Sunnyvale_Loyal
Well-Known Member
You must be joking.I hope they don't sign Nisbett as I think in a Rangers or Celtic team he is a 30+ goals a season striker.
You must be joking.I hope they don't sign Nisbett as I think in a Rangers or Celtic team he is a 30+ goals a season striker.
When this tweet was made (I assume the KDS post was just before), Scott Brown was 34... 34!Just a timely reminder of this KDS classic
Timmy here valued that lot at 367m
Forster - was on loan. Cost them money.
Bain - still there
Gordon - Free transfer
Pingpong netted them around 6m (https://www.rangersnews.uk/news/ran...-journalist-claims-about-celtic-transfer/amp/)
Ajer last year of contract and wants out
Juillien crocked
Taylor so good he was replaced by laxalt.
Bolingoli bombed out, on loan in Turkey
Brown - Free transfer to aberdeen
McGregor - lucky if they get 5m for him now
Rogic - can't finish a match, got another 2 years on his deal
Ntcham - released on a free
As for Forrest, Johnston and Thumb being worth a combined 130m,i can only laugh.
Oh and Edouard got 15m of which you'll see 3, which in turn covers his wages for the 3 years you had him.
You can’t really take wages, etc into it. If Leicester paid £15m for himIt’s quite possible that they will lose money at the end of the day due to the original transfer outlay with wages and bonuses on top and PSG having a hefty sell on clause, which is nice.
To be fair though mate they signed Kilmala( whatever the %^*& his name is) and he’s proved an able replacement and an absolute steal at £3 million.Edouarde is their biggest asset by far and £15 M is not a lot of cash these days, especially if you invest it the way the tims have been doing for years.
He is off too , to New York Red Bull.To be fair though mate they signed Kilmala( whatever the %^*& his name is) and he’s proved an able replacement and an absolute steal at £3 million.
They must be saying the fee is over £15m if they are making £3m. By the time you add VAT and the 40% to PSG on it will be about £16m. No way anyone is paying £16m+ for someone in their final year and having had a poor season.So Morelos is worth 15m at most while tied into a long term contract, and this guy is worth that with one year left after looking disinterested all season?
Scottish media for you.
Still no idea how they got £3.5m from NY for himHe is off too , to New York Red Bull.
It's easy to forget that Nisbet had a flying start to the season taking a lot of teams by surprise. I'm sure he had a real quiet spell over the Xmas period when you need goals most he also failed to turn up in there cup games against St Johnstone twice and hearts. He's a good player but I'm not sure he's the striker that fires you to a league title or gets you to the CL group stagesRoofe scored more if take out the pens , and has seconds best GPM ratio in the league . It’s what has beefed up Nisbets stats also .
As @Northampton_Loyalist points out, the £9m they spent on Edouard previously is sunk - its gone. If fees are as quoted when he does move to Leicester, they will be banking around £12m in cash. Fuck the book value, in cash terms £12m is what they will see
As an immediate cash injection that is a healthy wedge for a player with 12 months left on his deal.
When you play a hand of poker, the second your chips go in the middle, they are no longer your chips. You are still in the hand, you still hold equity, but the chips are not your chips, you swapped them for a chance to win a pot.Honesly fail to see where you’re coming from here. Paying £9M means he’s a £9M asset, whether that goes up or down over time, he still cost £9M so that comes off the fee received.
By your logic if you buy a player at £5M and sell him at £3M a year later then the club makes £3M, which of course is nonsense.
If only modern transfers weren’t made up of installments.When you play a hand of poker, the second your chips go in the middle, they are no longer your chips. You are still in the hand, you still hold equity, but the chips are not your chips, you swapped them for a chance to win a pot.
The second celtc spent the cash on edouard, it was no longer their cash. They swapped their cash for a player and the chance to win more money later. They could break even or they could lose, but anything that sees cash come back to them at all is a gain on their current position, which is £9 million spent.
What the balance sheet says is 100% by the by. At this minute in time, the £9 million they spent is gone and they have an asset worth £x. If they get £12 million net for him, what he cost is 100% irrelevant. They will have £12 million in cash tomorrow that they did not have today.
if you fail to see the difference between cash and book value then i can't help you im afraidHonesly fail to see where you’re coming from here. Paying £9M means he’s a £9M asset, whether that goes up or down over time, he still cost £9M so that comes off the fee received.
By your logic if you buy a player at £5M and sell him at £3M a year later then the club makes £3M, which of course is nonsense.
Exactly this. People are trying to do the job of their accountants, which is pointless as that’s money spent on previous years accounts.if you fail to see the difference between cash and book value then i can't help you im afraid
they shelled 9m out years ago for him. that money is gone. they'll be receiving 12m in cash coming into the business if the fees quoted are to be believed.
my point and @Northampton_Loyalist point is that the "profit" isn't really relevant, they will be in receipt of £12 million pounds into their bank, assuming it is paid in one instalment. whether they have made money on their previous outlay is beside the point, from a cash point of view, for the current year they are up £12 million.
cash and profits are entirely different concepts altogether. the only relevance is the impact it has on their annual accounts, with the actual "profit" on that sale being recognised at that point in time. Additionally, whether they are prepared to, or in a position to, re-invest that £12m cash injection remains to be seen. But they're banking £12m which will be shown in their cashflow (as above, that is assuming they receive the bung in one instalment).
Makes no difference to the point being made. At all.If only modern transfers weren’t made up of installments.
Reckon he could do well down there
Iheanacho was scoring goals fs can’t be that hard!
I honestly dont think Edouard will be playing much down there to be honest mate.Iheanacho is a better player. If Edwaaarr is going there, they will be selling Iheanacho on for a profit.
Exactly this. People are trying to do the job of their accountants, which is pointless as that’s money spent on previous years accounts.
If you bought a house for £300k cash, lived in, paid bills and spent money on it. Then sold it for £330k 5 years later, do you have £30k in your bank account or £330k. You’re not thinking about what fees you spent on it. It’s the cash that’s in your account that matters.
Agreed. Good player technically but a flat track bully.The Frenchman will struggle in the EPL. He's had it easy up here.
I don't like the idea of them hoovering up the best Scottish talent. Nisbet is playing for Scotland already so has to be considered as one of the best Scottish strikers. Even if we are not desperate for him then hopefully we will put bids in to drive up the price for ceptic.I’m glad he is going. A dangerous player
I rate Nisbet , however if they replace him for Eduoard then again they are already weaker.
What beast fc should have done was sold Eduoard last season and brought in Toney, rather than trying to penny pinch and chase the 9.75 at all costs.
Great for us tho , let them scramble for the replacements whilst we are already a settled team
Ofcourse it does. You said they would have £12 million in cash tomorrow. They wouldn’tMakes no difference to the point being made. At all.
Yeah, you completely missed the point. No worries, maybe next time.Ofcourse it does. You said they would have £12 million in cash tomorrow. They wouldn’t
Griffiths going for 55!When this tweet was made (I assume the KDS post was just before), Scott Brown was 34... 34!
Exactly, I've posted this before. Very well put.People are misunderstanding what they will get...'Oh and Edouard got 15m of which you'll see 3' is a good example. No, they will 'see' around £12 million. The £9 million they paid for him is spent, gone, away, and anything they bring in is fresh money, with the only real concern being how much goes to his former club.
£12 million is a decent sum of money for a club in Scotland, for sure, but...In the season they sold Tierney for £25 million up front cash, they needed that to break even. This season they are bringing in half his fee, have paid out a fortune in refunds, have all the usual covid related shite to deal with, and need to find the cash for 3/4 of a squad, never-mind first 11.
It is a decent sum of cash that goes nowhere towards fixing their issues, which is nice.
Scottish press led by daily record claimed £11mil or E11mil for Pingpong.
Reports in Germany suggest it was more like ~£3mil plus add ons?
Given that, Edouard's £15mil here is probably more like £5mil upfront plus some add ons (if achieved, e.g. Leicester make Champs league/top 4).
Tierney hasn’t really been verified thoughI'll say it again
Pingpong:
Scotland fee reported as £11mil
Germany ~3mil plus add ons
Only time one of Celtic's bumper fees was verified was Tierney at 20odd mil. Why is that?
Barkas 6 mil when signed. After realising he is pish, oh no, we only wasted 4 mil
Taylor went from 3 to 2 under same circumstances
And on, and on
I said this from Jan onwards
He won't go for the 20mil plus that tims, their cheerleaders and a few mad bastards on here believed
I said it would be, at best, a couple of mil either side of the 9 they bought him for, but the press would report it as significantly higher.
Low and behold, Scottish press 15-18
Using the Frimpong formula from above, it will be less than 10mil upfront i am sure
Fee "reaching" something above 10 with add ons
"Undisclosed"
Tierney hasn’t really been verified though
It was said on here that it appeared in the accounts as a one off payment. ie no instalments as is the norm with transfers. All the more strange when you take into account Tierney's injury record beforeDid someone not say that it appeared in their accounts last year? £25m received from Arsenal, or however it is worded in accounts jargon?
12m best player goneAs @Northampton_Loyalist points out, the £9m they spent on Edouard previously is sunk - its gone. If fees are as quoted when he does move to Leicester, they will be banking around £12m in cash. Fuck the book value, in cash terms £12m is what they will see
As an immediate cash injection that is a healthy wedge for a player with 12 months left on his deal.
Define healthy? When they've spent the guts of £11m on Klimala, Bayo and Ajeti? They could have £40m in for Eduard and wouldn't know what to do with itAs @Northampton_Loyalist points out, the £9m they spent on Edouard previously is sunk - its gone. If fees are as quoted when he does move to Leicester, they will be banking around £12m in cash. Fuck the book value, in cash terms £12m is what they will see
As an immediate cash injection that is a healthy wedge for a player with 12 months left on his deal.
Don't think they got anywhere near that.Still no idea how they got £3.5m from NY for him
if you fail to see the difference between cash and book value then i can't help you im afraid
they shelled 9m out years ago for him. that money is gone. they'll be receiving 12m in cash coming into the business if the fees quoted are to be believed.
my point and @Northampton_Loyalist point is that the "profit" isn't really relevant, they will be in receipt of £12 million pounds into their bank, assuming it is paid in one instalment. whether they have made money on their previous outlay is beside the point, from a cash point of view, for the current year they are up £12 million.
cash and profits are entirely different concepts altogether. the only relevance is the impact it has on their annual accounts, with the actual "profit" on that sale being recognised at that point in time. Additionally, whether they are prepared to, or in a position to, re-invest that £12m cash injection remains to be seen. But they're banking £12m which will be shown in their cashflow (as above, that is assuming they receive the bung in one instalment).