Interesting exchange in these past few pages, when you strip out the ego from the debate. Seems like 2 people arguing 2 different, but valid perspectives, on the value of an asset, and what constitutes getting value from an asset.
Moreover they seem like the 2 perspectives of the execs in charge of both clubs in question. One looks to work some form of hedging into their valuation of an asset; in that they factor in potential value in the event that their asset leaves before the realisation of the full term of the contract.
The other has shown a track record of allowing contracts to run their course, and valuing an asset, before procurement, based purely on what that asset can offer within the term of the contract - without potential for resale factored in.
Both perspectives are valid, depending on financial situation and position on the mountain. City can afford to look purely at the immediate future, with a view to helping the team win now, and less concern for what they can recoup.
Tottenham/Levy is a shrewd operator who isn’t just tasked with helping the team to win, but also wants/needs to do so without making a loss.
If your sole aim is to win trophies, it’s much easier to buy that older proven player, if you’re happy to accept not recouping some of the fee is the cost of likely success.
If you’re more concerned with making money, you have to accept that you’re less likely to get your hands on something shiny, because you’ll be selling your assets in their prime to make said money.
