Harry Kane

Harry Kane is a brilliant player. As much as anyone else I’ve loved taking the piss out of him over the years (dirty, ugly, diving, cockney fraud etc) but if he pulls on a blue shirt that’ll soon be forgotten. Gutted about Sergio but recognise we’ve been privileged to keep a player who, in his prime, could’ve graced any team in the world. Life goes on though.

10 years ago we took punts and our signings talked about the attraction of ‘the project’ whilst the Spanish clubs just signed the best players. Haaland has great potential but is unproven in the Premier League. Kane is the best currently available and we are no longer a project, we are the best
 
OccupiedPalestineBlues said:
I’m a retired commercial director.
I worked for a FSTE top 100 company that entrusted me to a sole decision remit up to £20M, and that was a decade ago.
Thus I have reason to believe that I have a fair grasp of “business decisions”.

If you feel that anything I wrote was factually incorrect then please point it out as I’ll be happy to mull it over.I know enough to know that I’m not always right, even on my specialist topic, and I’m always pleased to be educated.

I’m less than happy to be on the receiving end of your arrogantly abusive judgement, Mr Baconface, you often write good stuff and I expected better of you.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you are offended but let me remind you what you wrote:

“The point is that the price paid for a player (purchase fee, signing on bonus, agents fee, taxes etc.) doesn’t take any account of a ‘sell on’ fee because a sell on fee isn’t tangible / no reliance can be placed on one”.

So I ask you: how can you ignore residual value when it permeates the commercial world?

Take player X and player Y, identical in every respect except age. X is 25. Y is 30.

Which one has the higher transfer value? You’re inferring they’re the same. I’m saying X because the implicit sell-on opportunity is factored in.

You talk of reliance and intangibles. Well, as with any investment, everything about a transfer is a calculated gamble based on probability. The new player might turn to shit or get crocked tomorrow. Why is sell-on prospect any different, other than being further away in time?

I’ve been hard on you because you’ve been strident with financial assertions that have no place in any business world I’ve encountered.
 
Trojan1962 said:
Would prefer Haaland over Kane due to age and potential with Peps influence.
Click to expand...

I think the club would prefer Haaland too, but if we’ve completely gone all in for Kane it likely signals that Haaland was unobtainable this summer, as has been consistently stated by their board in the media.

I don’t see us getting rid of Aguero and then not signing a number 9 this summer and it’s going to be a complete shit show trying to sign Haaland next summer at a release clause of €75m. Every big club in Europe will be in for him.
 
One thing I think is a positive with buying Kane is he will have watched us winning it today and he'll be fucking chomping at the bit to win the league. Just like Van Pussy joining the rags that desire could be the deciding factor in us retaining the title.
 
sir baconface said:
Sorry if you are offended but let me remind you what you wrote:

“The point is that the price paid for a player (purchase fee, signing on bonus, agents fee, taxes etc.) doesn’t take any account of a ‘sell on’ fee because a sell on fee isn’t tangible / no reliance can be placed on one”.

So I ask you: how can you ignore residual value when it permeates the commercial world?

Take player X and player Y, identical in every respect except age. X is 25. Y is 30.

Which one has the higher transfer value? You’re inferring they’re the same. I’m saying X because the implicit sell-on opportunity is factored in.

You talk of reliance and intangibles. Well, as with any investment, everything about a transfer is a calculated gamble based on probability. The new player might turn to shit or get crocked tomorrow. Why is sell-on prospect any different, other than being further away in time?

I’ve been hard on you because you’ve been strident with financial assertions that have no place in any business world I’ve encountered.
Click to expand...
*mic drop*
 
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.