Brendan Rogers helps celtic bank £3m on Edouard

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
£15m is pennies to Leicester.

£15m is a great deal for the poets considering he doesn’t want to be there, his form/attitude this season and the fact he’s entering the last year of his contract.

The minimal “profit” they’ll make after the sell on clause is irrelevant. I don’t think many teams make a “profit” on any player when you consider what teams put out on wages to the player during his time at the club.
 

Ross_

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The nesbitt talk … they will want 4/5m for him they have already knocked back 3m apparently.

especially if he manages any appearances / goals at the Euros.

good news Eduoard is off he is by a street there best player - be interesting to see how he does in the EPL undoubtedly has ability … just whether he applies himself.
 

TinyRick

Well-Known Member
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.
 

ForGodForCountryForever

Well-Known Member
It’s immaterial really given the overhaul Celt!c have left themselves needing to manage.

A profit is about a country mile away from what they’ll achieve this summer.
 

top_cat

Well-Known Member
They are a clusterf.uck of a club right now, as long as we keep it sensible, invest wisely and keep our core squad, #56, done deal.
Septic are in trouble, I'm genuinely not sure how this has happened tbh.
 

Shawlands_Bear

Well-Known Member
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.
When this tweet was made (I assume the KDS post was just before), Scott Brown was 34... 34!
 

Corkinator

Well-Known Member
It’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.
You can’t really take wages, etc into it. If Leicester paid £15m for him
I’ll be quite shocked. 1 year left on his contract. Nah! I’m not having that.
 

VMS

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I think they will do well to get 10 million,anyway the sooner hes away the better hes a fantastic player and can't see them getting a player of his quality any time soon
 

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Glasgowsteve

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

SouthLDNBear

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Forza_Napoli

Well-Known Member
Roofe 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 .
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 stages
 

YOGI_GER

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
 

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
Maths was never my best subject, but it was widely reported they bought Edouard for £9m so a £3m profit should make the sale price £12m.

No?
 

mandingo

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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 only modern transfers weren’t made up of installments.
 

SouthLDNBear

Well-Known Member
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 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).
 
Last edited:

GR3

Well-Known Member
Why are people bothering about his fee and his wages to work out any profit. You buy a player who becomes an asset, he does a job for you, he scores goals, help you win games and trophies. After a few years if you can get your initial money you stumped up for him plus profit, is not bad business, especially with 1 year to go on his contract.

I’m happy they’re not getting anymore money for him and with their recent signing he’ll be replaced with an inferior player.

We’re becoming too obsessed about their transfer fees since demebelle and tierney.
 

GR3

Well-Known Member
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).
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.
 

SouthLDNBear

Well-Known Member
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.
7ZkGKqtloyKRyB3bpD9rAgFt2oZ-WBtdFKihVBnPhc8a9jCIRsa_Utf9bJkb6CFPNVceHUIP
 

RangersForever

Well-Known Member
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
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.
 

Hawftimepie

Well-Known Member
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.
Exactly, I've posted this before. Very well put.
 

RWL12

Well-Known Member
Let me get this straight.

Pay £9m, sell for £15m, and of the £6m profit, £2.4m goes to previous club.

£3.6m profit for Edouard.


But he must have picked up that amount in wages, and win bonuses (?), trophy wins, goal bonus.

So, they still making a profit?
 

DragonBlue

Well-Known Member
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).

100% this, they lie! They ask for undisclosed fees then leak nonsense to the compliant Scottish media to keep the hordes at bay. They’ve done it for years! They won’t make a profit on the oldest under21 player in history because he’ll either go this summer for less than 9mil and nothing will be due to PSG or he’ll leave in Jan for buttons as he’s already signed a pre-contract and picked up a healthy signing on fee for himself and his agent.
 

Juanito2

Well-Known Member
They will really miss him. They are going to really average next season with no touch of magic or star dust like we have with Kent.
 

Jelle1880

Well-Known Member
They'll make decent money from him, but I'm glad if he leaves. Can't always be bothered but he's a very good player that they will be unlikely to replace with similar quality.
 

chilebear

Well-Known Member
I'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
 

two2tango

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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.
12m best player gone

a shit load of players to buy

no recruitment team

I’m happy with that tbh
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Edouard is going no where. The Scottish media is nothing more than a selling platform for CFC. They hype up an interest and it creates a false perspective.
He will be a Celtic player till Jan and they can then sell him for a token £1m if they are lucky. Leicester City see him as a replacement for Vardy, they can wait 6 months and it’s obvious he wants to go there.
 

Arkanoid

Well-Known Member
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.
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 it
 

BucksBear

Well-Known Member
Still dont believe they paid 9 million for him. For every pound of profit they make, they spend 2 on duds
 

Grant K

Well-Known Member
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).

As ever the devil will be in the detail in respect of the cash impact!

It’s unlikely that it will be an upfront payment and more likely will be spread over the term of the contract. They may also need to meet an element of the remaining contract further reducing the immediate cash impact. Then they have to deal with the sell on value and how that payment requires to be structured. All in all unless it’s a full on up front payment there may be little or no immediate cash benefit. That would be a shame!

Who knows what the cash position is overall but if season ticket sales are stalling there may be some difficult decisions looming on the horizon.
 

King Alfred

Well-Known Member
I will be delighted if he leaves them. They won’t get a better player and they won’t spend to replace him. Get a fire sale started.
 
Top