Transfer Rumours 2016/17 City Transfer Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
tigerscanada said:
Your introduction of the corporate veil was a red herring. Hence my comments. The value of the company to the purchaser or seller may change based on activity between offer and final agreement.
Click to expand...

You were questioning why the Allams weren't the direct owners of the club's assets, I explained that that was due to the corporate veil - i.e. the company that is Hull City Tigers Ltd or whatever it's called these days is not the Allams, it is its own entity. That was not a red herring.

If I have $100 in the bank and no other assets to my name, and then spend $2 on an apple, or spend $50 on an apple, and sit there with my apple in one hand and my cash in the other, do I still have $100 of assets? Does that change depending on how much I spent on the apple? (Disregarding any loss on sale in this situation)
 
We're getting way off track here. The initial question was whether the Chinese would be happy throwing money around for players, and the point is they have to sign off on the purchases too. So no, there would be no issues from the Chinese if/when players come in as they are signing off on them.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
We're getting way off track here. The initial question was whether the Chinese would be happy throwing money around for players, and the point is they have to sign off on the purchases too. So no, there would be no issues from the Chinese if/when players come in as they are signing off on them.
Click to expand...
You may be right about getting off track.
Just so you get an understanding... my initial response (post [HASHTAG]#6446[/HASHTAG]) was to you saying the asset value does not change if 50m was spent on players.(to McKechnie's Orange I believe). In the eyes of seller (Allams) or purchaser (Chinese) it may well do as they may well not agree on the valuation of the players purchased or sold before formal exchange of the company. It seemed to happen with the Yanks offer, but it may well have been a misunderstanding of what was actually included in the package. Asset value can be very subjective - particularly to a vendor.
 
tigerscanada said:
You may be right about getting off track.
Just so you get an understanding... my initial response (post [HASHTAG]#6446[/HASHTAG]) was to you saying the asset value does not change if 50m was spent on players.(to McKechnie's Orange I believe). In the eyes of seller (Allams) or purchaser (Chinese) it may well do as they may well not agree on the valuation of the players purchased or sold before formal exchange of the company. It seemed to happen with the Yanks offer, but it may well have been a misunderstanding of what was actually included in the package. Asset value can be very subjective - particularly to a vendor.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying they do have to agree on the valuation before the transfer can go through. I've said this a few times now and it's been widely reported.
 
There is also a future liability to pay a new player his wages, which needs to be accounted for and is much more tangible than resale value.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
And I'm saying they do have to agree on the valuation before the transfer can go through. I've said this a few times now and it's been widely reported.
Click to expand...
Of course (if that is actually true), but by signing off it may mean a change in how the club is valued, and possibly an adjustment to the sale price. That is my point. Non of us know the real situation.
 
tigerscanada said:
Of course (if that is actually true), but by signing off it may mean a change in how the club is valued, and possibly an adjustment to the sale price. That is my point. Non of us know the real situation.
Click to expand...

Again, if you buy a player with existing assets, there is no change to the value of the club. What are you not understanding?
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Again, if you buy a player with existing assets, there is no change to the value of the club. What are you not understanding?
Click to expand...
Does that purchased asset appreciate or depreciate, and how does the current owner or potential owner assess their position as a result of their view on either eventuality given how the 100 m in PL+ income is invested. What are you not understanding ?
 
tigerscanada said:
Does that purchased asset appreciate or depreciate, and how does the current owner or potential owner assess their position as a result of their view on either eventuality given how the 100 m in PL+ income is invested. What are you not understanding ?
Click to expand...

Never mind. This is going in circles. You're being argumentative for the sake of it.

It's been explained to you numerous times why the new owners won't have issue with any of the players brought in. It's also been explained to you why players being brought in won't affect the value of a takeover that is going through in a matter of weeks.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Never mind. This is going in circles. You're being argumentative for the sake of it.

It's been explained to you numerous times why the new owners won't have issue with any of the players brought in. It's also been explained to you why players being brought in won't affect the value of a takeover that is going through in a matter of weeks.
Click to expand...
Ibrahimovich is rubbish.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Apparently we can't sign anyone until the takeover is ratified..? So a real chance of not having it completed before the window closes?

Surely the PL can recognise the situation and speed things up?
Click to expand...

It's normal to be put under a Transfer Embargo whilst being taken over. Im guessing that all parties are confident the deal will go through on Tuesday and the embargo will be lifted.

There's nothing stopping us getting transfers 99% complete... then once the embargo's lifted they'll be put through.
 
hullborn said:
It's normal to be put under a Transfer Embargo whilst being taken over. Im guessing that all parties are confident the deal will go through on Tuesday and the embargo will be lifted.

There's nothing stopping us getting transfers 99% complete... then once the embargo's lifted they'll be put through.
Click to expand...

Bloody hope so!!
 
tigerscanada said:
Only 35 more league game to get 5 more then. No chance according to some. Leg amputation 2 weeks from no doubt.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I just thought I'd point out he was **** last night. You bringing him up when you realise you've been talking absolute rubbish about acquisition theory despite apparently working in the field just highlights how out of your depth you were.

Carry on all you like though.
 
I'd have a look at Oliver Burke at Forest. 4 goals and 1 assist, plus a goal a game in the Championship and he's a midfielder only 19. Plus he's Scottish so he'd fit in well!!!

He's being looked at by Bayern and Manure.
 
If a club buys a player after a club valuation has been agreed it can affect the club valuation. It's difficult to tell how it will affect the valuation though. Buying a player for £14m with £30k per week wages is a big issue. But would not buying a player be better or worse?
 
petersaxton said:
If a club buys a player after a club valuation has been agreed it can affect the club valuation. It's difficult to tell how it will affect the valuation though. Buying a player for £14m with £30k per week wages is big issue. But would not buying a player be better or worse?
Click to expand...

Only if the funds used to purchase the player were not existing funds. If you have money in the bank and you buy a player, the club's value doesn't change in the short term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back