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
-
Finally what? You were still talking rubbish. I don't know why you are saying that buying a player wont affect the valuation. If a player is perceived as good value then the club will be thought of as worth more and if the player is thought of as poor value then the club will be worth less. Your statement that buying a player has no effect on the clubs valuation is clearly nonsense.
I wasn't talking rubbish. The Allams and Dais have to both sign off on transfers. Canada was trying to suggest we could be signing players that the Dais don't want. Which is rubbish.
Players amortise over the life of their contract, but when they are signed, they are valued at the price paid for them, just as with any asset in any business. If I buy a new printer for a printing company, and I've paid $20,000 for it, I record it as an asset worth $20,000 and then depreciate it over its life. If I then sell my business a week later, and I had been valued at $2,220,000, with a cash balance of $220,000, and I now have a cash balance of $200,000 and an asset on my balance sheet of $20,000, my business is still valued at $2,220,000. I thought you were good at this business thing? We're not talking a takeover happening a year for now where those player values have changed, we're talking literally a week or two.
I just saw this in the Telegraph. Owt in it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-ready-to-break-transfer-record-with-14milli/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-ready-to-break-transfer-record-with-14milli/
It would make sense that both parties agree but that depends on how certain the deal is.
You are confusing accounting treatment with valuation. Accounting regarding players is simply an allocation of costs. If we signed somebody on a free transfer the plus points are that we have an extra player to play for us but the negative is that we have to pay his wages. It's all a matter of opinion whether the player is worth the money. It's the same even if a transfer fee is involved. You don't just look at the balance sheet and see if there's any net change.
Would be a good signing Stan, but £14m seems steep, but I guess transfer fees are crazy now.
How do you manage to twist what I said so amazingly. I was saying, quite clearly, that if they have an agreement to sign players before the deal is ratified (by the PL and before the transfer window closes, it may affect the evaluation (i.e. the ****ing price paid) for the corporate entity.
Try to understand that fundamental principle. The deal is not signed...the price may well be modified by financial activity during the offer/signing period.
No you don't, but when the incoming owners are valuing the player then they are clearly going to agree with the valuation. If you want to discuss the value of players where a club has them already on their books and a new owner comes in to assess their values, that's of course entirely different and not what was being discussed. My "finally" was because someone had finally acknowledged that the Dais are involved in the valuation stage of the transfers.
The price is already agreed and set in stone, and the Dais are involved in the valuation of the players. As they are going to agree that the valuation is accurate for the players we're bringing in it's clearly not going to alter the value of the club, how many times does that need saying?
Of course if the Allams were signing players and no takeover was agreed, the new owners would definitely come in and revalue the assets and the value of the club would shift but that's not the case here.
That might sort of work if the company / club has cash in the bank, what happens when the company / club is 70 or 80 million in debt to the owner?
Just on this Marshall thing, what do we think the thinking is? He's a good keeper but we've already got 2 very senior keepers plus an obvious 3rd choice and then an additional obvious prospect as 4th choice. Surely we can't be looking to add to that and instead are moving one on. McGregor to go when fit?
And if Marshall does sign, it's Phelan's first big test. Dropping The Jak would be unfair beyond belief.
And if Marshall does sign, it's Phelan's first big test. Dropping The Jak would be unfair beyond belief.
Well as I pretty clearly said, if we take out further debt/equity to fund transfers that will in fact change the value of the club.
Start Marshall on the bench. If Jak gets injured/loses form, then bring Marshall in. It's the only fair thing to do.
Of all the things we need another keeper is way down the list. How old is McGregor?
How do you know that the price is set in stone ? Where do you get that from ? Where is it published ? Have you insider knowledge of from their legal and/or financial advisor team ? You haven't a clue have you ?
I think there's some concern that McGregor's issues may continue and that Kuciak isn't good enough, one of them will probably go out on loan or be sold in January.
pudseytiger
Well-Known Member
That crossed my mind too, he's had some bad injuries over the last few seasons.