Adebayor gone (& we aren't paying his wages)

[cleavers]

Not sure why people can't understand that rather than spurs paying 10m for him they've give City 5m and Ade 5m signing on fee to cover his loss of wages.

I heard that we are still paying some of his wages.

I can't understand it either, its a pretty simple formula really, to imagine we are also paying some of his wages seems pretty unlikely.

 

[kinkladze10]

How do we know city ain't paying some of his wages ?

Because its against the law

?

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

I've heard that not only are we paying all his wages at spurs, we're also going to have to build them a new 50 thousand seater stadium (haggling it down from 60 thousand). Further, should they sell him to another club in the future we're going to have to pay his wages whilst he's at that club and pay half the transfer fee. That Levi is a shrewd operator, all right....

 

[Gordyola]

Cant find anything specific that rules out City continuing to pay his wages except this

No Club shall enter into a contract which enables any party to that
contract to acquire the ability materially to influence the Club’s policies
or the performance of its teams in Matches and/or Competitions. This
Rule shall be applied in conjunction with any regulations governing Third
Party Investment in Players as may be adopted by The Association from
time to time.

My guess would be that we have agreed a pay-off to the end of his contract that equates to the difference between what Spurs are paying him and what he would have been paid by City paid in stages over the period that equals his City contract

 

[SWP's back]

You have to consider that given his wages, only a select few clubs would afford him. I think we are "lucky" to have been able to sell him

If we have sold him for £5m and pay 90k pw for 2 years = £4.3m out

If we hadn't sold him it would be £18.2m out. So we save 14m

I ran through the correct figures about 50 pages ago.

They are not the above.

We have saved (and taken in) £23m on him over the next two years.

We are not paying his wages.

I hate this thread.<br /><br />-- Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:12 pm --<br /><br />

17 PL goals and only £5m. And City paying him £175,000 a week. What's that all about? What photo has he got?

Oh ffs. I can't even tell who is wumming anymore.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Oh ffs. I can't even tell who is wumming anymore.

Made me spill my glass of wine.

 

[SWP's back]

One last time I shall post this:

Ok, I shall walk you through it one last time. And it is in the public domain, on the whole, so long as you ignore the bollocks in most papers. But this is info from the inside, those that know me, know my source on this one and I'm happy to stand up and say it.

We wanted £10-12m for him. Spurs said they couldn't afford that AND his wages. We tried to flog him to everyone for the last 12 months without success to we decided to take a view.

We then accepted a £5m bid from spurs, allowing spurs to pay him a huge signing on fee. This in effect means we have subsidised his wages for the next two years of his contract (the difference between his new £80k wage and his old £175,000 wage, less NI and image rights).

Now, we had already written off his book value in last seasons accounts. What todays deal does is end his amortisation cost and frees up £23m (£5m fee plus saving of £175,000 x 104 weeks (2 years left of his contract)) over the next two years.

Now that money was dead money, we received no player, no goals, no assists, nothing from him being on the books. We now have a place free in the squad and some additional money to play with.

If you cannot see that as a good thing or a saving then more fool you. We have now received, from Spurs, £9m in total (£5m fee plus £4m loan fee). He was signed for £25m over a 5 year period. His amortisation is £5m per year making his notional book value £10m at this point. So in effect, we have lost £1m on the deal, but in accounting terms it will actually be a profit as we wrote off his £15m book value last September under "exceptional items" in our books (along with nearly £20m on Santa Cruz and £5m on Wayne Bride).

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/manchester-city-masterplan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ ... rplan.html</a> (for the exceptional items)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2188285/Emmanuel-Adebayors-money-problems--Neil-Ashton-column.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... olumn.html</a>

(the above article is a City leak directly from Marwood to Ashton last Tuesday to help push the deal through)

If you need any more sources then sorry, as I say, those that know me well on here know who I occasionally get info from, though rarely ahead of transfers in.

As for my abrasive style, foe me if you don't like it, I've more than enough friends on here to last me a lifetime and I don't need to post in a way that pleases you.

People should really focus on Ashton's piece in the Mail as that was directly briefed by City. Much like the Mirror, Mail and Telegraph were yesterday afternoon.

 

[Rammy Blue]

One last time I shall post this:

Ok, I shall walk you through it one last time. And it is in the public domain, on the whole, so long as you ignore the bollocks in most papers. But this is info from the inside, those that know me, know my source on this one and I'm happy to stand up and say it.

We wanted £10-12m for him. Spurs said they couldn't afford that AND his wages. We tried to flog him to everyone for the last 12 months without success to we decided to take a view.

We then accepted a £5m bid from spurs, allowing spurs to pay him a huge signing on fee. This in effect means we have subsidised his wages for the next two years of his contract (the difference between his new £80k wage and his old £175,000 wage, less NI and image rights).

Now, we had already written off his book value in last seasons accounts. What todays deal does is end his amortisation cost and frees up £23m (£5m fee plus saving of £175,000 x 104 weeks (2 years left of his contract)) over the next two years.

Now that money was dead money, we received no player, no goals, no assists, nothing from him being on the books. We now have a place free in the squad and some additional money to play with.

If you cannot see that as a good thing or a saving then more fool you. We have now received, from Spurs, £9m in total (£5m fee plus £4m loan fee). He was signed for £25m over a 5 year period. His amortisation is £5m per year making his notional book value £10m at this point. So in effect, we have lost £1m on the deal, but in accounting terms it will actually be a profit as we wrote off his £15m book value last September under "exceptional items" in our books (along with nearly £20m on Santa Cruz and £5m on Wayne Bride).

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/manchester-city-masterplan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ ... rplan.html</a> (for the exceptional items)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2188285/Emmanuel-Adebayors-money-problems--Neil-Ashton-column.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... olumn.html</a>

(the above article is a City leak directly from Marwood to Ashton last Tuesday to help push the deal through)

If you need any more sources then sorry, as I say, those that know me well on here know who I occasionally get info from, though rarely ahead of transfers in.

As for my abrasive style, foe me if you don't like it, I've more than enough friends on here to last me a lifetime and I don't need to post in a way that pleases you.

People should really focus on Ashton's piece in the Mail as that was directly briefed by City. Much like the Mirror, Mail and Telegraph were yesterday afternoon.

That's a bit long winded for this time of night mate.

In summary, how much per week are we subsidizing his wage?

 

[Blue Haze]

One last time I shall post this:

Ok, I shall walk you through it one last time. And it is in the public domain, on the whole, so long as you ignore the bollocks in most papers. But this is info from the inside, those that know me, know my source on this one and I'm happy to stand up and say it.

We wanted £10-12m for him. Spurs said they couldn't afford that AND his wages. We tried to flog him to everyone for the last 12 months without success to we decided to take a view.

We then accepted a £5m bid from spurs, allowing spurs to pay him a huge signing on fee. This in effect means we have subsidised his wages for the next two years of his contract (the difference between his new £80k wage and his old £175,000 wage, less NI and image rights).

Now, we had already written off his book value in last seasons accounts. What todays deal does is end his amortisation cost and frees up £23m (£5m fee plus saving of £175,000 x 104 weeks (2 years left of his contract)) over the next two years.

Now that money was dead money, we received no player, no goals, no assists, nothing from him being on the books. We now have a place free in the squad and some additional money to play with.

If you cannot see that as a good thing or a saving then more fool you. We have now received, from Spurs, £9m in total (£5m fee plus £4m loan fee). He was signed for £25m over a 5 year period. His amortisation is £5m per year making his notional book value £10m at this point. So in effect, we have lost £1m on the deal, but in accounting terms it will actually be a profit as we wrote off his £15m book value last September under "exceptional items" in our books (along with nearly £20m on Santa Cruz and £5m on Wayne Bride).

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/manchester-city-masterplan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ ... rplan.html</a> (for the exceptional items)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2188285/Emmanuel-Adebayors-money-problems--Neil-Ashton-column.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... olumn.html</a>

(the above article is a City leak directly from Marwood to Ashton last Tuesday to help push the deal through)

If you need any more sources then sorry, as I say, those that know me well on here know who I occasionally get info from, though rarely ahead of transfers in.

As for my abrasive style, foe me if you don't like it, I've more than enough friends on here to last me a lifetime and I don't need to post in a way that pleases you.

People should really focus on Ashton's piece in the Mail as that was directly briefed by City. Much like the Mirror, Mail and Telegraph were yesterday afternoon.

 

[stony]

One last time I shall post this:

Ok, I shall walk you through it one last time. And it is in the public domain, on the whole, so long as you ignore the bollocks in most papers. But this is info from the inside, those that know me, know my source on this one and I'm happy to stand up and say it.

We wanted £10-12m for him. Spurs said they couldn't afford that AND his wages. We tried to flog him to everyone for the last 12 months without success to we decided to take a view.

We then accepted a £5m bid from spurs, allowing spurs to pay him a huge signing on fee. This in effect means we have subsidised his wages for the next two years of his contract (the difference between his new £80k wage and his old £175,000 wage, less NI and image rights).

Now, we had already written off his book value in last seasons accounts. What todays deal does is end his amortisation cost and frees up £23m (£5m fee plus saving of £175,000 x 104 weeks (2 years left of his contract)) over the next two years.

Now that money was dead money, we received no player, no goals, no assists, nothing from him being on the books. We now have a place free in the squad and some additional money to play with.

If you cannot see that as a good thing or a saving then more fool you. We have now received, from Spurs, £9m in total (£5m fee plus £4m loan fee). He was signed for £25m over a 5 year period. His amortisation is £5m per year making his notional book value £10m at this point. So in effect, we have lost £1m on the deal, but in accounting terms it will actually be a profit as we wrote off his £15m book value last September under "exceptional items" in our books (along with nearly £20m on Santa Cruz and £5m on Wayne Bride).

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/manchester-city-masterplan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ ... rplan.html</a> (for the exceptional items)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2188285/Emmanuel-Adebayors-money-problems--Neil-Ashton-column.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... olumn.html</a>

(the above article is a City leak directly from Marwood to Ashton last Tuesday to help push the deal through)

If you need any more sources then sorry, as I say, those that know me well on here know who I occasionally get info from, though rarely ahead of transfers in.

As for my abrasive style, foe me if you don't like it, I've more than enough friends on here to last me a lifetime and I don't need to post in a way that pleases you.

People should really focus on Ashton's piece in the Mail as that was directly briefed by City. Much like the Mirror, Mail and Telegraph were yesterday afternoon.

Remember that mod that Damocles made on the forum a few years ago ? When you typed in a thread title and it was a duplicate thread, it automatically directed you to the existing thread and didn't allow you to start a new one.
We should bring that back but only for Ade threads and it should just link them to your post.
I'm sick to death of reading that we are paying his fucking wages.