You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Adebayor gone (& we aren't paying his wages)
- Thread starter Stretfordian_Blue
- Start date
sniff said:Rolee said:Apply a bit of common sense to this and you get your answer.
Why would City continue to subsidise his wage when he is no longer on their books? Is it not more likely that they paid him off in a lump sum and then cut all ties?
Common sense would dictate that none of us have a clue would it not ? speculation is all we have on either argument at best
No common sense would tell you that a player that is no longer on the books is not on the payroll.
Rolee said:sniff said:Rolee said:Apply a bit of common sense to this and you get your answer.
Why would City continue to subsidise his wage when he is no longer on their books? Is it not more likely that they paid him off in a lump sum and then cut all ties?
Common sense would dictate that none of us have a clue would it not ? speculation is all we have on either argument at best
No common sense would tell you that a player that is no longer on the books is not on the payroll.
So are you saying you know whats going on then ? if so please tell us we are dying to know !!
Unless you know that for a fact, what i said is correct isnt it ?
He didn't say that, he said it was common sense.sniff said:Rolee said:sniff said:Common sense would dictate that none of us have a clue would it not ? speculation is all we have on either argument at best
No common sense would tell you that a player that is no longer on the books is not on the payroll.
So are you saying you know whats going on then ? if so please tell us we are dying to know !!
Unless you know that for a fact, what i said is correct isnt it ?
kp220
Well-Known Member
sniff said:Rolee said:sniff said:Common sense would dictate that none of us have a clue would it not ? speculation is all we have on either argument at best
No common sense would tell you that a player that is no longer on the books is not on the payroll.
So are you saying you know whats going on then ? if so please tell us we are dying to know !!
Unless you know that for a fact, what i said is correct isnt it ?
I wish you'd both give it a rest and let the rest of us get on with flapping !
sniff said:Rolee said:sniff said:Common sense would dictate that none of us have a clue would it not ? speculation is all we have on either argument at best
No common sense would tell you that a player that is no longer on the books is not on the payroll.
So are you saying you know whats going on then ? if so please tell us we are dying to know !!
Unless you know that for a fact, what i said is correct isnt it ?
When did I say I know what's going on? It just seems obvious to me that you don't pay someone a weekly wage if they are not your employee.
Danamy
Well-Known Member
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.
Danamy said:The one thing this thread has done is highlight the amount of people that haven't got a scooby when it comes to transfer dealings.
After posting the above can I just say what a breath of fresh air it is to read SWP's back post, you should give yourself a pat on the back.
After that post the thread should either be locked or moved........in my humble opinion of course
pudge said:He didn't say that, he said it was common sense.sniff said:Rolee said:No common sense would tell you that a player that is no longer on the books is not on the payroll.
So are you saying you know whats going on then ? if so please tell us we are dying to know !!
Unless you know that for a fact, what i said is correct isnt it ?
but his first comment made a statement didnt it. and so did the second one... both being assumptions...
again i will say, common sense would be that we dont know whats going on.
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
cleaned up
post away
post away