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.
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. "
- Transfermarket says he was sold for £6m you f*cking tool.
"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. "
Clucas had lots of moneybags British clubs interested, none of them would pay us more than £6m to sign him. Burnley may have bid £8m but they weren't prepared to pay the wages he wanted, this reflects his value dropping...earlier you said it wasn't wages it was down to him failing a medical, yet Stoke signed him. If Burnley were prepared to pay £8m and his wages but pulled out because of the medical, and if Stoke were only prepared to pay £6m because of medical issues that STILL reflects his value.
Ergo - You stated when he signed that it was a good deal and he would hold his value better than a foreign import. HE DIDN'T... compare to Mesa who; - was signed in the same window - left in the same window - plays the same position - didn't have a queue of British moneybags clubs looking to sign him
We made a 52% loss on Mesa and a 59% loss on Clucas. These are indisputable facts. You got the Clucas deal wrong. Everyone can see it. Seek help.
"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. "
- Transfermarket says he was sold for £6m you f*cking tool.
"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. "
Clucas had lots of moneybags British clubs interested, none of them would pay us more than £6m to sign him. Burnley may have bid £8m but they weren't prepared to pay the wages he wanted, this reflects his value dropping...earlier you said it wasn't wages it was down to him failing a medical, yet Stoke signed him. If Burnley were prepared to pay £8m and his wages but pulled out because of the medical, and if Stoke were only prepared to pay £6m because of medical issues that STILL reflects his value.
Ergo - You stated when he signed that it was a good deal and he would hold his value better than a foreign import. HE DIDN'T... compare to Mesa who; - was signed in the same window - left in the same window - plays the same position - didn't have a queue of British moneybags clubs looking to sign him
We made a 52% loss on Mesa and a 59% loss on Clucas. These are indisputable facts. You got the Clucas deal wrong. Everyone can see it. Seek help.
[Post edited 15 Aug 2018 16:59]
Doesnt matter what he was sold for. Value is determined by what someone is willing to pay for him - that was £8m. I take you back to me offering you £10,000 for your dog and you selling him to your neighbour for a quid, doesn’t mean he’s worth a quid, it means you just sold a £10,000 dog for a quid.
Yep I said as he is British he will retain more of his value than foreign players generally, and he retained his value more than every single foreign marquee signing we made that season.
So 2 centre backs and Clucas held more value as I said then? Again spot on.
Crying about it and putting things in bold italic won’t change that.
Doesnt matter what he was sold for. Value is determined by what someone is willing to pay for him - that was £8m. I take you back to me offering you £10,000 for your dog and you selling him to your neighbour for a quid, doesn’t mean he’s worth a quid, it means you just sold a £10,000 dog for a quid.
Yep I said as he is British he will retain more of his value than foreign players generally, and he retained his value more than every single foreign marquee signing we made that season.
So 2 centre backs and Clucas held more value as I said then? Again spot on.
Crying about it and putting things in bold italic won’t change that.
Try again.
Value IS determined by what someone is willing to PAY for him - that was £6m.
...yes, let's go back to your shiit analogy.
Your analogy, unsurprisingly, doesn't work .
Let's make it more accurate...
So we have an excitable young pup named Clucas who we buy one summer for £10,000, he is not the brightest, spends most of the time running around in circles chasing his tail...everyday we pine for our grand old dog Siggy. While we are at the pet shop we purchase a pitbull named Mesa for £7.5k, 'what the f*ck' we like dogs!
When we buy both of these dogs we are aware that we may have to leave the Bahamas next summer as if we fail our performance review in May we will be let go from the firm and will have to relocate to a shitty 1 bedroom flat in Aberdare on low wages, next door to the Res.
We know this is a possibility at the outset and as the year goes by (and we become painfully aware that we are the office whipping boy..."they" call us 'psychoboy', the boss is always shouting at us for not accepting responsibility when we get things wrong, people have started leaving the room when we come in...you get the idea) this outcome becomes more and more likely.
In the meantime we decide we don't like the look of Mesa, he scares us. We lock the poor fecker in an outhouse out the back and chuck him Clucas' leftovers through the window at feeding time. Clucas meanwhile becomes the family pet, he is well fed, well groomed, we take him out for walks, he likes to sniff around bitches but is largely unsuccessful...he gets a shag occasionally though...we sigh wistfully, 'Siggy was a top shagger', we wipe a little tear from our eye.
Come May we get the inevitable bad news, we have to move home by the 9th of August.
We knew this was likely to happen some day, we always knew that when it does happen we will be skint (what the f*ck were we thinking spending £17.5k on dogs last summer, 1 of whom is locked in the shed...our neighbours picked up a lovely, well behaved, French poodle for £3k!). We need to raise cash quick!
We sell everything in the flat except the clothes on our back, we arrange for somebody to lease the flat off us from August (we quite like life in the Bahamas, we want to come back one day), we sell our car, we sell our jet ski, we sell the dogs...
...oh yes, the dogs. Mesa is weak and feeble...yet quite angry...when he comes out of the shed, he smells a bit too. He snarls at every fecker, bites children and shits indoors. We sell him early in the summer for £3.5k...we have lost £4k on the little angry prick.
Clucas is healthy, although the stupid little f*ck did manage to get himself bitten recently by a bitch he was unsuccessfully trying to shag. There are 4 well heeled families from the neighbourhood interested in buying him...yeah they talk about paying £7.5k, then £5.5k for him, but ultimately 3 of the 4 drop out citing Clucas' charmlessness, stupidity and the stiches he has received where he was bitten...plus Clucas is the kind of dog who eats like a f*cking horse, we have been spending a fortune at the butchers and they have seen the receipts...
Eventually we only have one interested party left and all they will pay is £4k...we have lost £6 f*cking grand on the stupid little f*ck
Value IS determined by what someone is willing to PAY for him - that was £6m.
...yes, let's go back to your shiit analogy.
Your analogy, unsurprisingly, doesn't work .
Let's make it more accurate...
So we have an excitable young pup named Clucas who we buy one summer for £10,000, he is not the brightest, spends most of the time running around in circles chasing his tail...everyday we pine for our grand old dog Siggy. While we are at the pet shop we purchase a pitbull named Mesa for £7.5k, 'what the f*ck' we like dogs!
When we buy both of these dogs we are aware that we may have to leave the Bahamas next summer as if we fail our performance review in May we will be let go from the firm and will have to relocate to a shitty 1 bedroom flat in Aberdare on low wages, next door to the Res.
We know this is a possibility at the outset and as the year goes by (and we become painfully aware that we are the office whipping boy..."they" call us 'psychoboy', the boss is always shouting at us for not accepting responsibility when we get things wrong, people have started leaving the room when we come in...you get the idea) this outcome becomes more and more likely.
In the meantime we decide we don't like the look of Mesa, he scares us. We lock the poor fecker in an outhouse out the back and chuck him Clucas' leftovers through the window at feeding time. Clucas meanwhile becomes the family pet, he is well fed, well groomed, we take him out for walks, he likes to sniff around bitches but is largely unsuccessful...he gets a shag occasionally though...we sigh wistfully, 'Siggy was a top shagger', we wipe a little tear from our eye.
Come May we get the inevitable bad news, we have to move home by the 9th of August.
We knew this was likely to happen some day, we always knew that when it does happen we will be skint (what the f*ck were we thinking spending £17.5k on dogs last summer, 1 of whom is locked in the shed...our neighbours picked up a lovely, well behaved, French poodle for £3k!). We need to raise cash quick!
We sell everything in the flat except the clothes on our back, we arrange for somebody to lease the flat off us from August (we quite like life in the Bahamas, we want to come back one day), we sell our car, we sell our jet ski, we sell the dogs...
...oh yes, the dogs. Mesa is weak and feeble...yet quite angry...when he comes out of the shed, he smells a bit too. He snarls at every fecker, bites children and shits indoors. We sell him early in the summer for £3.5k...we have lost £4k on the little angry prick.
Clucas is healthy, although the stupid little f*ck did manage to get himself bitten recently by a bitch he was unsuccessfully trying to shag. There are 4 well heeled families from the neighbourhood interested in buying him...yeah they talk about paying £7.5k, then £5.5k for him, but ultimately 3 of the 4 drop out citing Clucas' charmlessness, stupidity and the stiches he has received where he was bitten...plus Clucas is the kind of dog who eats like a f*cking horse, we have been spending a fortune at the butchers and they have seen the receipts...
Eventually we only have one interested party left and all they will pay is £4k...we have lost £6 f*cking grand on the stupid little f*ck
Now, which of the dogs retained most value ?
[Post edited 15 Aug 2018 23:43]
Agreed. As we know, Burnley were willing to pay 8m. So he was worth 8m.
Of course it works, you just don't like it as it shows obviously where you are going wrong so you write all the nonsense that does not relate to the situation at all.
Burnley had agreed to pay 8m, couldn't agree terms with the player. We decided to sell him for a lesser amount the next day due to deadline approaching and it being convenient to our plans.
So, we have 2 CB's and Clucas held his value more than Mesa.
Value IS determined by what someone is willing to PAY for him - that was £6m.
...yes, let's go back to your shiit analogy.
Your analogy, unsurprisingly, doesn't work .
Let's make it more accurate...
So we have an excitable young pup named Clucas who we buy one summer for £10,000, he is not the brightest, spends most of the time running around in circles chasing his tail...everyday we pine for our grand old dog Siggy. While we are at the pet shop we purchase a pitbull named Mesa for £7.5k, 'what the f*ck' we like dogs!
When we buy both of these dogs we are aware that we may have to leave the Bahamas next summer as if we fail our performance review in May we will be let go from the firm and will have to relocate to a shitty 1 bedroom flat in Aberdare on low wages, next door to the Res.
We know this is a possibility at the outset and as the year goes by (and we become painfully aware that we are the office whipping boy..."they" call us 'psychoboy', the boss is always shouting at us for not accepting responsibility when we get things wrong, people have started leaving the room when we come in...you get the idea) this outcome becomes more and more likely.
In the meantime we decide we don't like the look of Mesa, he scares us. We lock the poor fecker in an outhouse out the back and chuck him Clucas' leftovers through the window at feeding time. Clucas meanwhile becomes the family pet, he is well fed, well groomed, we take him out for walks, he likes to sniff around bitches but is largely unsuccessful...he gets a shag occasionally though...we sigh wistfully, 'Siggy was a top shagger', we wipe a little tear from our eye.
Come May we get the inevitable bad news, we have to move home by the 9th of August.
We knew this was likely to happen some day, we always knew that when it does happen we will be skint (what the f*ck were we thinking spending £17.5k on dogs last summer, 1 of whom is locked in the shed...our neighbours picked up a lovely, well behaved, French poodle for £3k!). We need to raise cash quick!
We sell everything in the flat except the clothes on our back, we arrange for somebody to lease the flat off us from August (we quite like life in the Bahamas, we want to come back one day), we sell our car, we sell our jet ski, we sell the dogs...
...oh yes, the dogs. Mesa is weak and feeble...yet quite angry...when he comes out of the shed, he smells a bit too. He snarls at every fecker, bites children and shits indoors. We sell him early in the summer for £3.5k...we have lost £4k on the little angry prick.
Clucas is healthy, although the stupid little f*ck did manage to get himself bitten recently by a bitch he was unsuccessfully trying to shag. There are 4 well heeled families from the neighbourhood interested in buying him...yeah they talk about paying £7.5k, then £5.5k for him, but ultimately 3 of the 4 drop out citing Clucas' charmlessness, stupidity and the stiches he has received where he was bitten...plus Clucas is the kind of dog who eats like a f*cking horse, we have been spending a fortune at the butchers and they have seen the receipts...
Eventually we only have one interested party left and all they will pay is £4k...we have lost £6 f*cking grand on the stupid little f*ck
Now, which of the dogs retained most value ?
[Post edited 15 Aug 2018 23:43]
Great analogy and an entertaining read. You will NEVER resolve this dispute because of the disparity of the timings of both purchases and sales. Why not agree that they were both disastrous and move on. By the way, the only thing I ever saw Mesa the dog do was sit around licking his balls, too interested in his own privates to ever chase a stick.
Who cares how much value a player has retained? Surely the success or otherwise of a HJ signing should be measured by the amount we've lost?! What a thoroughly pointless, inane and most of all tedious exercise.
Clucas may well have retained value better than others (I can't see that myself), but we made a loss of £8.67m on him according to transfermarkt not to mention his £2m+ a year wages. I make that around £11m for one season of very mediocre football. Is that value for money??? Absolutely shocking loss, absolutely shocking discussion.
Who cares how much value a player has retained? Surely the success or otherwise of a HJ signing should be measured by the amount we've lost?! What a thoroughly pointless, inane and most of all tedious exercise.
Clucas may well have retained value better than others (I can't see that myself), but we made a loss of £8.67m on him according to transfermarkt not to mention his £2m+ a year wages. I make that around £11m for one season of very mediocre football. Is that value for money??? Absolutely shocking loss, absolutely shocking discussion.
Well the troll multi bizarrely brought it up as he lost any traction on his centre back discussion.
It was to do with me saying many months ago that Clucas’ signing represents less financial risk than a foreign counterpart (Viera €30m was the talk at the time who ended up in China for a third of that btw) due to British players retaining more of their value should it not work out.
By all means start a thread discussing the signings not working out, however this is specifically about value retention as that is what the troll has quoted me with regards to the point I made. So with that in mind, value retention is the only possible avenue of discussion here - hence why I have closed down his attempted nonsense regarding monies received - they aren’t the same thing, again for the reasons explained.
In which that is Clucas retaining more of his value for the reasons explained.
Who cares how much value a player has retained? Surely the success or otherwise of a HJ signing should be measured by the amount we've lost?! What a thoroughly pointless, inane and most of all tedious exercise.
Clucas may well have retained value better than others (I can't see that myself), but we made a loss of £8.67m on him according to transfermarkt not to mention his £2m+ a year wages. I make that around £11m for one season of very mediocre football. Is that value for money??? Absolutely shocking loss, absolutely shocking discussion.
Clear as day that Clucas lost us more money.
We lost 8.67m from buying to selling him plus his wages were higher. Mesa, we lost 5.85m AND don't forget part of his wages were subsidised whilst with us.
ALSO
If we are discussing who was the best player One joined a top La liga team playing in europe The other A relegated team now in the Championship.
Its a non debate just a save face fight from one poster, words wont change the fact, to carry on the non debate is just weakness.
Great analogy and an entertaining read. You will NEVER resolve this dispute because of the disparity of the timings of both purchases and sales. Why not agree that they were both disastrous and move on. By the way, the only thing I ever saw Mesa the dog do was sit around licking his balls, too interested in his own privates to ever chase a stick.
Cheers, They were both disastrous and I am as bored of this discussion as the rest of you. This is not about their value, as you say, we lost a f*cktonne of money on both...that's all that matters to us as fans.
No, this is about a poster called E20 and whether he can accept he got something wrong in the face of cold, hard, facts. He can't. He has to deviate from his agreed parameters (to use the Transfermarket figures), the parameters he himself imposed on the debate, in order to maintain an illusion that he is correct and never wrong. I know he will never accept the truth (he'd still be posting replies insisting he was right a decade from now, such is his character). I'm not interested.
What I am interested in is demonstrating to the readers of Planetswans just how immature, desperate, deluded and possibly unhinged E20 is. The fact that E20's statement on Clucas' signing (that the deal was a good one because Clucas would retain his value better than a foreign signing) has been demonstrated to be wrong, in black and white terms, a number of those who were unsure whether E20 was getting a rough ride on here will now know the truth and his opinions will be taken less seriously from here on in.
You may think that's harsh but truthfully it is his choice to behave in the manner that he does, he is discrediting himself.
We lost 8.67m from buying to selling him plus his wages were higher. Mesa, we lost 5.85m AND don't forget part of his wages were subsidised whilst with us.
ALSO
If we are discussing who was the best player One joined a top La liga team playing in europe The other A relegated team now in the Championship.
Its a non debate just a save face fight from one poster, words wont change the fact, to carry on the non debate is just weakness.
What is there to save face over? Show me where I said anything other than Clucas would retain more of his value. (A tip to save time, you can’t because it doesn’t exist).
I didn’t say he wouldn’t lose us most money. That’s a non debate, it comes with the territory when a player costs you more, they cost different amounts so it is ludicrous to make the argument in pounds and pence of sale. You aren’t that stupid no matter how much you try to come across that way.
I said he would retain more of his value. Which he did.
Unless you understand the point made then making a summary is beyond you.
Example - sign player A for a million, sign player B for 10 million.
You are only getting bids on player A for £1 (losing 99.99% of his value). You get a bid on player B for £9m (losing 10% of his value) - player B retained his value better... yet would lose the club 900k more if viewed like that. Pounds and pence is another debate altogether and not comparable due to the different fees paid, and most importantly - not the point I ever made, no matter how much you and your mate want it to be.
Now if you still don’t get it then there is no help.
What is there to save face over? Show me where I said anything other than Clucas would retain more of his value. (A tip to save time, you can’t because it doesn’t exist).
I didn’t say he wouldn’t lose us most money. That’s a non debate, it comes with the territory when a player costs you more, they cost different amounts so it is ludicrous to make the argument in pounds and pence of sale. You aren’t that stupid no matter how much you try to come across that way.
I said he would retain more of his value. Which he did.
Unless you understand the point made then making a summary is beyond you.
Example - sign player A for a million, sign player B for 10 million.
You are only getting bids on player A for £1 (losing 99.99% of his value). You get a bid on player B for £9m (losing 10% of his value) - player B retained his value better... yet would lose the club 900k more if viewed like that. Pounds and pence is another debate altogether and not comparable due to the different fees paid, and most importantly - not the point I ever made, no matter how much you and your mate want it to be.
Now if you still don’t get it then there is no help.
[Post edited 16 Aug 2018 10:06]
Re: Mesa I can tell you that (using Transfermarket as gospel...your rules) we lost 6.5m Euros, or 52% of our outlay, if you will.
Re: Clucas I can tell you that (using Transfermarket as gospel...your rules) we lost £8.75m, or 59.32% of our outlay, if you will.
Re: Mesa I can tell you that (using Transfermarket as gospel...your rules) we lost 6.5m Euros, or 52% of our outlay, if you will.
Re: Clucas I can tell you that (using Transfermarket as gospel...your rules) we lost £8.75m, or 59.32% of our outlay, if you will.
We have both established that someone is worth what someone is willing to pay. Transfermarkt can tell us what we bought them for, it can’t tell us the amounts clubs had agreed to pay for them.
As we know, Burnley were willing to pay £8m and the fee agreed.
Ergo - he was worth £8m.
We decided to sell for less due to the convenience of relieving ourselves of a player on fairly big wages on deadline day.
If I offered you £10k for your dog but wanted it in 2 weeks time, you didn’t want to wait so sold it to your neighbour for £1, it wouldn’t mean the dog was worth £1, it would mean you sold a dog worth 10k for a quid.
We have both established that someone is worth what someone is willing to pay. Transfermarkt can tell us what we bought them for, it can’t tell us the amounts clubs had agreed to pay for them.
As we know, Burnley were willing to pay £8m and the fee agreed.
Ergo - he was worth £8m.
We decided to sell for less due to the convenience of relieving ourselves of a player on fairly big wages on deadline day.
If I offered you £10k for your dog but wanted it in 2 weeks time, you didn’t want to wait so sold it to your neighbour for £1, it wouldn’t mean the dog was worth £1, it would mean you sold a dog worth 10k for a quid.
All very straight forward.
[Post edited 16 Aug 2018 10:38]
"If I offered you £10k for your dog but wanted it in 2 weeks time, you didn’t want to wait so sold ornaments to your neighbour for £1, it wouldn’t mean the dog was worth £1, it would mean you sold a 10k dog for a quid."
"All very straight forward."
There's f*ck all straight forward about that statement!!
Can’t believe I’m doing this. Hopefully the below analogy will help:
I see a used car I like for £8k. I call the owner and say I’d like to buy it. We arrange a test drive where I find out that wheel alignments wonky; the battery needs replacing and the radio is stuck on TalkSport. I also find out that I need to fill it with £40 petrol every week where most of my other similar cars run on £20-30 a week.
I send the car back to the owner telling him that the deals off due to those issues I.e. THE CAR IS NO LONGER WORTH £8k to me.
Obviously the owner is pissed, but is rescued by another buyer who doesn’t mind a risk and is ok with high petrol costs, but manages to negotiate the deal down to £6k. Which is a better indicator of the actual car value at that time.
"If I offered you £10k for your dog but wanted it in 2 weeks time, you didn’t want to wait so sold ornaments to your neighbour for £1, it wouldn’t mean the dog was worth £1, it would mean you sold a 10k dog for a quid."
"All very straight forward."
There's f*ck all straight forward about that statement!!
Which bit confused you?
It is a statement clearly showing that value is determined by what clubs are prepared to pay. If you decide to sell for less for convenience issues that doesn’t affect the value of the player, it affects what you receive, but not the value.
Can’t believe I’m doing this. Hopefully the below analogy will help:
I see a used car I like for £8k. I call the owner and say I’d like to buy it. We arrange a test drive where I find out that wheel alignments wonky; the battery needs replacing and the radio is stuck on TalkSport. I also find out that I need to fill it with £40 petrol every week where most of my other similar cars run on £20-30 a week.
I send the car back to the owner telling him that the deals off due to those issues I.e. THE CAR IS NO LONGER WORTH £8k to me.
Obviously the owner is pissed, but is rescued by another buyer who doesn’t mind a risk and is ok with high petrol costs, but manages to negotiate the deal down to £6k. Which is a better indicator of the actual car value at that time.
It is a statement clearly showing that value is determined by what clubs are prepared to pay. If you decide to sell for less for convenience issues that doesn’t affect the value of the player, it affects what you receive, but not the value.
It is a statement clearly showing that value is determined by what clubs are prepared to pay. If you decide to sell for less for convenience issues that doesn’t affect the value of the player, it affects what you receive, but not the value.
What is it you don't understand about the fact that nobody wanted to pay us £8m, if they had we would have taken it. A bid is just that, a bid. It is not the same as handing the money over...and it doesn't matter what interested parties reasons were for not being prepared to hand over the same figure that they bid, it is irrelevant. £6m is what the market valued him at. The End.
...and dipshit, we could sell all of our senior players, it wouldn't make our U23s suddenly overnight become seasoned, proven, professionals capable of competing in the Championship. Yet by your logic, as long as they get picked in the team and on the bench, it would.
You are dangerously f*cking stupid, I wouldn't be surprised if you were involved in some capacity down the Liberty given the absolute clusterf*ck of the last few years...you are American after all aren't you (There is nothing this prick won't resort to in order to avoid admitting he is wrong)
What is it you don't understand about the fact that nobody wanted to pay us £8m, if they had we would have taken it. A bid is just that, a bid. It is not the same as handing the money over...and it doesn't matter what interested parties reasons were for not being prepared to hand over the same figure that they bid, it is irrelevant. £6m is what the market valued him at. The End.
...and dipshit, we could sell all of our senior players, it wouldn't make our U23s suddenly overnight become seasoned, proven, professionals capable of competing in the Championship. Yet by your logic, as long as they get picked in the team and on the bench, it would.
You are dangerously f*cking stupid, I wouldn't be surprised if you were involved in some capacity down the Liberty given the absolute clusterf*ck of the last few years...you are American after all aren't you (There is nothing this prick won't resort to in order to avoid admitting he is wrong)
What do you mean nobody wanted to pay us £8m?
We agreed a fee with Burnley for £8m. Fact
Ergo - he was worth £8m.
I don’t have to go through my dog thing again do I?
Nobody said anything about proven or seasoned, that is something you are making up now in order to revive your failed point.
So, 2 CB’s as I said and Clucas held more of his value - as I said.
I am also using the forum chosen source of information - transfermarkt.com.
This is what the dipshit said at the top of this.
"I am using the forum chosen definition of value" - What the f*ck does that statement mean? (He knew the figures proved him wrong at the start of this and so tried to create a grey area...that way he can stick to his ludicrous delusion and be right in his own mind)
"I am also using the forum chosen source of information - transfermarkt.com. " - Clearly this is not the case.
"I am using the forum chosen definition of value" - What the f*ck does that statement mean? (He knew the figures proved him wrong at the start of this and so tried to create a grey area...that way he can stick to his ludicrous delusion and be right in his own mind)
"I am also using the forum chosen source of information - transfermarkt.com. " - Clearly this is not the case.
It means that the members of this forum say that “value is determined by what someone is willing to pay” it is something you also repeated on this thread. Burnley were willing to pay £8m.
Transfermarkt- of course it is the case. It is being used for the purchase prices. The point I made wasn’t about the sale prices, my point was about what they are worth.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
