Cameron Archer

[Philosopher]

9 hours ago, TomC said:

At the very least, McGinn, Bailey, Diaby, Watkins, Duran, Traore, Doug, Digne, Tielemans, and a healthy Buendia are all capable of it. They might not do it every time, but neither would Archer.

 

 

I agree on Bailey, Duran, Traore,. Buendia, Tielemens and McGinn  maybe but unlikely they would have the acceleration, to burst through in behind, the rest no. Diaby doesn't shoot with power from distance, Watkins just doesn't score from outside the area. Doug curls the ball from range. 

It was a fabulous goal. Archer doesn't have the greatest top speed, but his acceleration is good, plus what slowed him down was taking the ball under control as it bobbled up a little.

We have all seen it already, Archer is a clean striker of the ball. We all know the lad can shoot and finish. It's the rest of his game why he hasn't been kept around. The link up play, he doesn't have the running power of Watkins to continually stretch opposition defenses. The strength to consistently hold the ball up. 

[Demitri_C]

That was some finish. Well done cam.

[sidcow]

18 hours ago, PaulC said:

I like forwards who strike the ball early he gives opponents less time to react and he has a great strike on him so why not 

Only on VT could a striker absolutely rifle one in and get criticised for striking it too early and not working a better angle

[villa4europe]

3 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Only on VT could a striker absolutely rifle one in and get criticised for striking it too early and not working a better angle

Like I said I don't think he can take another touch, the defender would have him

He's struck that exactly when he had to, that's part of what makes it such a good goal, not just the quality of the strike itself but the knowing that he has to take it early or a challenge is coming

[zab6359]

On 05/11/2023 at 00:38, Steero113 said:

He is already coming back, we have to buy him back if they get relegated (apparently).  

And they are getting relegated. 

Bullshit, where on earth did you hear that?

[MrBlack]

On 05/11/2023 at 17:51, villa4europe said:

Like I said I don't think he can take another touch, the defender would have him

He's struck that exactly when he had to, that's part of what makes it such a good goal, not just the quality of the strike itself but the knowing that he has to take it early or a challenge is coming

It does also highlight his limitations. He's not a super speedy striker. Thankfully, our system wouldn't require him to be if he were to come back. 

He does need to improve his all round game though still. Hard to do that at a Sheffield United that don't give him any real time on the ball beside a very rare chance from a long ball. 

[Mark Albrighton]

6 hours ago, zab6359 said:

Bullshit, where on earth did you hear that?

Alan Nixon claims there’s a buyback clause for about £20m if Sheffield United are relegated. The way it’s being reported it comes across that this is an automatic obligation.

Supposedly if they stay up, there’s a buy back option which is for a substantially higher price.

I have no idea if any of that is correct. It could all be rubbish, Nixon might have got the wrong end of the stick, it could be a bit more detailed than that, no idea. 

We’ll find out one way or another when the season ends, unless there’s some clarification of the deal before then. Until then, I find there’s not much point deliberating over what to us is a theoretical idea.

For what it’s worth, I think it all sounds slightly odd. But funnily enough, it’s that very oddness which is why I’m not completely dismissive of the claim.

[blandy]

5 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

For what it’s worth, I think it all sounds slightly odd

Obviously we don't know the details, but the general principle seems sound.

Here's some things:

Players signing for clubs often have release clauses in their contracts, allowing them to move, if the club goes down. A set fee is part of that contractual clause.

The demands of FFP (or P&S as it's called) mean that gaining a transfer fee for a player, rather than loaning them out for the season, is a significant accounting bonus.

Clubs don't want to lose their young players that they rate, but who they don't see as the finished article and who they think need some more development.

When clubs go down, they lose a big chunk of income and need to therefore make player sales to help with the financial gap.

If clubs stay up (just) they don't want to weaken their squads by selling their goalscorers and bright prospects, particularly for a relatively low fee.

So it all kind of makes sense, apart perhaps from the exact figures you mention. If it was a loan, then you'd expect Sheff U to pay a fee for "borrowing" the player for a season. So it's a bit of a mystery why the buy back fee would be higher than the (reported) sale fee (£18 mill ?).

But so far it's kind of working for everyone, Cam, Villa and Sheffield Utd.

[Mark Albrighton]

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

Obviously we don't know the details, but the general principle seems sound.

Here's some things:

Players signing for clubs often have release clauses in their contracts, allowing them to move, if the club goes down. A set fee is part of that contractual clause.

The demands of FFP (or P&S as it's called) mean that gaining a transfer fee for a player, rather than loaning them out for the season, is a significant accounting bonus.

Clubs don't want to lose their young players that they rate, but who they don't see as the finished article and who they think need some more development.

When clubs go down, they lose a big chunk of income and need to therefore make player sales to help with the financial gap.

If clubs stay up (just) they don't want to weaken their squads by selling their goalscorers and bright prospects, particularly for a relatively low fee.

So it all kind of makes sense, apart perhaps from the exact figures you mention. If it was a loan, then you'd expect Sheff U to pay a fee for "borrowing" the player for a season. So it's a bit of a mystery why the buy back fee would be higher than the (reported) sale fee (£18 mill ?).

But so far it's kind of working for everyone, Cam, Villa and Sheffield Utd.

Yeah if the figures (and clauses) are correct, it amounts to us paying Sheffield United £2m to borrow our player.

I’m sure I’ve seen it suggested that United wanted to offer 10/12m outright and Villa wanted more so my interpretation is that this is the compromise.

I suppose by the oddness I mean is there are a few factors that hinge on how well he and United do this season that we obviously don’t know yet.

What makes it tricky is we obviously don’t know how well Archer is going to do. If he gets about 8-10 goals, United are relegated, then yeah buying him back for £20m is fine as at the very least there would almost certainly be another club interested in a player with that return. 

At the same time, if he remains on 2 goals for the rest of the season, United are relegated then perhaps it’s not such a good deal for us. Amortisation of FFP aside.

I guess that would be the gamble. I did previously hypothetically put forward the idea of what if he scores more 15+ and United stay up. Do we buy him back for the higher price and assume we could sell him for a likewise high amount? As it is, this hypothetical likely won’t happen. But it’s a variable that would be considered in whatever detail I guess. If the claim about the deal is correct.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Mark Albrighton

[sidcow]

Makes absolute sense. 

The sale fee hits our FFP calculation 100% year 1. Then we buy back and the buyback fee is spread out over the period of his new contract. 

And obsiously if he turns out to be total shit or a crock we don't have to bother buying him back. 

[Mark Albrighton]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Makes absolute sense. 

The sale fee hits our FFP calculation 100% year 1. Then we buy back and the buyback fee is spread out over the period of his new contract. 

And obsiously if he turns out to be total shit or a crock we don't have to bother buying him back. 

It’s the suggestion that we will HAVE to buy him regardless that might concern people. We might be buying a £20m, 3 goals a season scorer. Or crocked as you say, hadn’t even considered that. Even spread out over X number of years, it probably wouldn’t be considered a great deal.

FWIW, I think Archer will score more than 3, probably scores enough that means if we are obligated to buy him back for £20m, then it’s ok for us.

[Steero113]

On 07/11/2023 at 05:25, zab6359 said:

Bullshit, where on earth did you hear that?

Would prefer if you didn’t just automatically think I was lying, cheers. 

[zab6359]

16 hours ago, Steero113 said:

Would prefer if you didn’t just automatically think I was lying, cheers. 

Then I would advise don’t just post things that you can’t substantiate with anything other than heresay 

[luckyeddie]

1 hour ago, zab6359 said:

Then I would advise don’t just post things that you can’t substantiate with anything other than heresay 

But you haven't substantiated your opinion. He even stated apparently, unless you are objecting to SU getting relegated.

[oishiiniku_uk]

I think he'll start scoring more regularly once McBurnie is back from injury. They looked a decent combo up top, much more effective than Cam trying to play with Rhian Brewster. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by oishiiniku_uk

[Steero113]

2 hours ago, zab6359 said:

Then I would advise don’t just post things that you can’t substantiate with anything other than heresay 

A quick google search will lead you to multiple articles claiming there is a lower automatic buyback if SU are relegated. 

It’s not unsubstantiated claims or heresay, it’s not something I’ve just plucked out of thin air and I don’t appreciate you calling people bullshitters. 

I certainly don’t want your advice. 

 

 

 

[rodders0223]

Yes VT is the bastion of factual information. Shame on you.

[MrBlack]

2 hours ago, Steero113 said:

A quick google search will lead you to multiple articles claiming there is a lower automatic buyback if SU are relegated. 

It’s not unsubstantiated claims or heresay, it’s not something I’ve just plucked out of thin air and I don’t appreciate you calling people bullshitters. 

I certainly don’t want your advice. 

 

 

 

You even said "apparently" in the original.

It's reasonable to question the logic of us having to buy him back if they get relegated.... but I think it stacks up. 

Maybe Archer was only happy taking the move if we had such a structured arrangement. Maybe Sheff Utd were happy to have the cash influx if they get relegated, knowing they might even be able to loan him back next season if he's actually proved to be a success (despite the relegation), or they get shot of him if they're relegation was contributed to by him. Either way they make money so its not a terrible decision by them.

Then you add in the FFP benefit we still retain for 2 more years even if we do buy him back. Frees up cash for this year, and the next two years, and we get to keep a player that's half a year playing in the PL that would have instead been a few minutes off the bench for us.

It just makes sense when you think about it.

If they stay up,  the mandatory buy back would make less sense. Presumably in that scenario he helped them stay up and they'd want to not be forced to lose a core component of their survival.

[zab6359]

4 hours ago, Steero113 said:

A quick google search will lead you to multiple articles claiming there is a lower automatic buyback if SU are relegated. 

It’s not unsubstantiated claims or heresay, it’s not something I’ve just plucked out of thin air and I don’t appreciate you calling people bullshitters. 

I certainly don’t want your advice. 

 

 

 

It’s completely unsubstantiated and based on nonsense internet posts you’ve seen fit to pass on here don’t be so gullible when was the last time a team was forced to buy back a player regardless of the circumstances. Sheff Utd are going down so we will see if what you say is true feel free to come back and call me out and I will happily apologise if we are forced to buy him back, will expect the same if it doesn’t happen though

[Zatman]

Pretty sure the buy back cost is different whether they stay up or go down

Be strange if it was mandatory