Cameron Archer

Who is manipulating the FFP rules?

If he's had a bad season - which seems likely - then Villa are overpaying for him.

If he has a good season, and scores a lot of goals between Jan and June - then surely Sheff Utd could get more for him than £18 million?

If that's really the deal then it seems like a bad deal all round.
 
Was reading a twitter thread about this someone posted on oneBoro yesterday. Supposedly the way it's structured is SU paid 9M for him. If they get relegated he goes back to villa automatically for 7M so they have effectively paid 2M for a season loan. If they survive they have to pay another 9M to make it 18M.

Villa have a buy back for 30M for full length of his contract with SU.
 
He’d certain be a nice swap in th summer for Roger’s . Alright twice to an agreement made between clubs and bought direct from Sheffield (given contract and player reg situations )
 
Soutra said:
Who is manipulating the FFP rules?

If he's had a bad season - which seems likely - then Villa are overpaying for him.

If he has a good season, and scores a lot of goals between Jan and June - then surely Sheff Utd could get more for him than £18 million?

If that's really the deal then it seems like a bad deal all round.
Click to expand...

Soutra said:
Who is manipulating the FFP rules?

If he's had a bad season - which seems likely - then Villa are overpaying for him.

If he has a good season, and scores a lot of goals between Jan and June - then surely Sheff Utd could get more for him than £18 million?

If that's really the deal then it seems like a bad deal all round.
Click to expand...
18m immediate profit on ffp. Then signed back on 4 year deal so the 18m is actually 4.5m per year.

So year 1 they are 18m up
Year 2 bought back but still 13.5m up
Year 3 9.5m up
Year 4 they sell him again, but football inflation is high so they get 25m for him but still owe 9. So they get a 26m ffp profit that year


It’s clever and totally against the ideology of ffp, but it is clever
 
3 goals in 21 games for Cameron Archer.
The grass isn't always greener, even with more pound coins in your pocket.
As an athlete, I wonder what he's thinking?
Villa don't really want him but realize he's a saleable asset.
With every game he plays and doesn't score for United, his value must surely be affected.
Where does he go?
End up somewhere in the Championship like Giles, or back at The Riverside?
Could we do a deal with Villa, including Rogers?
Danks is yer man who could pull strings.
Would Carrick want him back in the side?
 
Good player in a poor team. Difficult to judge his contribution or estimate his worth.
Wish he was here. But more so bc a fit Ramsay
 
Willow said:
Was reading a twitter thread about this someone posted on oneBoro yesterday. Supposedly the way it's structured is SU paid 9M for him. If they get relegated he goes back to villa automatically for 7M so they have effectively paid 2M for a season loan. If they survive they have to pay another 9M to make it 18M.

Villa have a buy back for 30M for full length of his contract with SU.
Click to expand...
Could we buy him for £9m?

I mean he is their player..
 
VestasBoro said:
There's a clause that states if Sheff U go down, Villa have to sign him back for 18m. The same 18m that Sheff U paid for him... If he's had a dud season in the PL, i cant see many people rushing to spend that sort of money on him in the summer.
Click to expand...
Hadn’t heard about these forced buyback deals.
Hopefully more of them to come then for the newly promoted PL clubs!

They‘d surely soften the hardship of any possible immediate relegation. More importantly, they could help toward the total elimination of these parachute payments which continue to provide every relegated team with a huge unfair advantage over the other Championship clubs.
 
BoroMart said:
18m immediate profit on ffp. Then signed back on 4 year deal so the 18m is actually 4.5m per year.

So year 1 they are 18m up
Year 2 bought back but still 13.5m up
Year 3 9.5m up
Year 4 they sell him again, but football inflation is high so they get 25m for him but still owe 9. So they get a 26m ffp profit that year


It’s clever and totally against the ideology of ffp, but it is clever
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I'm not sure how you think that's circumventing FFP. If Villa signed any other player for £18m in year 2, those numbers would be the same.

What's really happening here is that Sheff Utd have a guaranteed way of getting rid of an expensive player without a fire sale in the summer.
 
Soutra said:
Hmmm, I'm not sure how you think that's circumventing FFP. If Villa signed any other player for £18m in year 2, those numbers would be the same.

What's really happening here is that Sheff Utd have a guaranteed way of getting rid of an expensive player without a fire sale in the summer.
Click to expand...
It’s circumventing ffp as it’s effectively a loan that has a huge impact on ffp. I’ve given the figures it is what it is. I’m not saying it’s cheating, it’s clever and effective
 
BoroMart said:
It’s circumventing ffp as it’s effectively a loan that has a huge impact on ffp. I’ve given the figures it is what it is. I’m not saying it’s cheating, it’s clever and effective
Click to expand...
Is it Villa or Sheff Utd that are the beneficiaries? From Villa's perspective it's just two transfer deals. The numbers would be just the same if it was a different player they bought for £18 million. For Sheff Utd it's just an easy way to get rid of a dud if he's not worked out.

But using nett spend as a guide to transfer dealing values is not right, it doesn't reflect what's going on with the P&L, and therefore FFP.

When Man Utd bought Angel di Maria for £60 million and sold him for £44 million, you'd expect that's a £16 million loss right?

But it wasn't. Transfer fees are amortized, so the real book value of a player is reduced every year. Man Utd's P&L charge for di Maria in year 1 was £26 million. So provided they made £34 million from his year 2 transfer then they've made money.

graphroots.co.uk

Why ‘Net Spend’ is lazy analysis: Player Amortisation

‘Net Spend’ (total income from fees- total cost of fees) is the tool which most people use to analyse a clubs performance in the transfer market. It’s a deeply flawed tool which d…
graphroots.co.uk graphroots.co.uk
 
Soutra said:
Is it Villa or Sheff Utd that are the beneficiaries? From Villa's perspective it's just two transfer deals. The numbers would be just the same if it was a different player they bought for £18 million. For Sheff Utd it's just an easy way to get rid of a dud if he's not worked out.

But using nett spend as a guide to transfer dealing values is not right, it doesn't reflect what's going on with the P&L, and therefore FFP.

When Man Utd bought Angel di Maria for £60 million and sold him for £44 million, you'd expect that's a £16 million loss right?

But it wasn't. Transfer fees are amortized, so the real book value of a player is reduced every year. Man Utd's P&L charge for di Maria in year 1 was £26 million. So provided they made £34 million from his year 2 transfer then they've made money.

graphroots.co.uk

Why ‘Net Spend’ is lazy analysis: Player Amortisation

‘Net Spend’ (total income from fees- total cost of fees) is the tool which most people use to analyse a clubs performance in the transfer market. It’s a deeply flawed tool which d…
graphroots.co.uk graphroots.co.uk
Click to expand...
It’s beneficial to both
 
Here's how it works year by year. Simplified and ignoring selling fees.
year 0. Archer has a book value of £0 because they didn't pay anything for him. At this point, Archer doesn't have any effect on FFP, positive or negative.
Year 1. Villa "sell" him for £18m. FFP loves it. £18m of pure FFP profit in Year 1. Utd get relegated.
Year 2. Forced buy back for £16m. The purchase is FFP neutral because the £16m loss in "cash" is replaced with a £16m asset called Archer. However, say he has a 5 year contract then, at the end of every year his value reduces by 1/5 (£3.2m). So, end of year 2 Villa "lose" £3.2m and, unless they sell him, this happens every year until his value reduces to zero.
FFP works on a 3 year cycle so the FFP balance looks like this.
Year 1: +£18m. Balance +£18m. (Cash +£18m, players -£0)
Year 2: -£3.2m. Balance +£14.8m (Cash -£16m, Players +£16m-£3.2m = £12.8m)
Year 3: -£3.2m. Balance +£11.6m
Year 4. -£3.2m. Year 1 no longer counts. Balance -£9.6m
Year 5. -£3.2m. Years 1&2 no longer count. Balance -£9.6m
Year 6. -£3.2m. Years 1-3 no longer count. Balance -£9.6m

Year 4 is where it really stings in FFP terms.

If Archer comes back they have to decide whether he's good enough to keep (probably not) in which case they'll probably try to sell him for £15-£20m. The gamble was that Utd are relegated but Archer does well and his value increases so they can sell him for £20m+. Right now, like Ramsey, that gamble looks like it has failed but they'll probably still just about make their money back.
 
Bruce said:
Here's how it works year by year. Simplified and ignoring selling fees.
year 0. Archer has a book value of £0 because they didn't pay anything for him. At this point, Archer doesn't have any effect on FFP, positive or negative.
Year 1. Villa "sell" him for £18m. FFP loves it. £18m of pure FFP profit in Year 1. Utd get relegated.
Year 2. Forced buy back for £16m. The purchase is FFP neutral because the £16m loss in "cash" is replaced with a £16m asset called Archer. However, say he has a 5 year contract then, at the end of every year his value reduces by 1/5 (£3.2m). So, end of year 2 Villa "lose" £3.2m and, unless they sell him, this happens every year until his value reduces to zero.
FFP works on a 3 year cycle so the FFP balance looks like this.
Year 1: +£18m. Balance +£18m. (Cash +£18m, players -£0)
Year 2: -£3.2m. Balance +£14.8m (Cash -£16m, Players +£16m-£3.2m = £12.8m)
Year 3: -£3.2m. Balance +£11.6m
Year 4. -£3.2m. Year 1 no longer counts. Balance -£9.6m
Year 5. -£3.2m. Years 1&2 no longer count. Balance -£9.6m
Year 6. -£3.2m. Years 1-3 no longer count. Balance -£9.6m

Year 4 is where it really stings in FFP terms.

If Archer comes back they have to decide whether he's good enough to keep (probably not) in which case they'll probably try to sell him for £15-£20m. The gamble was that Utd are relegated but Archer does well and his value increases so they can sell him for £20m+. Right now, like Ramsey, that gamble looks like it has failed but they'll probably still just about make their money back.
Click to expand...
Sorry you’re wrong it doesn’t work that way. In ffp, the value of a purchased player is amortised over the length of the contract. It’s why Chelsea spent so much money…they amortised on 8 year contracts.

It’s a well know fact that sales are immediate on ffp and purchases are amortised. See my post earlier up which describes the ffp impact correctly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top