Harry Kane

[blue oli]

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.

Well if the player is 17………

 

[sir baconface]

I’m dodging nothing whatsoever, you’ve not yet asked me a question you dickwipe.

Since you ask so nicely, here‘s the question first time:

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?

And here it is second time:

I repeat: All things being equal, who costs more in transfer fee: the older or the younger player?

Is that easy enough for you?

 

[talkativesprout]

I’m dodging nothing whatsoever, you’ve not yet asked me a question you dickwipe.

Asking for a friend...Is this a product used exclusively for Willy-Wiping?

 

[manimanc]

Well if the player is 17………

This reminds me of a thread about a footballer ... English, gone to Germany, commentators possibly said how old he is.

 

[skillman]

i think you're forgetting the fact we haven't picked up the phone to napoli's owner for 2 months last season because his agent said he'll handle things lol. these things aren't always as straightforward as it seems

That’s because Napoli’s owner is a known prick and luckily did us over with Jorginho 2 years prior

 

[simon23]

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?

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.

Haaland is much much more marketable than Kane especially in europe and and around the world.....this is the argument with payign for Messi - he could pay for himself in the future.

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

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

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.

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

You’re right.

If you leased or otherwise took out a contract to have the use of a car (or anything else) for 5 years then it doesn’t matter how old the car (or whatever) is, because they’re all worth £0 to you at the end of the lease / contract period period.

Anyone who doesn’t or can’t understand that shouldn’t be in charge of a household budget.

 

[Maly]

Since you ask so nicely, here‘s the question first time:

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?

And here it is second time:

I repeat: All things being equal, who costs more in transfer fee: the older or the younger player?

Is that easy enough for you?

That would depend on the selling club as it’s their asset. Nothing to do with age mate. Guess that’s why it’s called intangible?

 

[sir baconface]

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.

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

So two players, one aged 25 and the other 30, otherwise identical in ability, injury record, etc have exactly he same purchase price? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

Since you ask so nicely, here‘s the question first time:

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?

And here it is second time:

I repeat: All things being equal, who costs more in transfer fee: the older or the younger player?

Is that easy enough for you?

Your question has no relevance to the sell on value which is forever equal at the end of the contract at £0.

So stop acting like you’re thick when you’re only being a twat eh?