Transfer Rumours 2016/17 City Transfer Thread
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
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
-
Now you really are getting confused. In this case there is no goodwill when accounting for player costs (or painting costs). Both cases are the costs of acquisition. Valuation is a totally separate exercise.
NB Goodwill is the cost of acquisition of a business over the cost of the individual net assets.
A) If you're agreeing it won't affect the sale then you are confirming you're being deliberately contrary as that was the issue being debated between me and Canada that you seemingly sided with him on
B) I have no misunderstanding of valuation as I have studied it extensively. You seem to think that assets' values are a subjective, whimsical valuation based on a majority vote of the world's population. I suggest you go and read up on valuation theory to save yourself further embarrassment.
I am not talking about an individual deal. I am disagreeing when he says that valuation is based on cost.He is basing his comments on the fact the price has been agreed, you are trying to say player purchases will/can change that.
I vote Syd
Your NB shows that you do understand what we're talking about. Stop arguing for the sake of it.
Goodwill is the difference between the cost of acquisition and the cost of the net assets. You are correct. Thank you for finally agreeing.
You were using a painting as comparable to a business, which is why I applied the term goodwill. A business has net assets, and a cost that will generally exceed that. The difference is the goodwill. So if Bruce is valued as 100m by the club, that forms part of the net assets. If the club is then sold for a value that takes that into account, then the value of the club will either = net assets, or vary, with the difference being goodwill.
Eh? When did I say valuation was based on cost? I said the value of the club is what the purchaser buys it for. Cost + good will.
Arguments are like oxygen to Syd, I've never known any other poster bite like him, in saying that you seem to always find his favourite bait
Well that's certainly promising. It'll be interesting to see if we do bring in Kodija as well or whether Keane is seen as someone we want to start most games.
Bad choice of material mate, some paintings go for millions that I wouldn't give 10 bob for.
Pogba came to us for £89m, Madrid couldn't afford it or didn't think he was worth it so what is he worth?
Like anything in life, football players are only worth as much as someone is willing to pay so how do you put a fixed value on that?
Arguments are like oxygen to Syd, I've never known any other poster bite like him, in saying that you seem to always find his favourite bait
In fairness I can't resist pointing it out when someone is wrong, and Pete is being deliberately wrong - as he well knows. He's admitted he just wants to get to 400 pages and I'm happy to oblige on the bus to work.
The first question they ask you when you step into a valuation lecture: "How much is a business worth?"
Students stammer around "Uhh the net present value of all future cash flows" "It's equity?" "The relative value of a comparable business?"
The answer? "A business is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it."
Christ...
Can you piss off and clutter up a thread of your own with this argumentative ****.
This was an interesting transfer thread ten pages back.
Can you piss off and clutter up a thread of your own with this argumentative ****.
This was an interesting transfer thread ten pages back.
I don't care what you were arguing with Canada. You made a statement in which you justified valuation based on the accounting entries which was wrong.
A) If you're agreeing it won't affect the sale then you are confirming you're being deliberately contrary as that was the issue being debated between me and Canada that you seemingly sided with him on
B) I have no misunderstanding of valuation as I have studied it extensively. You seem to think that assets' values are a subjective, whimsical valuation based on a majority vote of the world's population. I suggest you go and read up on valuation theory to save yourself further embarrassment.
You haven't studied valuation at all effectively by what you are saying. I didn't refer to a "majority vote of the world's population" which is just another stupid comment you have made. I am talking about what the vast majority of people would pay who are in the market for a certain type of asset.
Consider Parkers: They set out guide prices for cars. Somebody might see a car that looks very similar to the car they were driving when they met their spouse. It's coming up to their wedding anniversary so they pay 10 times the guide price for the car. What's the value of the car?
Yep, a buyer makes an offer for a business for many reasons, one of which is because he see's/envisions what a business could be worth in the right hands
You gave an example where you showed that the accounting entries didn't change the valuation - but the accounting entries were based on cost.
Like I have said (twice on this thread) he has done very, very well at U21 level, not really had much chance/luck at first team level due to injury.
Is it me, or haven't we already this cost v value 'discussion' a few hundred posts back?