penalty?
 
Addison said:
The relegation buy back clause raises a number of issues for the EPL to consider when reviewing the terms of the contract drawn up by Villa and the Blades. Firstly that a compensation fee has been paid and it is not a loan in disguise. The terms of the contract should clearly state the initial down payment and payment terms thereafter.
Click to expand...
I don't think they could argue its a loan, as they would have to say we intended to get relegated for that to be the case.

However, from our perspective, given there is a decent chance we will go down, is this just a clever way of getting a domestic loan that doesn't count as one?
 
Boxer Blade said:
Breaking news Archer is definitely out injured



But




Should be back to play against India in the test series
Click to expand...
Fine by me Boxer šŸ˜
Westran said:
Is this just your view? Or do you know the EPL are scrutinising the deal in the way you describe?
Click to expand...
Westran said:
Is this just your view? Or do you know the EPL are scrutinising the deal in the way you describe?
Click to expand...
Is this creative accountancy! (accountants of which I'm not?)rules are there and loopholes appear if the wording is not strong enough. Accountants are always looking for weaknesses in rules,could this be one?if so they will have to change the rules or wording of such rules.
 
finlaytheblade said:
Fine by me Boxer šŸ˜


Is this creative accountancy! (accountants of which I'm not?)rules are there and loopholes appear if the wording is not strong enough. Accountants are always looking for weaknesses in rules,could this be one?if so they will have to change the rules or wording of such rules.
Click to expand...
It could be one, but at this stage there's no indication that the EPL, FA or FIFA consider it to be a one, which is what the previous poster was suggesting.

I'm just trying to make sure there's clarity over facts and opinions, as the previous post blurred the lines a little.
 
Addison said:
The relegation buy back clause raises a number of issues for the EPL to consider when reviewing the terms of the contract drawn up by Villa and the Blades. Firstly that a compensation fee has been paid and it is not a loan in disguise. The terms of the contract should clearly state the initial down payment and payment terms thereafter.

The EPL rules require a compensation fee to be paid so despite some views to the contrary money will have to be exchanged between the Clubs. It can not be an accounting exercise as some are suggesting.

The deal is likely to be open to question across a number of fronts. As far as the big clubs are concerned it seems to be another attempt to avoid FFP requirements. This will raise concerns at the EPL, FA and FIFA. The EPL will have to assess if this work around impacts significantly on their loan process and potentially makes redundant the current clause that limits 2 EPL loans per EPL club.

Finally and possibly of more far reaching concern for the smaller clubs like SUFC there may be ramifications regarding the future payment of parachute payments. The whole idea of PP's are that they are a financial buffer for relegated clubs to stop them going under as a consequence of having to continue to pay high transfer fee installments and wages. There is an argument that by invoking relegation buy back clauses this negates the need for PP's in the future. It would be so Sheffield United to find a way to lose out on future PP's. The EPL have been very firm in their view that PP's stay to protect their members against relegation despite Rick Parry at the EFL fronting a campaign to remove them. If they see their own members finding ways to circumvent their existing rules they may not be as supportive in the future.

I suspect there will be a considerable amount of scrutiny concerning this deal with the usual suspects at the Daily Fail accusing the Club of foul play again. For all the reasons above I expect this loophole to be closed for future transfers.
Click to expand...
I think you make some very good points here , Iā€™m just guessing here but this isnā€™t a loan so the compensation payments will have been agreed and put in the contract, Iā€™m guessing it will be small enough to not affect villa FFP issues

As for parachute payments, I would be surprised if this has any impact or genuine change in thought, if you suddenly see dozens of deals like this then possibly
 

What Iā€™ve just been told-

Itā€™s villa who have orchestrated the deal for their FFP.

9m up front
9m if we stay up
AVFC account for all 18m this season and this is why it will be in the media as an 18m deal.

8m buy back ā€˜optionā€™ if we go down.

Unbelievable deal for the Blades if true.
 
gaffablade said:
What Iā€™ve just been told-

Itā€™s villa who have orchestrated the deal for their FFP.

9m up front
9m if we stay up
AVFC account for all 18m this season and this is why it will be in the media as an 18m deal.

8m buy back ā€˜optionā€™ if we go down.

Unbelievable deal for the Blades if true.
Click to expand...

A Bettis in Birmingham.

02EA9B19-DD4B-4D2D-8A68-51D903977179.gif
 
gaffablade said:
What Iā€™ve just been told-

Itā€™s villa who have orchestrated the deal for their FFP.

9m up front
9m if we stay up
AVFC account for all 18m this season and this is why it will be in the media as an 18m deal.

8m buy back ā€˜optionā€™ if we go down.

Unbelievable deal for the Blades if true.
Click to expand...
But but but but but the board and the prince don't know what they're doing! They are sat with their dicks in their hands!
 
gaffablade said:
What Iā€™ve just been told-

Itā€™s villa who have orchestrated the deal for their FFP.

9m up front
9m if we stay up
AVFC account for all 18m this season and this is why it will be in the media as an 18m deal.

8m buy back ā€˜optionā€™ if we go down.

Unbelievable deal for the Blades if true.
Click to expand...
At least Villa think weā€™re staying up.
 
Brownieblade said:
9 million next year should help towards a new striker
Click to expand...
Maybe Iā€™m being stupid. Iā€™m not a numbers person.

Ā£9m next season isnā€™t a thing. If we stay up we give Villa another Ā£9m. If we go down they refund us Ā£8m. Essentially meaning we paid them Ā£1m to loan him for the season.
 
gaffablade said:
What Iā€™ve just been told-

Itā€™s villa who have orchestrated the deal for their FFP.

9m up front
9m if we stay up
AVFC account for all 18m this season and this is why it will be in the media as an 18m deal.

8m buy back ā€˜optionā€™ if we go down.

Unbelievable deal for the Blades if true.
Click to expand...
Great deal, my only concern is our injury record - if he gets a season-ender, weā€™re 18m down.

I do have my suspicions that liverpool were fully aware of brewsterā€™s susceptibility, iā€™m hoping that this isnt a problem with Archer too
 

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