Selling club: We want rid of this guy. We'll give you xxx% of anything over €xxm.Why would the selling club pay the agents fee?
You've assumed that's what it means. Do you know what Net Book Value is?I'm basing it on Juve's official statement:
http://www.juventus.com/media/native/investor-relations-docs/english/price-sensitive-press-releases/2015-2016/comunicato 09082016 pogba eng.pdf
They're claiming they received a net profit of 72.6 million euros. That means they had to pay up 27 million pounds for something. I'm assuming that's the agent's fee.
The only one that comes to mind is Otamendi for his rolling around. I'd he'd signed for the Rags I'd genuinely dislike him. Hopefully he'll stop doing it.What a nice guy. Come to think of it, we haven't got any players who'd I probably wouldn't like if they played for another team.
If I'm not mistaken, when Pogba signed the contract with Juventus, there was clause in it that his agent would receive 25% of a future transfer fee, in exchange for steering Pogba towards Juventus to sign for free. There was also a huge signing bonus for Pogba at the time as well as a house that Juve had to buy for him.Why would the selling club pay the agents fee?
Feel free to enlighten me.You've assumed that's what it means. Do you know what Net Book Value is?
Depends on how they do their accounts really, they could be saying that the profit made on the player's book value was 72m eg they had him on their balance sheet as an asset worth 33m, which would fit in with the contract he was on. It could be a net profit on total transactions on the asset eg fee received less buying price (800k) less wages etc. I'll tell you one thing though, there hasn't been an exchange rate of 1:1.65 between Sterling and Euro in their existence so it's not the agent fee of £20m and if Juve had been paying the agent fee the transfer fee would have been reported as £72m by the rag sycophants in the media. We'll find out on the spike in costs when the rags release their full accounts for this season but to be honest, I think you're well off target here.Feel free to enlighten me.
OK cool, either way the rags got robbed.Depends on how they do their accounts really, they could be saying that the profit made on the player's book value was 72m eg they had him on their balance sheet as an asset worth 33m, which would fit in with the contract he was on. It could be a net profit on total transactions on the asset eg fee received less buying price (800k) less wages etc. I'll tell you one thing though, there hasn't been an exchange rate of 1:1.65 between Sterling and Euro in their existence so it's not the agent fee of £20m and if Juve had been paying the agent fee the transfer fee would have been reported as £72m by the rag sycophants in the media. We'll find out on the spike in costs when the rags release their full accounts for this season but to be honest, I think you're well off target here.
On exchange rates at the time of transfer £20m would have been about €23.5m, so if you were right then that Juve statement would have stated €81.5m as the economic benefit.