What's the maximum you'd want to see us pay for Cameron Archer?

coluka said:
Last time I saw Unai Emery and Christian Purslow (Villa CEO), neither were wearing straight jackets, so I don’t think it’ll be happening at that price any time soon, mores the pity. Gibson will sanction spending a decent whack of £M’s i’d hope, but if he were to offer that to Villa on promotion, I would expect to see the Villa negotiating team rolling around on the floor shouting “stop it, stop it, you’re killing me” 😉
Click to expand...

Haha, I know. Could we not re-loan him if we went up? I just think if we were to spend the £25million we’d likely have to to get him, that could be 2 or 3 players from Europe.
 
Potential is huge, he could be worth 50 million after one successful PL season....do we take the risk if promoted
 
You lucky people!!

It’s Danks’s Double Discount day.

Archer and Ramsey 40m the pair.

Lovely on the mantelpiece, and for special occasions.

Genuine article. Quality guaranteed.

Yes madam! And you know it!

Going…. going……..
 
Scrug said:
Haha, I know. Could we not re-loan him if we went up? I just think if we were to spend the £25million we’d likely have to to get him, that could be 2 or 3 players from Europe.
Click to expand...
Aye if promoted, a loan deal would be a compromise for all, If he does well, Villa double the money, if fails, we get him cheap for the champo if relegated. I suspect better suitors than us might want to loan him too mind.

Scott will have cheaper equivalents sorted just in case i am sure 👍
 
Need to start to think of the signings as investments, not an expense.

Paying a lot in wages to an older player or two for an injection of quality that keeps us up and helps establish our revenue at PL level makes sense as an expense. We will need to do some of that.
But the vast majority of fees should go on players that will grow in value, that we can sell for profit if relegated, but will also help us grow and establish ourselves too.

£50m as someone mentioned above will not be enough investment to stay up. Not nearly enough.
The Club wage bill will go through the roof, but I'd rather see the amortisation charge rise rather than all the extra expense be wages.
 
indeedido said:
Need to start to think of the signings as investments, not an expense.

Paying a lot in wages to an older player or two for an injection of quality that keeps us up and helps establish our revenue at PL level makes sense as an expense. We will need to do some of that.
But the vast majority of fees should go on players that will grow in value, that we can sell for profit if relegated, but will also help us grow and establish ourselves too.

£50m as someone mentioned above will not be enough investment to stay up. Not nearly enough.
The Club wage bill will go through the roof, but I'd rather see the amortisation charge rise rather than all the extra expense be wages.
Click to expand...
I agree Indeedido, but my real fear is Gibson wont see it that way. As I said a few days ago, I reckon we could get Archer and Gyokeres for £25M and £18M respectively, good business even were we relegated. I think SG would not sanction it sadly, but hope i am wrong. We have a lot of loan players, so more loans and astute buys would be needed to stay up.

With Scott, I’d be hopeful targets are already identified to enable that rather than relying on the old and those returning from injury, like the cheapies of 2016. The price for Giles will have risen significantly too, even if we don’t go up. Hopefully SG will be bullish and trust in Scott, Carrick and Co more and be willing to take the risk otherwise we will repeat the problems of the past. As you rightly say £50M is not nearly enough and imho, will only scratch at the surface to stay up.
 
coluka said:
I agree Indeedido, but my real fear is Gibson wont see it that way. As I said a few days ago, I reckon we could get Archer and Gyokeres for £25M and £18M respectively, good business even were we relegated. I think SG would not sanction it sadly, but hope i am wrong. We have a lot of loan players, so more loans and astute buys would be needed to stay up.

With Scott, I’d be hopeful targets are already identified to enable that rather than relying on the old and those returning from injury, like the cheapies of 2016. The price for Giles will have risen significantly too, even if we don’t go up. Hopefully SG will be bullish and trust in Scott, Carrick and Co more and be willing to take the risk otherwise we will repeat the problems of the past. As you rightly say £50M is not nearly enough and imho, will only scratch at the surface to stay up.
Click to expand...
How would spending £25m and £18m on two strikers and then us getting relegated be a good investment? That’s a huge amount of money gone, and in all likelihood the sell on value of both would be decimated. We’d just be setting ourselves up for another post monk era and spend constraints for years after.

Brentford spent just over £25m in total on their first season in the prem. We spent significantly more than that on our last prem season, but much was spent poorly. We weren’t ‘cheapies’ by any stretch.

We are never going to be a team who spends £25m on a single player. I would much sooner we looked for another loan for Archer with a view to a more affordable target longer term if that was the case.
 
Air Resistance said:
How would spending £25m and £18m on two strikers and then us getting relegated be a good investment? That’s a huge amount of money gone, and in all likelihood the sell on value of both would be decimated. We’d just be setting ourselves up for another post monk era and spend constraints for years after.

Brentford spent just over £25m in total on their first season in the prem. We spent significantly more than that on our last prem season, but much was spent poorly. We weren’t ‘cheapies’ by any stretch.

We are never going to be a team who spends £25m on a single player. I would much sooner we looked for another loan for Archer with a view to a more affordable target longer term if that was the case.
Click to expand...
Archer and Gyokeres have both proven their ability at Championship level at Preston, Middlesbrough and Coventry respectively. They would provide the goals to hopefully get us straight back up.

Just because you are relegated, does not mean their value wouldn’t increase or at least hold if they were put up for sale and sold, their value would not be decimated imho. Goalscorers always cost the most, whether they were sold on or stayed to try to fire us back up again, it is an investment on our future (for me) that offers more to aid our cause than spending say £20M on a couple of types that were gambles like a Braithwaite or an Assombalonga type for example. New signings are always risks, proven ability costs money.

I think it a moot point in reality, I do not believe SG will sanction it, I am not convinced Villa would sell Archer. A loan deal for Archer may suit both owners as a possible compromise, who knows. If Archer does well in the PL his price rockets further, if he doesn’t they may be more willing to sell at an acceptable price to SG, it is all to be discussed were we to go up. If we fail to go up, then Archer will unlikely return to the Championship anyway imho. Just my opinion, nothing is certain in football as we know.
 
Sadly I think there is zero chance Villa will sell. They would be crazy to do so as Archer has real potential to be a top player.
 
Air Resistance said:
How would spending £25m and £18m on two strikers and then us getting relegated be a good investment? That’s a huge amount of money gone, and in all likelihood the sell on value of both would be decimated. We’d just be setting ourselves up for another post monk era and spend constraints for years after.

Brentford spent just over £25m in total on their first season in the prem. We spent significantly more than that on our last prem season, but much was spent poorly. We weren’t ‘cheapies’ by any stretch.

We are never going to be a team who spends £25m on a single player. I would much sooner we looked for another loan for Archer with a view to a more affordable target longer term if that was the case.
Click to expand...
1. The players are worth those fees, they are high class.
2. Their value will not diminish on relegation. We could be relegated whilst their value has grown. See De Roon, Traore. Christ we even got our money back on Rhodes who was clueless.
3. If they are signed on 4 year + contracts the year 1 amortisation will be easily covered by the PL revenues. Their book value is then just 3/4 of the initial fee anyway, if we had to sell.
4. If they stayed they would be perfect for a PP assisted promotion season, in which their value would almost certainly be enhanced again.
5. They are both young players and will get even better.

We nett spent more or less the same as Brentford in our last PL fart and leave fiasco.
We were the lowest spenders in the league that season. Even Burnley spent more.
If we try and do a Brentford we will be in big trouble.
How you spend whatever you can is crucial, but we will have to invest much more and much better next time. Otherwise what was it Einstein said...
 
Teesside87 said:
Wouldnt pay that for him. He’s had a few decent games yeah but hes not worth over £10mil
Click to expand...
Archer really is worth more than £10m, if we got him for that it would be an absolute steal and we won't.

Archer and Ramsey are both excellent young players and they are not the reason why we struggled last night - far from it.
 
Sexpom said:
He’s the better player of the two yes, Archer is good and fits out system well but he isn’t the player Gyokeres is. Nobody is paying £30m for him, yet.
Click to expand...
Gyokeres is miles better
Gone off archer
Been on the missing list the last few games and I think is bringing chubas game down with him. Chubas quietest game for us last night for ages and just so happens when archer is non existent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top