By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Was nothing to do with the transfer fee. It was the salary he wanted which was apparently more than he was on. £8m they were more than happy to part with - so he was worth £8m. Not difficult.
We could have yes. But that means we would be paying his wages, his bonuses and it wouldn’t have freed up a place in the squad, not to mention the possibility of injury on the meantime decreasing value further. Clearly wasn’t in Potters plans so it was better to push it through for a lesser amount, again not difficult.
Nothing magical or wishful about it. As we have established, someone is only worth a fee someone is prepared to pay. Someone was prepared to pay £8m - he was worth £8m. No amount of crying about it will change that.
Yes it is ok to be wrong, which is why I say so on the very rare occasion. You seem to be taking the fact it’s ok and being a bit loose with your standards as don’t think I have seen you be right yet. Even when you try to point out a spelling error you get it wrong.
Night then kid.
[Post edited 15 Aug 2018 5:26]
Morning psychoboy, The figures are still the figures. Nobody did want to hand over £8m and take Clucas, otherwise we would have taken it. You're still wrong and always will be.
This has been an interesting exercise, I consider it an intervention of sorts. I'm sure you will carry on claiming black is white, Seek help
FFS get a grip the both of you. You're both right and wrong here.
Clubs use annual amortisation to determine if a player is worth it or not.
Clucas for example, who we paid for 15 m in fee, and a reported 50k/wk wages (2.5m/yr) over 4 years means..
Fee/contract length + 1 year wages= Annual amortisation. So..
15/4=3.75
+ 2.5 m in wages = 6.25 m
We were willing to pay 6.25 m/year for Sam Clucas over 4 years.
So as you can see..fee and wages both factor in why Burnley thought he wasn't worth it.
Burnley weren't willing to spend more than what they thought he'd be worth annually.
In the other hand..Burnley might have thought he'd be worth 12 m if he accepted a 30k/week salary. which translates into 4.5m/year in annual amortisation.
Meanwhile..if Clucas wanted let's say..a 60k/week in wages..then Burnley, who aren't willing to spend more than 4.5 m annually on him. Would have valued him at 6 m. Maybe we thought we could still negotiate it but they've already pulled the plug off the deal. Then Stoke swooped in, we were desperate to sell on deadline and you know the rest.
Meanwhile..if he was available on a free transfer..and they thought he was worth 4.5 m/year..they could have afforded to give him a 90k/wk contract for example (although nobody is crazy enough to give Clucas such contract but that's a bit off topic)
FFS get a grip the both of you. You're both right and wrong here.
Clubs use annual amortisation to determine if a player is worth it or not.
Clucas for example, who we paid for 15 m in fee, and a reported 50k/wk wages (2.5m/yr) over 4 years means..
Fee/contract length + 1 year wages= Annual amortisation. So..
15/4=3.75
+ 2.5 m in wages = 6.25 m
We were willing to pay 6.25 m/year for Sam Clucas over 4 years.
So as you can see..fee and wages both factor in why Burnley thought he wasn't worth it.
Burnley weren't willing to spend more than what they thought he'd be worth annually.
In the other hand..Burnley might have thought he'd be worth 12 m if he accepted a 30k/week salary. which translates into 4.5m/year in annual amortisation.
Meanwhile..if Clucas wanted let's say..a 60k/week in wages..then Burnley, who aren't willing to spend more than 4.5 m annually on him. Would have valued him at 6 m. Maybe we thought we could still negotiate it but they've already pulled the plug off the deal. Then Stoke swooped in, we were desperate to sell on deadline and you know the rest.
Meanwhile..if he was available on a free transfer..and they thought he was worth 4.5 m/year..they could have afforded to give him a 90k/wk contract for example (although nobody is crazy enough to give Clucas such contract but that's a bit off topic)
So is Clucas worth 8 m? 6 m? Depends.
[Post edited 15 Aug 2018 11:28]
Everything you have written there is correct except for the last sentence.
The fact is we gave Clucas huge wages and paid £14.75m for him last summer... ...E20 thought that was a good deal and he would retain his value better than foreign footballers... ...and as of the 9th of August 2018 it was only possible to recoup £6m.
Compared to Mesa he didn't retain his value as well. The End.
P.S. A bid is not the same as handing money over, that's just an in to get the club's permission to talk to the player. E20 is clutching at straws in a desperate bid to avoid admitting that he's wrong. The figures don't lie however. I hope, for his sake, he never goes into business.
Everything you have written there is correct except for the last sentence.
The fact is we gave Clucas huge wages and paid £14.75m for him last summer... ...E20 thought that was a good deal and he would retain his value better than foreign footballers... ...and as of the 9th of August 2018 it was only possible to recoup £6m.
Compared to Mesa he didn't retain his value as well. The End.
P.S. A bid is not the same as handing money over, that's just an in to get the club's permission to talk to the player. E20 is clutching at straws in a desperate bid to avoid admitting that he's wrong. The figures don't lie however. I hope, for his sake, he never goes into business.
Doesnt matter of they handed over the money. The reason they didn’t is because they could not reach an agreement with the player. The agreement between the clubs was in place was £8m, hence he was worth £8m.
Again, straight forward no matter what rubbish you want to spout and how many times you want to go through your tedious kicking and screaming routine.
So 2 CB’s and Clucas held more of his value - good, agreed.
Big nose made a huge loss that's all we need to know, not some bull-shite debate about meaningless semantics. Whether his value is £6m or £8m, the cheque we got was worth £6m, and that's all that matters as far as we're concerned, that and the £7.5m in wages we won't be paying for the next three years.
Big nose made a huge loss that's all we need to know, not some bull-shite debate about meaningless semantics. Whether his value is £6m or £8m, the cheque we got was worth £6m, and that's all that matters as far as we're concerned, that and the £7.5m in wages we won't be paying for the next three years.
Big nose made a huge loss that's all we need to know, not some bull-shite debate about meaningless semantics. Whether his value is £6m or £8m, the cheque we got was worth £6m, and that's all that matters as far as we're concerned, that and the £7.5m in wages we won't be paying for the next three years.
That’s what relegation does for you. Very few clubs make profits on marquee signings upon relegation. However British ones tend to retain more of their value.
That’s what relegation does for you. Very few clubs make profits on marquee signings upon relegation. However British ones tend to retain more of their value.
Big nose made a huge loss that's all we need to know, not some bull-shite debate about meaningless semantics. Whether his value is £6m or £8m, the cheque we got was worth £6m, and that's all that matters as far as we're concerned, that and the £7.5m in wages we won't be paying for the next three years.
Exactly, the money received is all that matters, making E20 wrong about Clucas holding his value better. The boy will never accept he was wrong though as he is a little bit, shall we say...
Exactly, the money received is all that matters, making E20 wrong about Clucas holding his value better. The boy will never accept he was wrong though as he is a little bit, shall we say...
Not if you are talking about value it doesn’t.
If I offer you £10,000 for your dog. You decide to give it away for free. Doesn’t mean it was worthless. It means you decided to give a £10,000 dog away for nothing.
The dog’s value is unaffected by what you received... which is what we are talking about. As much as you don’t like it, it’s the way it is. No amount of YouTube videos that nobody will ever click on will change that.
Doesnt matter of they handed over the money. The reason they didn’t is because they could not reach an agreement with the player. The agreement between the clubs was in place was £8m, hence he was worth £8m.
Again, straight forward no matter what rubbish you want to spout and how many times you want to go through your tedious kicking and screaming routine.
So 2 CB’s and Clucas held more of his value - good, agreed.
We have 1 senior CB and some U23 centre-backs, of which Rodon and Cian Harries were vying for top dog...Rodon got his chance because we sold every senior CB but van der Hoorn.
If we sold every single winger except Nathan Dyer, Daniel James would get the nod on the left-wing.
If we sold every single midfielder but Fer, Jack Evans or Adnan Maric would get the nod.
In both scenarios the youngsters would still be U23 players hoping they can take their opportunity to prove and improve themselves.
Everyone else can see this.
You are wrong, as ever, and all your doing is discrediting yourself...we are now at the point where nobody takes whatever you or the Res says seriously.
If I offer you £10,000 for your dog. You decide to give it away for free. Doesn’t mean it was worthless. It means you decided to give a £10,000 dog away for nothing.
The dog’s value is unaffected by what you received... which is what we are talking about. As much as you don’t like it, it’s the way it is. No amount of YouTube videos that nobody will ever click on will change that.
[Post edited 15 Aug 2018 12:49]
Here's where you are going wrong though Einstein...why would anyone hand over a £10,000 dog for free?
Why would we hand over Clucas for £6m if we could get £8m....we couldn't get £8m, despite having many interested parties £6m was all anyone would put on the table.
Therefore he is worth £6m at that time in that market, that is what he has been valued at by the market. 101 Economics.
...unless of course you are accusing our board of dishonest business practices, underselling an asset for ulterior motives.
We have 1 senior CB and some U23 centre-backs, of which Rodon and Cian Harries were vying for top dog...Rodon got his chance because we sold every senior CB but van der Hoorn.
If we sold every single winger except Nathan Dyer, Daniel James would get the nod on the left-wing.
If we sold every single midfielder but Fer, Jack Evans or Adnan Maric would get the nod.
In both scenarios the youngsters would still be U23 players hoping they can take their opportunity to prove and improve themselves.
Everyone else can see this.
You are wrong, as ever, and all your doing is discrediting yourself...we are now at the point where nobody takes whatever you or the Res says seriously.
You carry on though sunshine
Incorrect. We have 2CB’s currently. Once Cian is deemed fit for first team duties by those in charge then we can count him as a third, until then we have 2. All straight forward.
If we sold Dyer then the moment James gets called up he will be counted as a senior team winger, until then he is an U23 winger. Same principle.
Again, cry about it as much as you like. But common sense will always win, and common sense and myself are always on the same side.
Here's where you are going wrong though Einstein...why would anyone hand over a £10,000 dog for free?
Why would we hand over Clucas for £6m if we could get £8m....we couldn't get £8m, despite having many interested parties £6m was all anyone would put on the table.
Therefore he is worth £6m at that time in that market, that is what he has been valued at by the market. 101 Economics.
...unless of course you are accusing our board of dishonest business practices, underselling an asset for ulterior motives.
Because I wanted to pick him up in 2 weeks time and you were leaving the country that very day and wasn’t able to book into a kennel. Instead you went for the practicality over the cash.
Nope, their wages are being covered in their loan agreements.
It’s transfer fee.
Due to British clubs needing a certain amounts of home grown players, they are naturally more valuable and retain more value in general. It isn’t even up for debate, it’s a fact.
Nope, their wages are being covered in their loan agreements.
It’s transfer fee.
Due to British clubs needing a certain amounts of home grown players, they are naturally more valuable and retain more value in general. It isn’t even up for debate, it’s a fact.
It is up for debate because you twist the facts to suit your argument.
Jordan Ayew - couldn’t sell Because no club wanted to pay a fee and his wages.
Wilfried Bony - couldn’t sell Because he is not fit and possibly never will be and don't say wages are not an issue with him.
Andre Ayew - couldn’t sell See as his brother.
Roque Mesa - could only attract a bid of 45% what we paid Because he is not very good and his wages were too high for Spanish clubs outside the top 2.
Sam Clucas - attracted a bit of 55% what we paid. 100% about wages. We could have had £2M more if it wasn't about wages.
It is up for debate because you twist the facts to suit your argument.
Jordan Ayew - couldn’t sell Because no club wanted to pay a fee and his wages.
Wilfried Bony - couldn’t sell Because he is not fit and possibly never will be and don't say wages are not an issue with him.
Andre Ayew - couldn’t sell See as his brother.
Roque Mesa - could only attract a bid of 45% what we paid Because he is not very good and his wages were too high for Spanish clubs outside the top 2.
Sam Clucas - attracted a bit of 55% what we paid. 100% about wages. We could have had £2M more if it wasn't about wages.
Wages are the main factor not nationality.
I am not twisting anything. I am using the long standing notion of how to determine a players value on planetswans and also the planetswans choice of source for figures. I couldn’t have been more accommodating.
So you think wages are a factor in all of them, yet think it’s sheer coincidence that we happened to receive the highest bid in proportion to what we paid on Sam Clucas - who tends to be the only British player in the group?
I’m sure you aren’t stupid. The money in the British game is massive. Much more than the rest of Europe. Meaning if a marquee player is for sale, the more suitors that can afford the fee of a marquee player will come from Britain - the fact that homegrown players are more desirable for a number of reasons - they will by sheer common sense hold more value.
It is as simple as that and an absolute stone wall fact.
I am not twisting anything. I am using the long standing notion of how to determine a players value on planetswans and also the planetswans choice of source for figures. I couldn’t have been more accommodating.
So you think wages are a factor in all of them, yet think it’s sheer coincidence that we happened to receive the highest bid in proportion to what we paid on Sam Clucas - who tends to be the only British player in the group?
I’m sure you aren’t stupid. The money in the British game is massive. Much more than the rest of Europe. Meaning if a marquee player is for sale, the more suitors that can afford the fee of a marquee player will come from Britain - the fact that homegrown players are more desirable for a number of reasons - they will by sheer common sense hold more value.
It is as simple as that and an absolute stone wall fact.
Of the 5 you mentioned put them in order of earnings and see if that makes it easier for your simple one tracked mind to understand.
As has been mentioned as few times (admittedly amid the squabbling), there's rumours he failed the medical. I see no reason why this announcement would have been delayed as long as it has unless there was anything untoward at play.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
