Deep financial trouble ahead

[loveWalrusDaveTheBlade]

Will the truth of the Archer case be revealed at the end of the season? If it was a loan, carefully concealed as a transfer then Archer will be back at Villa, 1st July. No way Villa are buying him back on the basis of the this season. If he’s still here then it proves that Andy talks bollocks

I understood that Villa had sold him to us, with an obligation to buy him back for a previously agreed amount in the event of our relegation.
I believe that the reason that the deal was structured this way was to allow Villa some leeway on financial fair play, and to give both Archer and us a safety net in the event of our relegation.
If the above is right, then neither club could ever describe it as a loan, since this would screw up the FFP aspect. It’s basically another form of cheating.

 

[Andy67]

I understood that Villa had sold him to us, with an obligation to buy him back for a previously agreed amount in the event of our relegation.
I believe that the reason that the deal was structured this way was to allow Villa some leeway on financial fair play, and to give both Archer and us a safety net in the event of our relegation.
If the above is right, then neither club could ever describe it as a loan, since this would screw up the FFP aspect. It’s basically another form of cheating.

Didn’t say that on the accounts so you must be wrong.

 

[loveWalrusDaveTheBlade]

Didn’t say that on the accounts so you must be wrong.

Please stop digging a hole on this one. You have this morning been shown the evidence that the accounts describe his acquisition as a sale, so it is.
However, I think it’s a sale with a specific and unusual set of clauses in the sale contract. I wouldn’t necessarily expect the contractual details to be included in the accounts.
It is, however, a loan in everything but name, given that we have been relegated. If we’d stayed up, I think a different set of clauses would have applied, which might not necessarily have resulted in the sale of Archer back to Villa, and would have looked more like a conventional sale with a buy back clause.
I remember Bettis expressing his delight at this ‘complicated’ contract at the time of signing, which made my blood run cold ( I fully expected us to fall foul of legal action).

 

[Andy67]

Please stop digging a hole on this one. You have this morning been shown the evidence that the accounts describe his acquisition as a sale, so it is.
However, I think it’s a sale with a specific and unusual set of clauses in the sale contract. I wouldn’t necessarily expect the contractual details to be included in the accounts.
It is, however, a loan in everything but name, given that we have been relegated. If we’d stayed up, I think a different set of clauses would have applied, which might not necessarily have resulted in the sale of Archer back to Villa, and would have looked more like a conventional sale with a buy back clause.
I remember Bettis expressing his delight at this ‘complicated’ contract at the time of signing, which made my blood run cold ( I fully expected us to fall foul of legal action).

I am saying what you are, i was being sarcastic

 

[loveWalrusDaveTheBlade]

I am saying what you are, i was being sarcastic

I hope I’m not saying what you are..( I’m being sarcastic..)

 

[Berkshire Blade]

I think something is being lined up as you don't press ahead with all this if you didn't have either investors or a sale lined up.

Personally think it's more a case of getting the place tidy to make for better photos on rightmove than a deal is close.

 

[Andy67]

I hope I’m not saying what you are..( I’m being sarcastic..)

It could say on the accounts we bought him for 50 m 10m or 5m but it is a way around the loan system and suits ffp for Villa, I’ve said this all along.

 

[Andy67]

What it doesn’t say in the accounts is the policy in terms of signings was getting as many quality players through the loan system. man city players sister clubs in a circuitous way in order to beat the loan system if some players could come through this without breaking rules it would be a success(dangerous strategy) Villa signing is a signing on paper but a loan in reality and by any means possible getting a number of loans without this one being a loan but returned is a loan

Was a ‘dangerous strategy’ but this lot have good solicitors as mccabe found out to his cost. Just a shame they didn’t pay their bills on time and we wouldn’t be below the pigs the first time in years.

 

[@thelane]

Next season is going to be very very tough, don’t expect anything going into next season. We are sailing very very close to the wind.

Utter nonsense

 

[Andy67]

Utter nonsense

I agree but it will be mediocre

 

[Silent Blade]

Didn’t say that on the accounts so you must be wrong.

If it was a loan then the PL would have known this and therefore Archer would have been ineligible to play against Villa. He did play against them and scored!

 

[SwissBlade]

If it was a loan then the PL would have known this and therefore Archer would have been ineligible to play against Villa. He did play against them and scored!

Completely unravelled his entire argument in one post

 

[Sean Thornton]

It could say on the accounts we bought him for 50 m 10m or 5m but it is a way around the loan system and suits ffp for Villa, I’ve said this all along.

No. You said it was a loan with a loan fee.

You’re at it again, denying what you’ve posted and making up what you want people to believe you’ve posted.

There’s a search function which seems to frighten you.

 

[Pedro's Winger]

The proof will be in the pudding.
We'll have had more than six months to prepare for next season in the Championship and hopefully we'll have been lining up options for some time already.
A lack of signings for a proper pre-season and the hierarchy starting to mention the loan market will give us a clue.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

God this is tiresome! Why do people bother posting cryptic crap that they then won’t elaborate on or refuse to reply at all? I get this is a chat forum and some of this is for fun but really all that happens is that it generates arguments between fellow blades which is reminiscent of “you did, I didn’t “ spats eight year old kids have. That’s me out until we find out one way or another then I’ll be happy to discuss at length. After all there’s bugger all any of us can do about it in any event.

 

[Andy67]

Please provide the links to the claims you’ve made. Let’s start

If it was a loan then the PL would have known this and therefore Archer would have been ineligible to play against Villa. He did play against them and scored!

I direct you to a earlier post where i said (effectively i am paying someone 30 m for a player but in the contract, not stated in balance sheet is that he returns for a very similar price). If you genuinely believe that this constitutes a purchase then fair enough. Archer has done nothing to show villa he would step in the villa team but they will say we want to buy him back. Villa board must be philanthropists of the highest order to buy him back.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Irrespective of whether he is saying is true or not you often state that someone should reveal their source when they can’t and you scoff at the same time you then threaten that legal action would follow if they did. I have always wondered why you do this. I could never reveal my sources as it would not go to well for the person/s passing on the information. The prince doesn’t take very kindly to people revealing info and can turn nasty. You have stated before about legal action and it sounds like you want to warn people off from saying anything damaging.You must have a motive as you’ve done it on numerous occasions. The prince is renowned for imposing ndas on people that go as far as they can’t say they’ve had an NDA otherwise they have breached it. I know this for a cert and couldn’t say with who and why because of the ramifications of it being revealed.

If there are this many leaks, you can see why he wants NDA's

 

[Andy67]

No. You said it was a loan with a loan fee.

You’re at it again, denying what you’ve posted and making up what you want people to believe you’ve posted.

There’s a search function which seems to frighten

If you think this is a purchase you are bonkers. Do you think that when the season ends and we decide he’s not played well for us so we decide to sell him for 5m to Leicester or whoever else then Villa will have something to say about it. Neither united or Villa would do it because they have a contract that states we bought him but we must sell him back.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Archer was a transfer in as much as a 'total' price was listed and used as an accounting tool to help Villa's FFP position in the short term. United are nowhere near PL FFP issues so it's almost a way of United loaning Villa their FFP space.

There appear to be compulsory re-buy clauses in place on United's relegation. What we don't know is how that will be completed as a transaction in relation to FFP or how much cash United sent out and how much cash Villa will be sending back.

 

[Carlton Blade]

If you think this is a purchase you are bonkers. Do you think that when the season ends and we decide he’s not played well for us so we decide to sell him for 5m to Leicester or whoever else then Villa will have something to say about it. Neither united or Villa would do it because they have a contract that states we bought him but we must sell him back.

So they have a contract saying it's a purchase?

 

[Andy67]

No. You said it was a loan with a loan fee.

You’re at it again, denying what you’ve posted and making up what you want people to believe you’ve posted.

There’s a search function which seems to frighten you.

You work for the club, how many payments have been made(probably late in any case).

 

[Andy67]

So they have a contract saying it's a purchase?

To satisfy the FA i would expect so as it would be very silly and the prince is not that daft, but in reality the money we have given them will come back. One positive note is we didn’t buy him one negative note is all this short term business model will only lead to disaster.

 

[Carlton Blade]

To satisfy the FA i would expect so as it would be very silly and the prince is not that daft, but in reality the money we have given them will come back. One positive note is we didn’t buy him one negative note is all this short term business model will only lead to disaster.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that United paid loads or that cash won't be coming back. Danny Hall says it's a 'sizable loan fee' but I doubt it. Villa using United's FFP space is more valuable than United getting Archer for a year. But I'm guessing.

It was, officially, a player purchase though. Not a loan

 

[Sean Thornton]

You work for the club, how many payments have been made(probably late in any case).

Something else you’re wrong about.

Interesting change from earlier when you claimed l worked for the auditors. Which is also incorrect.

£27m.

 

[Andy67]

I don't believe anyone is arguing that United paid loads or that some cash will be coming back. Danny Hall says it's a 'sizable loan fee' but I doubt it. Villa using United's FFP space is more valuable than United getting Archer for a year. But I'm guessing.

It was, officially, a player purchase though. Not a loan

Officially a purchase. We will see how much he belongs to united at the end of the season. I wonder wether all this transparency will be reflected on those balance sheets that tell us everything.

 

[Andy67]

Something else you’re wrong about.

Interesting change from earlier when you claimed l worked for the auditors. Which is also incorrect.

£27m.

Is that how much the club pay you to defend them

 

[Andy67]

Something else you’re wrong about.

Interesting change from earlier when you claimed l worked for the auditors. Which is also incorrect.

£27m.

If you are stating we have paid 27m for him and he is our player then either you or whoever signed him needs certifying

 

[Sean Thornton]

I direct you to a earlier post where i said (effectively i am paying someone 30 m for a player but in the contract, not stated in balance sheet is that he returns for a very similar price). If you genuinely believe that this constitutes a purchase then fair enough. Archer has done nothing to show villa he would step in the villa team but they will say we want to buy him back. Villa board must be philanthropists of the highest order to buy him back.

So the leaker who is your supposed source knows more about it than the auditors who put their name to the accounts and the director - an accountant l understand - who signed them off. Okay.

 

[Andy67]

So the leaker who is your supposed source knows more about it than the auditors who put their name to the accounts and the director - an accountant l understand - who signed them off. Okay.

Sean has anything been paid?

 

[adiosmiamigo]

For a start we probably won’t have received about £120,000,000 of that yet.

Did the Prince borrow money on the strength of possible parachute payments?