£160,000 a week is *&%"ing ridiculous!

[Soulboy]

Oh yes they do. You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail. Sol Campbell is one very large example of this. Or Bolton saying last week the reason they could afford to pay Petrov £35k per week was that they got a £5M player for free.

Maybe for a certain standard of player it is a given, but it certainly isn't automatic across the board. Do you think Caceido will be getting bumper wages when his contract expires? No, he'll take whatever he's offered.

Players who let their contracts expire against the will of their parent club (Sol Campbell, Joe Cole, McManamanamanamanaman etc) will, of course, benefit from their 'free' status because they are/were sought after. But players whose contracts have expired because their parent club had no interest in keeping them are unlikely to feel any benefits.

Thank you for your few words of wisdom... clearly some people haven't a scooby how contracts work. It's nice to see at least you understand the realities.

And as for the comment "Petrov is a £5m player"... who said that? It's meaningless. He's out of contract, he's "worth" nothing. Who decides an out-of-contract player is "worth" £5m? Clearly not the market.

We would love to get Caceido and Jo off on free contract right NOW.

We aren't going to get any transfer fee of any magnitude... Jo for £5m... Caceido...£2m...??? Maybe no one wants them at all, even on a free! Seeing as we are prepared to let them go out on loan, and no one at this moment is forming a queue to take them, then I would suggest we would be better writing them off.

If we keep both of them for another three years, then we will have to find wages of about £15m for the pair.

Is it not better to let them go on frees? I would.

They are not even going to make our 25-man squads next season, so they are a worthless asset for us at the present time.

One day I may spend some time on explaining the concept of Sunk Costs...

 

[SWP's back]

Oh yes they do. You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail. Sol Campbell is one very large example of this. Or Bolton saying last week the reason they could afford to pay Petrov £35k per week was that they got a £5M player for free.

Maybe for a certain standard of player it is a given, but it certainly isn't automatic across the board. Do you think Caceido will be getting bumper wages when his contract expires? No, he'll take whatever he's offered.

Players who let their contracts expire against the will of their parent club (Sol Campbell, Joe Cole, McManamanamanamanaman etc) will, of course, benefit from their 'free' status because they are/were sought after. But players whose contracts have expired because their parent club had no interest in keeping them are unlikely to feel any benefits.

But that is the type of player that is being spoken about. High end players. The players demanding the largest salaries etc. No one was talking about the Joe Toe-end Bloggs journeymen.<br /><br />-- Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:12 pm --<br /><br />

Maybe for a certain standard of player it is a given, but it certainly isn't automatic across the board. Do you think Caceido will be getting bumper wages when his contract expires? No, he'll take whatever he's offered.

Players who let their contracts expire against the will of their parent club (Sol Campbell, Joe Cole, McManamanamanamanaman etc) will, of course, benefit from their 'free' status because they are/were sought after. But players whose contracts have expired because their parent club had no interest in keeping them are unlikely to feel any benefits.

Thank you for your few words of wisdom... clearly some people haven't a scooby how contracts work. It's nice to see at least you understand the realities.

And as for the comment "Petrov is a £5m player"... who said that? It's meaningless. He's out of contract, he's "worth" nothing. Who decides an out-of-contract player is "worth" £5m? Clearly not the market.

We would love to get Caceido and Jo off on free contract right NOW.

We aren't going to get any transfer fee of any magnitude... Jo for £5m... Caceido...£2m...??? Maybe no one wants them at all, even on a free! Seeing as we are prepared to let them go out on loan, and no one at this moment is forming a queue to take them, then I would suggest we would be better writing them off.

If we keep both of them for another three years, then we will have to find wages of about £15m for the pair.

Is it not better to let them go on frees? I would.

They are not even going to make our 25-man squads next season, so they are a worthless asset for us at the present time.

One day I may spend some time on explaining the concept of Sunk Costs...

I am not discussing this anymore with you. You are too simple. Stop trying to make out you have a clue. It is very obvious that you do not.

ps - Owen Coyle said that about Petrov you plonker. I am guessing he knows a little bit more about such things than yourself.

 

[I remember the kippax]

Maybe for a certain standard of player it is a given, but it certainly isn't automatic across the board. Do you think Caceido will be getting bumper wages when his contract expires? No, he'll take whatever he's offered.

Players who let their contracts expire against the will of their parent club (Sol Campbell, Joe Cole, McManamanamanamanaman etc) will, of course, benefit from their 'free' status because they are/were sought after. But players whose contracts have expired because their parent club had no interest in keeping them are unlikely to feel any benefits.

Thank you for your few words of wisdom... clearly some people haven't a scooby how contracts work. It's nice to see at least you understand the realities.

And as for the comment "Petrov is a £5m player"... who said that? It's meaningless. He's out of contract, he's "worth" nothing. Who decides an out-of-contract player is "worth" £5m? Clearly not the market.

We would love to get Caceido and Jo off on free contract right NOW.

We aren't going to get any transfer fee of any magnitude... Jo for £5m... Caceido...£2m...??? Maybe no one wants them at all, even on a free! Seeing as we are prepared to let them go out on loan, and no one at this moment is forming a queue to take them, then I would suggest we would be better writing them off.

If we keep both of them for another three years, then we will have to find wages of about £15m for the pair.
Is it not better to let them go on frees? I would.

They are not even going to make our 25-man squads next season, so they are a worthless asset for us at the present time.

One day I may spend some time on explaining the concept of Sunk Costs...

One day I may spend some time on explaining the concept of a contract.. The players you would quite clearly give away HAVE A CONTRACT this means that you would have to buy out that contract to give them away. It would still cost whatever they would be due in wages so therefore it is much better to try and gain some financial remuneration for them. Contracts cannot be just broken because they weren't the players we thought them to be.

Look face it - you're wrong. On both counts. End of.

 

[Dhenry]

I am not discussing this anymore with you. You are too simple. Stop trying to make out you have a clue. It is very obvious that you do not.

ps - Owen Coyle said that about Petrov you plonker. I am guessing he knows a little bit more about such things than yourself.

Sorry man, but just to say - I've in the not too distant past finished a nice 3 year degree course on these matters, and whilst simple in his explanation, everything he has said has been right. And you don't want to get too technical on a football forum about return on capital and sunk costs now do you - let's keep it understandable for everyone.

The bosmans principle is simple really:

Player A has 24 months left on his contract and has a market value of £5m. He asks for a salary of 50k a week over 3 years.

Player B has 2 months left on his contract, but is considered of equal value to player A. He asks for 50k a week + £5m/over 156 weeks (3 years). From that sum, a small percentage is then removed - say 10%.

For the club interested in either player A or B, player B still works out cheaper - even though he would be on a much higher salary, the total costs formula of fee + wages is 10% less for him than player A.

Thus, player B can and will ask for higher wages than his corresponding market value would suggest.

This logic works for lower league players as well, although less so because there is an increased number of free agents available (released by top clubs) and the fees make a smaller proportion of total costs. You could argue that rather than having the free agents benefit here, in lower leagues, the transfer fee players need to accept lower wages to remain competitive. Same principle, different perspective.


edit: also, depending on the contract, buying oneself out of it equates to the full remaining value of the contract only most of the time. A contract is a legal agreement between two parties, there is no fixed form and set of rules about details such as that - for all we know, Jo might be contractually obliged to wear clown shoes every other Friday.

 

[I remember the kippax]

- for all we know, Jo might be contractually obliged to wear clown shoes every other Friday.

Rather than on match days like he usually did?????

;-)

 

[ElanJo]

footballers get paid more than doctors & so on thats a joke but thats how it is nowadays cant do anything about it

Yes there is. Don't go to games, don't buy shirts etc., stop buying anything from anyone who pumps money into the game, including SKY, and don't vote for crazy tax laws...

 

[Soulboy]

I am not discussing this anymore with you. You are too simple. Stop trying to make out you have a clue. It is very obvious that you do not.

ps - Owen Coyle said that about Petrov you plonker. I am guessing he knows a little bit more about such things than yourself.

Sorry man, but just to say - I've in the not too distant past finished a nice 3 year degree course on these matters, and whilst simple in his explanation, everything he has said has been right. And you don't want to get too technical on a football forum about return on capital and sunk costs now do you - let's keep it understandable for everyone.

The bosmans principle is simple really:

Player A has 24 months left on his contract and has a market value of £5m. He asks for a salary of 50k a week over 3 years.

Player B has 2 months left on his contract, but is considered of equal value to player A. He asks for 50k a week + £5m/over 156 weeks (3 years). From that sum, a small percentage is then removed - say 10%.

For the club interested in either player A or B, player B still works out cheaper - even though he would be on a much higher salary, the total costs formula of fee + wages is 10% less for him than player A.

Thus, player B can and will ask for higher wages than his corresponding market value would suggest.

This logic works for lower league players as well, although less so because there is an increased number of free agents available (released by top clubs) and the fees make a smaller proportion of total costs. You could argue that rather than having the free agents benefit here, in lower leagues, the transfer fee players need to accept lower wages to remain competitive. Same principle, different perspective.


edit: also, depending on the contract, buying oneself out of it equates to the full remaining value of the contract only most of the time. A contract is a legal agreement between two parties, there is no fixed form and set of rules about details such as that - for all we know, Jo might be contractually obliged to wear clown shoes every other Friday.

Cheers mate. It's nice to have a rational discussion with someone who knows what they are talking about rather than two numpties who gain their knowledge of contract law and economics through reading the Daily Sport.

I have a post-graduate qualification in Economics and Business Management, and the two half-wits think they can take me on in discussing free market principles... ha-de-fucking-ha!

I realise I spoke too simple for them, I tried my very best to make it understandable to them... and failed.

Well, I've learned a lesson from that, I can assure you... don't argue with idiots who would struggle to spell Keynes let alone discuss him...

 

[SWP's back]

I am not discussing this anymore with you. You are too simple. Stop trying to make out you have a clue. It is very obvious that you do not.

ps - Owen Coyle said that about Petrov you plonker. I am guessing he knows a little bit more about such things than yourself.

Sorry man, but just to say - I've in the not too distant past finished a nice 3 year degree course on these matters, and whilst simple in his explanation, everything he has said has been right. And you don't want to get too technical on a football forum about return on capital and sunk costs now do you - let's keep it understandable for everyone.

The bosmans principle is simple really:

Player A has 24 months left on his contract and has a market value of £5m. He asks for a salary of 50k a week over 3 years.

Player B has 2 months left on his contract, but is considered of equal value to player A. He asks for 50k a week + £5m/over 156 weeks (3 years). From that sum, a small percentage is then removed - say 10%.

For the club interested in either player A or B, player B still works out cheaper - even though he would be on a much higher salary, the total costs formula of fee + wages is 10% less for him than player A.

Thus, player B can and will ask for higher wages than his corresponding market value would suggest.

This logic works for lower league players as well, although less so because there is an increased number of free agents available (released by top clubs) and the fees make a smaller proportion of total costs. You could argue that rather than having the free agents benefit here, in lower leagues, the transfer fee players need to accept lower wages to remain competitive. Same principle, different perspective.


edit: also, depending on the contract, buying oneself out of it equates to the full remaining value of the contract only most of the time. A contract is a legal agreement between two parties, there is no fixed form and set of rules about details such as that - for all we know, Jo might be contractually obliged to wear clown shoes every other Friday.

So you agree with me then? But done the quote on the wrong person.

-- Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:22 pm --

Sorry man, but just to say - I've in the not too distant past finished a nice 3 year degree course on these matters, and whilst simple in his explanation, everything he has said has been right. And you don't want to get too technical on a football forum about return on capital and sunk costs now do you - let's keep it understandable for everyone.

The bosmans principle is simple really:

Player A has 24 months left on his contract and has a market value of £5m. He asks for a salary of 50k a week over 3 years.

Player B has 2 months left on his contract, but is considered of equal value to player A. He asks for 50k a week + £5m/over 156 weeks (3 years). From that sum, a small percentage is then removed - say 10%.

For the club interested in either player A or B, player B still works out cheaper - even though he would be on a much higher salary, the total costs formula of fee + wages is 10% less for him than player A.

Thus, player B can and will ask for higher wages than his corresponding market value would suggest.

This logic works for lower league players as well, although less so because there is an increased number of free agents available (released by top clubs) and the fees make a smaller proportion of total costs. You could argue that rather than having the free agents benefit here, in lower leagues, the transfer fee players need to accept lower wages to remain competitive. Same principle, different perspective.


edit: also, depending on the contract, buying oneself out of it equates to the full remaining value of the contract only most of the time. A contract is a legal agreement between two parties, there is no fixed form and set of rules about details such as that - for all we know, Jo might be contractually obliged to wear clown shoes every other Friday.

Cheers mate. It's nice to have a rational discussion with someone who knows what they are talking about rather than two numpties who gain their knowledge of contract law and economics through reading the Daily Sport.

I have a post-graduate qualification in Economics and Business Management, and the two half-wits think they can take me on in discussing free market principles... ha-de-fucking-ha!

I realise I spoke too simple for them, I tried my very best to make it understandable to them... and failed.

Well, I've learned a lesson from that, I can assure you... don't argue with idiots who would struggle to spell Keynes let alone discuss him...

As opposed to myself, a wealth-manager with one Premier League player and one League One player on my books (none play for City and I am not ITK on transfers before anyone pm's me).

Numpty does not do you justice.

Go back to your classroom.

If you read what Dhenry wrote Soulboy, you will see that the player out of contract and free on a bosman will receive a higher salary than player A who may be worth the same - my point from the bloody start. (maybe add English to your studies?)

But as I say, you are too simple to understand. Anyway, enjoy your degree! (ps I also have one, they are not too difficult to earn - mug).

 

[Dhenry]

If you read what Dhenry wrote Soulboy, you will see that the player out of contract and free on a bosman will receive a higher salary than player A who may be worth the same - my point from the bloody start. (maybe add English to your studies?)

But as I say, you are too simple to understand. Anyway, enjoy your degree! (ps I also have one, they are not too difficult to earn - mug).

If i've done any injustice towards you - my bad. But I think you could've been clearer in making that point then - since I did not realise I was agreeing with you, having read your posts.

 

[SWP's back]

If you read what Dhenry wrote Soulboy, you will see that the player out of contract and free on a bosman will receive a higher salary than player A who may be worth the same - my point from the bloody start. (maybe add English to your studies?)

But as I say, you are too simple to understand. Anyway, enjoy your degree! (ps I also have one, they are not too difficult to earn - mug).

If i've done any injustice towards you - my bad. But I think you could've been clearer in making that point then - since I did not realise I was agreeing with you, having read your posts.

My posts simply state that a player with no contract can earn more than another player (all things being equal) in wages from a new club, as the new club do not have to pay a transfer fee.

Soulboy disagreed with that:

You seriously don't understand economics and the wage-supply business model model, do you?

Bosman's do NOT automatically get higher wages just because they are on a free. Who told you that?
Every Bosman deal is paid by the club as to what they can afford. And that's it. Clubs DO want players to run out of contract... it gets their wages off the books. Do you not think City would love Jo, Caceido and Garido to be out of contract and off the wage bill?

Where as I put this in reply:

Oh yes they do. You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail. Sol Campbell is one very large example of this. Or Bolton saying last week the reason they could afford to pay Petrov £35k per week was that they got a £5M player for free.

Not sure why you were confused.

The funny thing is Soulboy thanking you and calling me stupid without actually reading your post. Irony at its very best really.