Prev: so thats what it means ...
Next: Rothschild Zionist Miliband Steps Up Bid to Hide Proof ofTorture
From: CJM on 12 May 2010 08:18 "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:slwGn.17627$Ir4.3933(a)newsfe28.ams2... > > > Confirmed by Rafa apparently. Aqulani leaving that is, not the fee. Also > includes a list of players who will be sold for small amounts or on frees: > Babel, Ngog, El Zhar, Degen, Aurelio, Plessis, Cavalieri and Riera. It is a bullshit story.... *IF* he is sold there is a chance that we won't get full value for him, and that isn't surprising given his injury record and the fact he wasn't exactly fulling up trees. However, the real transfer fee was 20m� + 5% future fees, of which we have paid 8m� so far. I can't see him being sold for less than �15m, and certainly not the �7m that the Mirror are quoting... [Why are you reading that shite anyway??] As for the others, Babel would go for around �8m (-�3m), Ngog �3-4m (+�1.5m or more), El Zhar �3m(+�3m), Degen �2m (+�2m), Aurelio probably a free given that he is out of contract and a bit of a crock (+�0), Plessis �1m (+�1m), Cavalieri won't be sold, but if he were at least �4m (+�0.5m) and Riera �6m+ (-�2m) These figure are only guesstimates, but they are reasonable - and they show that we would likely break even at worst, and would likely make a modest profit. I don't think Babel will necessarily go, and I'm fairly sure that Cavalieri won't go. Getting rid of the others would be a blessing - providing we have funds to replace them!
From: Mentalguy2k8 on 12 May 2010 08:32 "CJM" <cjmuk2008(a)gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message news:84vkknF5sjU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:slwGn.17627$Ir4.3933(a)newsfe28.ams2... >> >> >> Confirmed by Rafa apparently. Aqulani leaving that is, not the fee. Also >> includes a list of players who will be sold for small amounts or on >> frees: Babel, Ngog, El Zhar, Degen, Aurelio, Plessis, Cavalieri and >> Riera. > > It is a bullshit story.... > > *IF* he is sold there is a chance that we won't get full value for him, > and that isn't surprising given his injury record and the fact he wasn't > exactly fulling up trees. However, the real transfer fee was 20m� + 5% > future fees, of which we have paid 8m� so far. Are you saying that as we've only had him a year, we won't have to pay the remaining 12m to Roma? I'll try that with Currys. Buy a 90" plasma TV on HP, sell it after a few months and then tell them I'm not paying any more cos I sold it! > > I can't see him being sold for less than �15m, and certainly not the �7m > that the Mirror are quoting... [Why are you reading that shite anyway??] Actually I hate that paper, I just check the BBC gossip page and follow up anything that interests me. It might all be bollocks, but it's more relevant than the Catholic vs Freemason shite...
From: CJM on 12 May 2010 10:22 "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:OdxGn.19158$bq.12710(a)newsfe30.ams2... > > "CJM" <cjmuk2008(a)gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message > news:84vkknF5sjU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:slwGn.17627$Ir4.3933(a)newsfe28.ams2... >>> >>> >>> Confirmed by Rafa apparently. Aqulani leaving that is, not the fee. Also >>> includes a list of players who will be sold for small amounts or on >>> frees: Babel, Ngog, El Zhar, Degen, Aurelio, Plessis, Cavalieri and >>> Riera. >> >> It is a bullshit story.... >> >> *IF* he is sold there is a chance that we won't get full value for him, >> and that isn't surprising given his injury record and the fact he wasn't >> exactly fulling up trees. However, the real transfer fee was 20m� + 5% >> future fees, of which we have paid 8m� so far. > > Are you saying that as we've only had him a year, we won't have to pay the > remaining 12m to Roma? > No, we'll have to pay it, plus the additional 5% - but none of the additional 'bonuses' that would be possible if we won this or that, or when he played x number of games - which the papers usually use to inflate the price. We are (currently) liable for 20m� (�18m approx) - If we sell him for �15m, we will have lost �3m which is little more than we would have paid to loan him. If he is supposedly that much of a failure, it would be a good result. If he's not that bad, then why not keep him - he is (currently) fit, and starting get to grips with the pace of the EPL. TBH, I only think that we would sell if a new manager came in and wanted the cash to build his own team.
From: chuck-spears on 13 May 2010 15:46 "CJM" <cjmuk2008(a)gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message news:84vru2Fh8tU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:OdxGn.19158$bq.12710(a)newsfe30.ams2... >> >> "CJM" <cjmuk2008(a)gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message >> news:84vkknF5sjU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> >>> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy2k8(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:slwGn.17627$Ir4.3933(a)newsfe28.ams2... >>>> >>>> >>>> Confirmed by Rafa apparently. Aqulani leaving that is, not the fee. >>>> Also includes a list of players who will be sold for small amounts or >>>> on frees: Babel, Ngog, El Zhar, Degen, Aurelio, Plessis, Cavalieri and >>>> Riera. >>> >>> It is a bullshit story.... >>> >>> *IF* he is sold there is a chance that we won't get full value for him, >>> and that isn't surprising given his injury record and the fact he wasn't >>> exactly fulling up trees. However, the real transfer fee was 20m� + 5% >>> future fees, of which we have paid 8m� so far. >> >> Are you saying that as we've only had him a year, we won't have to pay >> the remaining 12m to Roma? >> > > No, we'll have to pay it, plus the additional 5% - but none of the > additional 'bonuses' that would be possible if we won this or that, or > when he played x number of games - which the papers usually use to inflate > the price. > > We are (currently) liable for 20m� (�18m approx) - If we sell him for > �15m, we will have lost �3m which is little more than we would have paid > to loan him. If he is supposedly that much of a failure, it would be a > good result. If he's not that bad, then why not keep him - he is > (currently) fit, and starting get to grips with the pace of the EPL. > > TBH, I only think that we would sell if a new manager came in and wanted > the cash to build his own team. You have to take the value of transfers on the total of what you could be liable to pay if that player is successful because ultimately that's what you think the player is worth. No one buys a play so that he will be a flop, nor are they bought by the next club to be a flop, even if they have flopped at the present club.
|
Pages: 1 Prev: so thats what it means ... Next: Rothschild Zionist Miliband Steps Up Bid to Hide Proof ofTorture |