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

Cheers, I just really can't understand how people are ignoring what is staring at them in the face. City went mental yesterday afternoon when the first stories said we were paying his wages, they made a load of phone calls and all but the BBC stories changed to reflect that (my posts were before the new stories btw) yet wum after wum seem desperate to continue the lie.

If I was a mod, I would now ban everyone claiming we are paying wages for 24 hours to wobble their fucking heads.
 
SWP's back said:
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.

Do you get our info from the daily mail and a swiss roll blogspot by any chance

oops good post by the way
 
No I didn't get my info from there but the sources I posted are to help people not rely solely on my good character for reference as to how accurate my figures may be.

And cheers.
 
SWP's back said:
No I didn't get my info from there but the sources I posted are to help people not rely solely on my good character for reference as to how accurate my figures may be.

And cheers.

Thanks for explaining to financial thickos like me :).
 
SWP's back said:
Cheers, I just really can't understand how people are ignoring what is staring at them in the face. City went mental yesterday afternoon when the first stories said we were paying his wages, they made a load of phone calls and all but the BBC stories changed to reflect that (my posts were before the new stories btw) yet wum after wum seem desperate to continue the lie.

If I was a mod, I would now ban everyone claiming we are paying wages for 24 hours to wobble their fucking heads.

Fucking hell mate,no matter how or which way you print it,some fuckers will never understand,nor probably want to.
I`m sure it might be better in braille !! ;)
 
SWP's back said:
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 yspurs 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.


Top post mate thanks for the effort.
 
Wretched Vengeance said:
For me the important thing is he's gone and 2 years worth of excessive wages off the pay roll.

Bob didn't want him and we finally got rid.....good riddance!
I just wish we weren't paying his wages.
 
The Daily Mail article says

A few weeks ago, Manchester City made a fair, reasonable and considerate offer to Emmanuel Adebayor.
In a magnanimous gesture, they were prepared to pay up the difference between the offer on the table from Tottenham and his £170,000-a-week wages. With two years left on his contract, City were prepared to commit £10million to a player....Adebayor should consider himself fortunate that City have the inclination to pay up the vast majority of the remaining £17.6m left on his contract.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2188285/Emmanuel-Adebayors-money-problems--Neil-Ashton-column.html#ixzz24JYijZ7q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z24JYijZ7q</a>

So according to that we've either paid the shortfall in his wages up in one go, or more likely we're continuing to pay him until his contract expires....just as Leeds paid Fowler.

It's still a good deal as I can't see anyone else taking him for 175k
 
Marvin said:
The Daily Mail article says

A few weeks ago, Manchester City made a fair, reasonable and considerate offer to Emmanuel Adebayor.
In a magnanimous gesture, they were prepared to pay up the difference between the offer on the table from Tottenham and his £170,000-a-week wages. With two years left on his contract, City were prepared to commit £10million to a player....Adebayor should consider himself fortunate that City have the inclination to pay up the vast majority of the remaining £17.6m left on his contract.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2188285/Emmanuel-Adebayors-money-problems--Neil-Ashton-column.html#ixzz24JYijZ7q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z24JYijZ7q</a>

So according to that we've either paid the shortfall in his wages up in one go, or more likely we're continuing to pay him until his contract expires....just as Leeds paid Fowler.

It's still a good deal as I can't see anyone else taking him for 175k

*whistles for swp*
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.