Brendan Rogers helps celtic bank £3m on Edouard

IrvineLoyal

Well-Known Member
I hope they don't sign Nisbett as I think in a Rangers or Celtic team he is a 30+ goals a season striker.


In the past 20 years I think the 30 goal a season mark has only been done by 3 players.


Larsson, Kris Boyd and Leigh Griffiths.


I dont think Nisbet is anywhere near that level and dont think he would get 30 playing for either us or them as he wouldnt be main striker certainly not for us anyways.


Good player but not a game changer imo
 

Chris01

Well-Known Member
Don't think they got anywhere near that.

Media reported it, and it’s down on transfermarket as the fee received

It’s hard to believe really, the guy was awful. That’s something celtic have been consistently good at getting top coin for average players
 

YOGI_GER

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?

Exactly my point.
 

SouthLDNBear

Well-Known Member
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
Who cares what they've spent in the past, that's irrelevant and completely beside the point. They will have approximately 12 million in cash coming in to their bank for a player with one year left on his deal. That is a good wedge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fmp

Arkanoid

Well-Known Member
Who cares what they've spent in the past, that's irrelevant and completely beside the point. They will have approximately 12 million in cash coming in to their bank for a player with one year left on his deal. That is a good wedge.
Bollox mate, you're doing mental gymnastics for them. You and I both know, with no DoF, no Chief scout, no scouting network, no manager there is not a chance in hell that gets spent wisely be it 12 or 112 million. Imagine Wilson and Gerrard with £12m cash to spend? That's the difference between us and them at the moment.
Besides there is absolutely no guarantee that money goes anywhere near a transfer kitty with such an appalling uptake in St's
 

SouthLDNBear

Well-Known Member
Bollox mate, you're doing mental gymnastics for them. You and I both know, with no DoF, no Chief scout, no scouting network, no manager there is not a chance in hell that gets spent wisely be it 12 or 112 million. Imagine Wilson and Gerrard with £12m cash to spend? That's the difference between us and them at the moment.
Besides there is absolutely no guarantee that money goes anywhere near a transfer kitty with such an appalling uptake in St's

there's fuck all mental gymnastics - the fact of the matter is if Leicester pay £15m in one instalment, and if PSG are due 50% of profit on sale, and if the original purchase was £9m, the scum bank £12m in cash. That's literally all I've said. If this, if that, all heavily caveated.

not once have I said they will use that money wisely. and not once have i said that their new patsy manager will get that money to spend. im just pointing out the clear and distinct concepts of profit vs cash.
 

sheddensbear

Well-Known Member
We have no idea what their ST will be. Lawwell kept them more secretive than North Korea and he'll ensure that continues. They will boast how many they've sold and Kheevins will say 15k+ season ticket holders have renewed but are not going to CP as a protest.
When Angela arrives, he'll have a squad he had no say in recruiting but we'll be told he agreed all the signings.
 

RfcIbrox

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.
I agree mate but the surrender ce is if you are expecting to make more and you are planning your business around an inflated idea of what it’s worth.
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
there's fuck all mental gymnastics - the fact of the matter is if Leicester pay £15m in one instalment, and if PSG are due 50% of profit on sale, and if the original purchase was £9m, the scum bank £12m in cash. That's literally all I've said. If this, if that, all heavily caveated.

not once have I said they will use that money wisely. and not once have i said that their new patsy manager will get that money to spend. im just pointing out the clear and distinct concepts of profit vs cash.
Whatever it is items not the £50m they and their acolytes wanted to believe less than a year ago.
 

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
Absolutely and I agree on that but that £9M that they paid doesn't just vanish.
It does. Kinda.


If I sell you a magic bean for £10. You no longer have £10 but you do have a bean nominally worth £10. The actual value of the bean is a moot point now. You have the bean, you do not have the £10. You can tell your bank manager you have a bean worth £10, you can include it in your accounts at whatever value you like but the fact of the matter is you are £10 cash down and £x (non fixed) assets up.


Your bean might never, ever realize a value from this point. You could lose it, it could be stolen, it could turn out to be a fake, it could fuck it's ACL, or it could sit on your books until the end of time. Obviously there is no such thing as magic beans so while your assets list might well show a bean worth a tenner, it is irrelevant, it is a nominal sum of money.


You still do not have £10 at any stage after you bought the bean. Regardless what your accounts say, and regardless what your bank manager thinks. You might be able to leverage your bean, but if you do, you would run the risk of losing it.



Now, if you sell the bean, for ANY amount, that amount is additional cash coming into your pocket. You did not have it, you sold the bean, then you did have it. A 'nominal' amount will move on the balance sheet under 'assets', disappear, and a real amount will arrive in the 'cash at hand' (unless it is swallowed by the bank manager for your overdraft).

That is what is happening here. A fake, made up number will drop off their balance sheet (the bit that does not mean a great deal anyway) and £12 million in cash will land in whatever bit of their accounts they send it to (paying off debt, sitting as cash etc etc). A fake number drops away, replaced by a real number somewhere else!
 

Speminalium8

Well-Known Member
It does. Kinda.


If I sell you a magic bean for £10. You no longer have £10 but you do have a bean nominally worth £10. The actual value of the bean is a moot point now. You have the bean, you do not have the £10. You can tell your bank manager you have a bean worth £10, you can include it in your accounts at whatever value you like but the fact of the matter is you are £10 cash down and £x (non fixed) assets up.


Your bean might never, ever realize a value from this point. You could lose it, it could be stolen, it could turn out to be a fake, it could fuck it's ACL, or it could sit on your books until the end of time. Obviously there is no such thing as magic beans so while your assets list might well show a bean worth a tenner, it is irrelevant, it is a nominal sum of money.


You still do not have £10 at any stage after you bought the bean. Regardless what your accounts say, and regardless what your bank manager thinks. You might be able to leverage your bean, but if you do, you would run the risk of losing it.



Now, if you sell the bean, for ANY amount, that amount is additional cash coming into your pocket. You did not have it, you sold the bean, then you did have it. A 'nominal' amount will move on the balance sheet under 'assets', disappear, and a real amount will arrive in the 'cash at hand' (unless it is swallowed by the bank manager for your overdraft).

That is what is happening here. A fake, made up number will drop off their balance sheet (the bit that does not mean a great deal anyway) and £12 million in cash will land in whatever bit of their accounts they send it to (paying off debt, sitting as cash etc etc). A fake number drops away, replaced by a real number somewhere else!
Informative and interesting description of how accounts work. Hopefully then this will not directly contribute to their ‘war chest ‘.
 

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
Informative and interesting description of how accounts work. Hopefully then this will not directly contribute to their ‘war chest ‘.
Football clubs tend to value their players on the books at their cost to buy divided by how many years their contract was for, timesed by how many years they have left on their deal. A £100 million player on a 5 year deal initially is worth £100 million on the books in year 1. 100/5 x 4 in the second year (£80 million) in the second, 100/5 x 3 (£60 million) in the third etc etc.


Obviously, open market is not a shop where the prices are set in stone, so the actual value of the player is exactly, to the penny, what someone will pay and the 'value' of the asset on the books is an estimate, not a fixed amount. The assets have to be accounted for, and they can be used to borrow against etc, but the assets part of any accounts is 100% reliant on those values being achieved. Cash on hand, however, is actual tangible cash that has been brought into the business.


As I said right back at the start, it took a full season of gates, no refunds, no covid and £25 million in cash for Tierney for them to break even in the 2019-2020 books. £12 million is not going to cut it and they absolutely need to find finance to fund any player purchases. A lot of finance.
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
I agree mate but the surrender ce is if you are expecting to make more and you are planning your business around an inflated idea of what it’s worth.

Expectations and forecasts are forever changing. The only thing that never changed in this instance is the sell on that PSG were/are due.

Even the mentally challengeds wouldn’t be expecting Edouard to move for anything more than £15m this summer given the contract situation. Players values decrease on an annual basis (towards the end of their contract) - and it’s not because they are becoming poorer players. It’s all to do with the bargaining power of the selling club.

That’s a gamble they were willing to take on their quest for the 10* and it’s back fired big time.

In pure isolation, selling a player who doesn’t want to stay and in the last year of his contract for £15m is a decent deal (if it’s true and if it happens)

*we all know what this means
 

Sensiblesteve

Well-Known Member
I thought I read somewhere they still owe PSG £5 million of the original transfer fee and that it’s in their accounts that they owe out £28 million in transfer fees

I still can’t believe they’re getting that kind of money for a player who’s flopped big time in Europe and only has 12 months left on his contract
 

S English

Well-Known Member
It does. Kinda.


If I sell you a magic bean for £10. You no longer have £10 but you do have a bean nominally worth £10. The actual value of the bean is a moot point now. You have the bean, you do not have the £10. You can tell your bank manager you have a bean worth £10, you can include it in your accounts at whatever value you like but the fact of the matter is you are £10 cash down and £x (non fixed) assets up.


Your bean might never, ever realize a value from this point. You could lose it, it could be stolen, it could turn out to be a fake, it could fuck it's ACL, or it could sit on your books until the end of time. Obviously there is no such thing as magic beans so while your assets list might well show a bean worth a tenner, it is irrelevant, it is a nominal sum of money.


You still do not have £10 at any stage after you bought the bean. Regardless what your accounts say, and regardless what your bank manager thinks. You might be able to leverage your bean, but if you do, you would run the risk of losing it.



Now, if you sell the bean, for ANY amount, that amount is additional cash coming into your pocket. You did not have it, you sold the bean, then you did have it. A 'nominal' amount will move on the balance sheet under 'assets', disappear, and a real amount will arrive in the 'cash at hand' (unless it is swallowed by the bank manager for your overdraft).

That is what is happening here. A fake, made up number will drop off their balance sheet (the bit that does not mean a great deal anyway) and £12 million in cash will land in whatever bit of their accounts they send it to (paying off debt, sitting as cash etc etc). A fake number drops away, replaced by a real number somewhere else!
Don't talk a lot of nonsense, we all know the bean is worth 50 million
 

Northhiglander

Well-Known Member
I thought I read somewhere they still owe PSG £5 million of the original transfer fee and that it’s in their accounts that they owe out £28 million in transfer fees

I still can’t believe they’re getting that kind of money for a player who’s flopped big time in Europe and only has 12 months left on his contract
In England that kind of money would buy you a youngster in the Championship. It is like a Scottish team buying a player for £2m. Peanuts. A punt. No pressure signing.
 

Crispy Bacon

Well-Known Member
It does. Kinda.


If I sell you a magic bean for £10. You no longer have £10 but you do have a bean nominally worth £10. The actual value of the bean is a moot point now. You have the bean, you do not have the £10. You can tell your bank manager you have a bean worth £10, you can include it in your accounts at whatever value you like but the fact of the matter is you are £10 cash down and £x (non fixed) assets up.


Your bean might never, ever realize a value from this point. You could lose it, it could be stolen, it could turn out to be a fake, it could fuck it's ACL, or it could sit on your books until the end of time. Obviously there is no such thing as magic beans so while your assets list might well show a bean worth a tenner, it is irrelevant, it is a nominal sum of money.


You still do not have £10 at any stage after you bought the bean. Regardless what your accounts say, and regardless what your bank manager thinks. You might be able to leverage your bean, but if you do, you would run the risk of losing it.



Now, if you sell the bean, for ANY amount, that amount is additional cash coming into your pocket. You did not have it, you sold the bean, then you did have it. A 'nominal' amount will move on the balance sheet under 'assets', disappear, and a real amount will arrive in the 'cash at hand' (unless it is swallowed by the bank manager for your overdraft).

That is what is happening here. A fake, made up number will drop off their balance sheet (the bit that does not mean a great deal anyway) and £12 million in cash will land in whatever bit of their accounts they send it to (paying off debt, sitting as cash etc etc). A fake number drops away, replaced by a real number somewhere else!
What happens if the bean hasn’t scored against Celtic?
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
I thought I read somewhere they still owe PSG £5 million of the original transfer fee and that it’s in their accounts that they owe out £28 million in transfer fees

I still can’t believe they’re getting that kind of money for a player who’s flopped big time in Europe and only has 12 months left on his contract
I don't think they are. They ALWAYS over egg their fees paid and received aided by their compliant cheerleaders in the press.

Record is suggesting £18m.
I'd bet.

Vat £3.0m
PSG £2.5m
Fee. £5. 0m *
Edouard £1.0m
Total £11.5m

£6.5m left.

I reckon if the hordes ever realised he was going for £7 / £8m there would be civil unrest.

The guy Mackay has to start delivering. Bad start if they suffer with a deflated fee. They're liars.

* Assuming they owe transfer fees like you said in their accounts. Might not be Edouard but still outstanding.
 

RfcIbrox

Well-Known Member
Expectations and forecasts are forever changing. The only thing that never changed in this instance is the sell on that PSG were/are due.

Even the mentally challengeds wouldn’t be expecting Edouard to move for anything more than £15m this summer given the contract situation. Players values decrease on an annual basis (towards the end of their contract) - and it’s not because they are becoming poorer players. It’s all to do with the bargaining power of the selling club.

That’s a gamble they were willing to take on their quest for the 10* and it’s back fired big time.

In pure isolation, selling a player who doesn’t want to stay and in the last year of his contract for £15m is a decent deal (if it’s true and if it happens)

*we all know what this means
A change from 50 to 15 in a year is massive. They are a selling club. They have fecked up. That’s the reality mate.
 

Polar bear

Well-Known Member
It does. Kinda.


If I sell you a magic bean for £10. You no longer have £10 but you do have a bean nominally worth £10. The actual value of the bean is a moot point now. You have the bean, you do not have the £10. You can tell your bank manager you have a bean worth £10, you can include it in your accounts at whatever value you like but the fact of the matter is you are £10 cash down and £x (non fixed) assets up.


Your bean might never, ever realize a value from this point. You could lose it, it could be stolen, it could turn out to be a fake, it could fuck it's ACL, or it could sit on your books until the end of time. Obviously there is no such thing as magic beans so while your assets list might well show a bean worth a tenner, it is irrelevant, it is a nominal sum of money.


You still do not have £10 at any stage after you bought the bean. Regardless what your accounts say, and regardless what your bank manager thinks. You might be able to leverage your bean, but if you do, you would run the risk of losing it.



Now, if you sell the bean, for ANY amount, that amount is additional cash coming into your pocket. You did not have it, you sold the bean, then you did have it. A 'nominal' amount will move on the balance sheet under 'assets', disappear, and a real amount will arrive in the 'cash at hand' (unless it is swallowed by the bank manager for your overdraft).

That is what is happening here. A fake, made up number will drop off their balance sheet (the bit that does not mean a great deal anyway) and £12 million in cash will land in whatever bit of their accounts they send it to (paying off debt, sitting as cash etc etc). A fake number drops away, replaced by a real number somewhere else!
Well,thanks for clarifying that NL.I think.:rolleyes:
Good analogy ;)
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
A change from 50 to 15 in a year is massive. They are a selling club. They have fecked up. That’s the reality mate.

£50m was never real in all honesty. However, a very dramatic drop in “value” isn’t uncommon when going from 2yrs remaining on a contract to 1yr remaining. The club loses pretty much all its bargaining power.

Agree they’ve fucked up. They gambled (were willing to take a reduced fee this summer as supposed to previous seasons) with the intention of delivering their holy grail this season. It catastrophically back fired on them with Edouard, Ajer and Christie (at varying levels of “value)

Fück them.
 

Potnbear

Well-Known Member
I agree with this. With better players around him he will score a load. 18 goals and 8 assists is very good for a non Old Firm player. I wouldnt mind signing him as back up but not for the money Hibs would be demanding.
I see it the other way, Nisbet doesn't have to contend with 10 behind a ball every week playing against teams who think it's a cup final when they play us, at the minute, he's getting decent service and plenty space to play, can he change his game to deal with what our strikers deal with every week
 

GarMckin

Well-Known Member
To be fair, I think they’ve got a fair bit of value from him for goodness sake. What have his wages got to do with anything?
They’ll have a cash injection of around £12million if the full upfront figure is £15m and none of it goes to paying transfer debt. But over the course of his contract, and that is how football clubs calculate player costs, he will have cost them money when taking into account transfer fee, wages, and bonuses.

Some would argue it might be worth it for what he contributed but they have lost money on the overall investment.

This give a bit of info of how clubs calculate player costs, they include transfer, wage, and bonuses: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....blog/2016/aug/24/transfer-window-market-myths
 

TinyRick

Well-Known Member
They’ll have a cash injection of around £12million if the full upfront figure is £15m and none of it goes to paying transfer debt. But over the course of his contract, and that is how football clubs calculate player costs, he will have cost them money when taking into account transfer fee, wages, and bonuses.

Some would argue it might be worth it for what he contributed but they have lost money on the overall investment.

This give a bit of info of how clubs calculate player costs, they include transfer, wage, and bonuses: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....blog/2016/aug/24/transfer-window-market-myths
That was a cracking read.

Thanks.
 

Virgil Hilts

Well-Known Member

Corkinator

Well-Known Member
Rewinding back to the day we scudded them 4-1, I’ve never been so certain of a victory against them.

We’ve strengthened since then, and they’re selling the best players from a team that we annihilated with no structure in place to even start to replace them.

Fun times.
I was, when we beat them 2-0 earlier in the season
 

Hurricane Run

Well-Known Member
No way are they getting £18m.

They will be using the same calculator they used for Frimpong. No chance in hell are they getting that for a player in the final year of his contract. Unless theyve thrown ridiculous add ons in to pump up the "package".
 
Top