OccupiedPalestineBlues
Well-Known Member
At the end of the contract term the players value is £0 regardless of age you nob.
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.
Harry Kane
- Thread starter Super Joey Hart
- Start date
He wasn’t talking about that at all. He was responding to poster stating:You do realise we were talking about up-front transfer value, not amortisation principles? You appear to have become confused in your excitement. Or maybe it was an attempt to cover your tracks.
I repeat: All things being equal, who costs more in transfer fee: the older or the younger player?
Straight answer please. No whimpering about harassment (haha) this time and spare us the four paragraphs of bluster.
A player is an asset and will have a market value throughtheir contract.
So his initial post which you asked if he’d got out of a textbook actually seems spot on the way I’ve read it. Players are intangible assets, so they don’t actually have a ‘market value’ through their contract.
Makes sense to me anyway.
OccupiedPalestineBlues
Well-Known Member
From that little diatribe, I can see those £100M deals are not related to football transfers!
In business terms a player is an asset leased or contracted for a period, the costs are fixed (subject to agreed deviance / achieved bonuses etc) the market value of the asset fluctuates and the asset has no value beyond the term of the contract or lease.
I see your sarcasm but I don’t see anything tangible to back it up.
Please tell me where I’m wrong or shut the fuck up eh?
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
At the end of the contract term the players value is £0 regardless of age you nob.
Still dodging then? WTF’s that got to do with up-front transfer value?
If I locked twelve monkeys in a room for 5 minutes, giving each an abacus and typewriter, I’d hope for a better answer than yours.
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
He said:He wasn’t talking about that at all. He was responding to poster stating:
A player is an asset and will have a market value throughtheir contract.
So his initial post which you asked if he’d got out of a textbook actually seems spot on the way I’ve read it. Players are intangible assets, so they don’t actually have a ‘market value’ through their contract.
Makes sense to me anyway.
“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”.
OccupiedPalestineBlues
Well-Known Member
I’m dodging nothing whatsoever, you’ve not yet asked me a question you dickwipe.Still dodging then? WTF’s that got to do with up-front transfer value?
If I locked twelve monkeys in a room for 5 minutes, giving each an abacus and typewriter, I’d hope for a better answer than yours.
Larry Stranger
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 1,264
Although Haaland seems more attractive because he's younger and will give you more years there is also wages you need to consider. He's 20 years old and even if you get a good transfer deal for him this year or wait for the buyout clause next summer, how much would he want?Why woudlnt we fancy our chances in any auction.....we are a top top attraction.
This is why blocking ourselves off from Haaland by buying Kane makes no sense long term to me
Say that he wants a deal at £400k per week in his contract. Beside the potential of upsetting other squad members, that wage will only go up when Riola wants to negotiate a new one down the road. You could say he's worth it, but at what point does it become ridiculous money and have to decide to stick or twist to sell him to Barca or Madrid for example?
You can keep him and pay the wages, but how much times you will have to give him an improved contract seeing he's only 20? Also with FFP you could become what Barca or PSG are. A team with 1 or 2 superstars and the rest with average players because you can't afford to bulk up the rest of your squad.
I think Kane coming would mean a decent wage for him, but probably only would only need to give him an improved contract once. Then he'd be off the books at which point you can pay some of you up and coming players.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Kane is wealthy and will retire a wealthy man so its not about money for him. If he wants to look back on a great career he needs trophies. He must look a Kun today moving on after picking up his 5th Pl winners medal having won 6 LC medals and an FA Cup with jealousy. Its up to him what he wants to do but I think its clear.
Which makes sense if I understand what’s been said. If it’s an intangible asset, it doesn’t take account of a sell on fee.He said:
“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”.
A car is a tangible asset, so the sell on price would be taken Into account.
That makes perfect sense to me, even if doesn’t to you