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

Marvin said:
oakiecokie said:
Wretched Vengeance said:
Ding ding.....round eleventeen....

Maybe SWP will be more than happy to explain it aaaaaagain?
Click to expand...

Is this a Clarkie ??
Click to expand...
The Daily Mail article is quite clear. Whether it's right is another matter. it supports what the BBC said ie. Adebayor to receive his City contract of £170k pw over the next two years. Not clear, according to the Daily Mail, City paid the difference between what Spurs are going to pay him up front or over the course of the next 2 years.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable
 
A player of his ability should really fetch around £10m at the least. So if we received £5m then we are effecively paying his wages albeit through a much reduced transfer fee. Or looked at another way, the £4m signing on fee paid be Spurs was funded by a much reduced transfer fee paid to City.

If we had only received £5m for him AND were still paying part of his wages then we really would have been mugged. But I cannot believe that is the case.
 
cibaman said:
A player of his ability should really fetch around £10m at the least. So if we received £5m then we are effecively paying his wages albeit through a much reduced transfer fee. Or looked at another way, the £4m signing on fee paid be Spurs was funded by a much reduced transfer fee paid to City.

If we had only received £5m for him AND were still paying part of his wages then we really would have been mugged. But I cannot believe that is the case.
Click to expand...
Have you read the last few pages?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Seems legit.
 
cibaman said:
A player of his ability should really fetch around £10m at the least. So if we received £5m then we are effecively paying his wages albeit through a much reduced transfer fee. Or looked at another way, the £4m signing on fee paid be Spurs was funded by a much reduced transfer fee paid to City.

If we had only received £5m for him AND were still paying part of his wages then we really would have been mugged. But I cannot believe that is the case.
Click to expand...
At least we made a profit of Caicedo's deal....

oh hold on a sec
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.