stonerblue said:BillyShears said:The market value for Carlos is going to be whatever people are prepared to pay for him in January. The arbitrary figure of 50 million which we put on his head this summer based on the Torres/Carrol transfers was placed there simply because we didn't want to sell him. It was prohibitively high and City knew it.
As I said earlier - 20/25 million in January and we'll be lucky as fuck to have escaped with that and having him off the wage bill...
Time to move on from Carlos anyway... seems the only people left who care are the lawyers who will undoubtedly profit from the entire sorry episode...
Surely that is the best indicator of market value seeing as it was a done deal, on the market.
City's figure wasn't high because we didn't wanna sell him, it was a fair price based on what we paid and his added value after a very good season.
cibaman said:stonerblue said:BillyShears said:The market value for Carlos is going to be whatever people are prepared to pay for him in January. The arbitrary figure of 50 million which we put on his head this summer based on the Torres/Carrol transfers was placed there simply because we didn't want to sell him. It was prohibitively high and City knew it.
As I said earlier - 20/25 million in January and we'll be lucky as fuck to have escaped with that and having him off the wage bill...
Time to move on from Carlos anyway... seems the only people left who care are the lawyers who will undoubtedly profit from the entire sorry episode...
Surely that is the best indicator of market value seeing as it was a done deal, on the market.
City's figure wasn't high because we didn't wanna sell him, it was a fair price based on what we paid and his added value after a very good season.
The problem is that there just isnt a sufficiently high enough volume of transfers of top football strikers that a Court, comprising of non football experts, would consider to be a reliable indicator of market value.
Its not like buying second hand cars where there are thousands of such trades.
Quoting a small number of transfers such as Torres and Carroll just wouldnt cut it for a High Court judge. Justice Old Fogey isnt going to work out that if Carroll is worth £35m, and he's a lump of wood, then Tevez must be worth £50m.
A half decent lawyer would be able to pursuade them that the market value of any player depends on a range of circumstances specific to that player and that market values of players go up and down on a daily basis (do we value him on the last day of the transfer window or the first?). In the case of Tevez they'll point out that City wanted one price for a sale to a South American club, another for a sale to a European club and yet another for a sale to a PL club.
They'll end up pursuading the judge that Tevez's market value, before Munich, could have been anywhere between £15m and £50m.
weejh said:Rumour on twitter that tevez has sent a medical certificate explaining he is not in a condition to return. @silviomaverino broke it.
I'm sure it will be written into his contract so that he has no wibble room...bluevengence said:Ahhhhh.....the old two pencils up the nose and
underpants on the head wheez i see
SWP's back said:cibaman said:stonerblue said:Surely that is the best indicator of market value seeing as it was a done deal, on the market.
City's figure wasn't high because we didn't wanna sell him, it was a fair price based on what we paid and his added value after a very good season.
The problem is that there just isnt a sufficiently high enough volume of transfers of top football strikers that a Court, comprising of non football experts, would consider to be a reliable indicator of market value.
Its not like buying second hand cars where there are thousands of such trades.
Quoting a small number of transfers such as Torres and Carroll just wouldnt cut it for a High Court judge. Justice Old Fogey isnt going to work out that if Carroll is worth £35m, and he's a lump of wood, then Tevez must be worth £50m.
A half decent lawyer would be able to pursuade them that the market value of any player depends on a range of circumstances specific to that player and that market values of players go up and down on a daily basis (do we value him on the last day of the transfer window or the first?). In the case of Tevez they'll point out that City wanted one price for a sale to a South American club, another for a sale to a European club and yet another for a sale to a PL club.
They'll end up pursuading the judge that Tevez's market value, before Munich, could have been anywhere between £15m and £50m.
As leading Premier League scorer, I don't see how it can be any lower than £40m
SWP's back said:cibaman said:stonerblue said:Surely that is the best indicator of market value seeing as it was a done deal, on the market.
City's figure wasn't high because we didn't wanna sell him, it was a fair price based on what we paid and his added value after a very good season.
The problem is that there just isnt a sufficiently high enough volume of transfers of top football strikers that a Court, comprising of non football experts, would consider to be a reliable indicator of market value.
Its not like buying second hand cars where there are thousands of such trades.
Quoting a small number of transfers such as Torres and Carroll just wouldnt cut it for a High Court judge. Justice Old Fogey isnt going to work out that if Carroll is worth £35m, and he's a lump of wood, then Tevez must be worth £50m.
A half decent lawyer would be able to pursuade them that the market value of any player depends on a range of circumstances specific to that player and that market values of players go up and down on a daily basis (do we value him on the last day of the transfer window or the first?). In the case of Tevez they'll point out that City wanted one price for a sale to a South American club, another for a sale to a European club and yet another for a sale to a PL club.
They'll end up pursuading the judge that Tevez's market value, before Munich, could have been anywhere between £15m and £50m.
As leading Premier League scorer, I don't see how it can be any lower than £40m