He's been a flop. So has Mata, so has shaw. These were expensive acquisitions that haven't fulfilled their potential. There's no denying that. Our most prolific acquisitions (Aguero, Silva and Toure) have been very successful. That's a fact.
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.
United Thread 2015/16
- Thread starter Mikejl
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Matty
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find we are looking at the loss. If any bonus payments were due to FIFA, why wouldn't they be included? Can you name any other player where the buying team had to stump up money to FIFA before they purchased that player?
Me neither so that money needs to be added to Di Maria's loss. "ASSESS' THAT.
Little wonder accountants get called boring bastards. (and that) ;-)
This is a cyclical discussion, I'm saying we have considered the items we ALWAYS consider when looking at the profit/loss of a transfer, namely the actual transfer fee involved (specifically the amount of money handed over to the selling club in order to purchase the player). We're treating Di Maria in the same way we treat any transfer, for our very basic assessment of his profit/loss. You are saying, for this specific transfer you believe we should include payments made by United to FIFA. Yes, we could include those, however then the comparison between the profit/loss on Di Maria, and the profit/loss on any other player we've considered wouldn't be possible. As I don't know the ins and outs of specific transfer dealings I clearly can't provide examples of other transfers where FIFA were paid money as well as the selling club, however I doubt Di Maria is the one and only time this has ever happened. Why would we include bonus payments to FIFA, but not bonus payments to Di Maria himself? Money being spent is money being spent, regardless of who it goes to. As that just opens up a murky, complex world of figures we simply don't have enough details on to specify it seems logical to keep this as simple as possible.
I'm saying we should use the transfer fee to compare the profit/loss, you're saying we should use the transfer fee and a bonus paid to FIFA. My argument is we normally exclude any and all bonus payments so why include one specific one in this instance? Rumour has it we need to buy Pogba's image rights if we're to sign him, if that isn't included in the transfer fee however, and is a separate figure not made widely available then I wouldn't expect us to use that when we, in our very amateur manner, assess the value of his (potential) purchase.
CheethamHillBlue
Well-Known Member
Arsehole.
How much were the add ons then?
FFS, not another accountant. :-(
£3.2m to Fifa (not including bonuses)
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
FFS, not another accountant. :-(
£3.2m to Fifa (not including bonuses)
Source?
CheethamHillBlue
Well-Known Member
This is a cyclical discussion, I'm saying we have considered the items we ALWAYS consider when looking at the profit/loss of a transfer, namely the actual transfer fee involved (specifically the amount of money handed over to the selling club in order to purchase the player). We're treating Di Maria in the same way we treat any transfer, for our very basic assessment of his profit/loss. You are saying, for this specific transfer you believe we should include payments made by United to FIFA. Yes, we could include those, however then the comparison between the profit/loss on Di Maria, and the profit/loss on any other player we've considered wouldn't be possible. As I don't know the ins and outs of specific transfer dealings I clearly can't provide examples of other transfers where FIFA were paid money as well as the selling club, however I doubt Di Maria is the one and only time this has ever happened. Why would we include bonus payments to FIFA, but not bonus payments to Di Maria himself? Money being spent is money being spent, regardless of who it goes to. As that just opens up a murky, complex world of figures we simply don't have enough details on to specify it seems logical to keep this as simple as possible.
I'm saying we should use the transfer fee to compare the profit/loss, you're saying we should use the transfer fee and a bonus paid to FIFA. My argument is we normally exclude any and all bonus payments so why include one specific one in this instance? Rumour has it we need to buy Pogba's image rights if we're to sign him, if that isn't included in the transfer fee however, and is a separate figure not made widely available then I wouldn't expect us to use that when we, in our very amateur manner, assess the value of his (potential) purchase.
Easiest way out of this. The rags paid £59.7m (or agreed to) and PSG have paid (or agreed to) around £44.3m = £15.4m LOSS.
That's without FIFA, Bonuses etc.
That's what the papers would be full of if City were the selling club.
CheethamHillBlue
Well-Known Member
Source?
It is in a well known British newspaper but i'm not at liberty to provide details of it on here. You could always Google it though. ;-)
Reports suggest that the Argentine winger actually set them back £130m, making him one of the most expensive signings of all time.
United are thought to be liable for £3.95m of performance-related payments.
They agreed to compensate Real for £3.2m of Fifa-mandated "solidarity payments" and ratified a further £3.95m of bonuses too.
Di Maria's salary will be £11.96m over five years, the highest basic wage in the Premier League.
Di Maria had a quiet debut for the Red Devils as they were held to a drab stalemate yesterday away at Burnley.
United are hoping to clinch a deal soon for Daley Blind after a £14m fee was agreed.
And they will be hoping that Marcos Rojo's work permit will be sorted soon after the Sporting Lisbon defender moved to Old Trafford.
United are thought to be liable for £3.95m of performance-related payments.
They agreed to compensate Real for £3.2m of Fifa-mandated "solidarity payments" and ratified a further £3.95m of bonuses too.
Di Maria's salary will be £11.96m over five years, the highest basic wage in the Premier League.
Di Maria had a quiet debut for the Red Devils as they were held to a drab stalemate yesterday away at Burnley.
United are hoping to clinch a deal soon for Daley Blind after a £14m fee was agreed.
And they will be hoping that Marcos Rojo's work permit will be sorted soon after the Sporting Lisbon defender moved to Old Trafford.
CheethamHillBlue
Well-Known Member
Reports suggest that the Argentine winger actually set them back £130m, making him one of the most expensive signings of all time.
United are thought to be liable for £3.95m of performance-related payments.
They agreed to compensate Real for £3.2m of Fifa-mandated "solidarity payments" and ratified a further £3.95m of bonuses too.
Di Maria's salary will be £11.96m over five years, the highest basic wage in the Premier League.
Di Maria had a quiet debut for the Red Devils as they were held to a drab stalemate yesterday away at Burnley.
United are hoping to clinch a deal soon for Daley Blind after a £14m fee was agreed.
And they will be hoping that Marcos Rojo's work permit will be sorted soon after the Sporting Lisbon defender moved to Old Trafford.
Cheers Blueincy. ;-)
And Mangala?He's been a flop. So has Mata, so has shaw. These were expensive acquisitions that haven't fulfilled their potential. There's no denying that. Our most prolific acquisitions (Aguero, Silva and Toure) have been very successful. That's a fact.
BooksReject
Well-Known Member
And Mangala?
why haven't you changed your name yet?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.