Josh Key...

[Grecian Max]

They are two different things, which should have been a key take-away from your summer reading. PFCC rulings are not designed to reflect a player's perceived transfer fee value in the eyes of the former club, they are a reward for the development of the player - totally different concepts.

I'm not saying they are idiots, but their owner said it himself that they were competing with Championship clubs for Archie's signature, maybe they paid a higher upfront fee spread across installments, with less contingent sums and balanced it off with a higher sell on percentage. Swansea may have been the only substantiated interest in Josh hence why they were more inclined to allow things to reach tribunal stage.

I think you're off here - we would have been due compo for Collins

Peterborough got ahead of that by just paying us what we were due, likely slightly above to seal it

Logically they could have left it to tribunal, they would have been aware of how that was likely to go, especially given the 150+ apps

That there were other clubs in for him is much the same as Key, it raises the value

You're acting like you know the ins and outs when you've just done a quick google and read through the same articles we all have

From your main source:

"PFCC deliberations are not about people setting themselves up as valuation experts and plucking figures from the air; as far as possible they attempt to reach a decision by a logical and attributable process using precedents and all available information. The hearing will require each club to provide evidence to support their valuation of the player, and will endeavour to set the level of compensation according to each case’s merits"

Peterborough would have been well aware of how the Collins deal might fall, plus not want to drag it out as the Key deal has.

IMO we'd be looking at 750k minimum for Key, he's moved up a division unlike Archie

 

[Grecian Max]

Peterborough signed Archie on 28 June, which means he was still under contract and therefore, this was a transfer. It would only have been a compensation agreement if Peterborough signed Archie following the expiration of his contract at Exeter, which is what happened with Josh & Swansea.

WE KNOW

No one is saying that it was a compo deal - it was done and dusted to avoid the compo

They could have easily let it go to tribunal but made the decision to act early and pay up (and not risk it like Swans)

It's all part of the same process so both deals can be compared - tribunal only happens if the two clubs can't agree a deal. We agreed a deal with one, but not the other. That it happened 3 days before the end of contract is irrelevant.

 

[Exiled_Grecian]

But the factors that determine the fee can't still have the same value now as they did in 2017, Shirley? There must be some form of inflation-proofing?

That is the problem and why the current process isn't fit for purpose, the factors they take into account are the same. The inflation within the 'transfer market' has no bearing or weight on the PFCC's decisions. The fact that (for example) Manchester City buy (transfer) a 17 year old from AFC Wimbledon for £4million wouldn't be used as a marker should the same situation happen but the player in question move to Manchester City following the expiration of his contract. The PFCC process works off more of a legal structure, which I will reference the criteria below.

- Status of Clubs (League 1: Premier League compared to League 2: Premier League at the time)
- Age of the Player (The Same)
- Training Model Player was Engaged (The Same)
- Fee Paid by former Club to acquire Players Registration (The Same)
- Length of Time at former Club (The Same)
- Terms offered by Former Club (The Same)
- Player's Playing Record including International Appearances (The Same)
- Substantiated Interest from Other Clubs (The Same)

They then take into account the more generic factors such as - cost of running the Academy, costs incurred by the Club that have directly impacted the Player's development, facilities etc.

The only area where the inflation argument would likely be taken into account would actually be in relation to our 'evidence' where we could legitimately argue that the costs of running a Cat3 Academy have risen since 2017, although whether this would correspond with a significant uplift in the PFCC decision I think would be unlikely, but you may get a little extra for that potentially.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

That is the problem and why the current process isn't fit for purpose, the factors they take into account are the same. The inflation within the 'transfer market' has no bearing or weight on the PFCC's decisions. The fact that (for example) Manchester City buy (transfer) a 17 year old from AFC Wimbledon for £4million wouldn't be used as a marker should the same situation happen but the player in question move to Manchester City following the expiration of his contract. The PFCC process works off more of a legal structure, which I will reference the criteria below.

- Status of Clubs (League 1: Premier League compared to League 2: Premier League at the time)
- Age of the Player (The Same)
- Training Model Player was Engaged (The Same)
- Fee Paid by former Club to acquire Players Registration (The Same)
- Length of Time at former Club (The Same)
- Terms offered by Former Club (The Same)
- Player's Playing Record including International Appearances (The Same)
- Substantiated Interest from Other Clubs (The Same)

They then take into account the more generic factors such as - cost of running the Academy, costs incurred by the Club that have directly impacted the Player's development, facilities etc.

The only area where the inflation argument would likely be taken into account would actually be in relation to our 'evidence' where we could legitimately argue that the costs of running a Cat3 Academy have risen since 2017, although whether this would correspond with a significant uplift in the PFCC decision I think would be unlikely, but you may get a little extra for that potentially.

Shirley "the terms offered by the former club" (us) would have also been subject to considerable inflation too ? And we were told that we had made a real effort in this respect, in order to try and persuade them to stay.

 

[Exiled_Grecian]

I think you're off here - we would have been due compo for Collins

Peterborough got ahead of that by just paying us what we were due, likely slightly above to seal it

Logically they could have left it to tribunal, they would have been aware of how that was likely to go, especially given the 150+ apps

That there were other clubs in for him is much the same as Key, it raises the value

You're acting like you know the ins and outs when you've just done a quick google and read through the same articles we all have

From your main source:

"PFCC deliberations are not about people setting themselves up as valuation experts and plucking figures from the air; as far as possible they attempt to reach a decision by a logical and attributable process using precedents and all available information. The hearing will require each club to provide evidence to support their valuation of the player, and will endeavour to set the level of compensation according to each case’s merits"

Peterborough would have been well aware of how the Collins deal might fall, plus not want to drag it out as the Key deal has.

IMO we'd be looking at 750k minimum for Key, he's moved up a division unlike Archie

Yes, we would have been, I'm not saying we wouldn't have been due compensation had his contract expired, but they signed him prior.

Of course, logically they could have left it to a tribunal, but why would they risk it given that there were other clubs after him? Why would a club risk losing a key target? There is a reason why selling clubs try to often avoid the PFCC process as much a possible. When you say they were aware of how that would go - what do you mean? They certainly would have not had to pay a similar upfront figure had it gone to tribunal so unsure as to what you mean.

I do know the ins and outs as I said I've been involved in the process numerous times. Of course, it's not an exact science and the panel on the day could decide anything they want, but there is a reason why decisions from the PFCC have roughly remained similar throughout the years - they work off a legal framework initially before factoring in any additional information.

If you're talking 750k as a total figure, I think that's a fair assessment, but as an initial fee - very unlikely.

 

[Exiled_Grecian]

WE KNOW

No one is saying that it was a compo deal - it was done and dusted to avoid the compo

They could have easily let it go to tribunal but made the decision to act early and pay up (and not risk it like Swans)

It's all part of the same process so both deals can be compared - tribunal only happens if the two clubs can't agree a deal. We agreed a deal with one, but not the other. That it happened 3 days before the end of contract is irrelevant.

Forgive me, but you feel the need to proclaim that you know fair enough, but Red Bill mentioned that it was compensation, not a transfer fee, so I clarified. That bit wasn't directed to you because you didn't make that comment.

But just so you know, the fact that it happened three days before his contract expired is relevant, in your eyes maybe it isn't but the eyes of the EFL, FA etc it is.

 

[Exiled_Grecian]

Shirley "the terms offered by the former club" (us) would have also been subject to considerable inflation too ? And we were told that we had made a real effort in this respect, in order to try and persuade them to stay.

I think this is 50/50. I don't know the figures anymore, but has our wage structure inflated that significantly? Given our economic model, I'd be inclined to say no. Of course we'll be paying slightly more on average than 5 years ago, but I don't imagine it being that different. So would we have that argument on our side?

Our real effort to keep them is an interesting concept and one that only those involved in the offers will know, but it's probably up for interpretation.

Option 1 could have been:
Offer players wages comparable with highest earners at the Club (something potentially like £2.7k - £3.5k per week) - real statement of importance and desire of club to keep them

Option 2:
Players currently on £800-£1,100 per week, offer doubles their current weekly wage.

I would imagine we potentially opted for Option 2, which could fairly be argued for those of us who know the club that that still would reflect a real desire for us to keep them given we've probably never had Academy players earning £2k a week, but in the eyes of the PFCC - would that demonstrate that we were 'desperate' to keep them?

 

[Red Bill]

WE KNOW

No one is saying that it was a compo deal - it was done and dusted to avoid the compo

They could have easily let it go to tribunal but made the decision to act early and pay up (and not risk it like Swans)

It's all part of the same process so both deals can be compared - tribunal only happens if the two clubs can't agree a deal. We agreed a deal with one, but not the other. That it happened 3 days before the end of contract is irrelevant.

In fairness I did say I thought it was a compensation payment. Although I think i it was clear that I wasn't certain about this.

 

[Exiled_Grecian]

From your main source:

"PFCC deliberations are not about people setting themselves up as valuation experts and plucking figures from the air; as far as possible they attempt to reach a decision by a logical and attributable process using precedents and all available information. The hearing will require each club to provide evidence to support their valuation of the player, and will endeavour to set the level of compensation according to each case’s merits"

Just an FYI - I don't use websites like that as sources, but happy to be transparent with where I do use to back up my points. So for you and anyone else who fancies reading more on it all, take a look at the below - might provide you with better information than the Guardian (or any other newspaper of your choice):

EFL Handbook - Appendix 4 of Section 7 (PFCC Regulations)
EFL Handbook - Youth Development Rules
LawInSport - PFCC
Premier League Rules

 

[Exiled_Grecian]

In fairness I did say I thought it was a compensation payment. Although I think i it was clear that I wasn't certain about this.

I purely meant to clarify just as a response, didn't mean to cause any offence in my reference of your comment