Brendan Rogers helps celtic bank £3m on Edouard

Truckerman

Well-Known Member
''If Leicester get edouard for the reported £18m.. they will be getting a damn good player.. in today’s market he is at least £30m .. can’t help think Celtic being screwed over again.''
This is a Tweet from Fatson according to him Celtc are getting shafted by selling him for £18..I nearly choked on my coffee.
 

1BornaBear1

Well-Known Member
I wonder what he’d be worth if he had Morelos’s European pedigree and goals on his CV and more than 12 months left on his contract....

Astonishingly he’s allegedly worth millions for scoring goals versus Hamilton and Kilmarnock and not against Benfica and Porto and the likes
mostly penalties too
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I wonder with the differing reports of 15m/18m if the tims are asking £15m but trying to get Leicester to pay the 40% on top or just trying to spin it to look like they’re actually getting 15m.
 

Sensiblesteve

Well-Known Member
It’s being reported as a £15 million DEAL not FEE so that will take into account his wages also

There’s no way anyone is paying that money for a player with less than a year left on his contract, where were the bids when he had years left on his contract... nowhere it’s Timmy media spin

His record in Europe is woeful compared to Morelos’s

I don’t believe a word coming out the piggery... lies lies lies and spin
 

Hammy

Well-Known Member
Will be happy to see the back of him in all honesty. He’s been their best player the last three seasons and still scored 22 goals for them in a season he looked like he couldn’t be arsed half the time.

Him and Ajer going for far less than they were being linked with is glorious stuff. I’m sure they were wanting £30/40 million for each a year ago :D
 

GourockBlue50

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I wonder what he’d be worth if he had Morelos’s European pedigree and goals on his CV and more than 12 months left on his contract....

Astonishingly he’s allegedly worth millions for scoring goals versus Hamilton and Kilmarnock and not against Benfica and Porto and the likes
Chief penalty taker rite enuf. :)) :))
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
It was The Times that broke the story last weekend and the deal they reported was £15m. Lo and behold, once the Scottish Sun and the Daily Record got a hold of it - and even though both directly referred to, and attributed the story to, the report in The Times - they were peddling £18m. Incredible really.
 
Those two Ajer and Edward the two most laziest and not interested gits of that lot if they get any money after there greed of money and lack of interest more fool them for giving them deals what a waste of space anyway helped us to 55 and as for that Irish twat good luck to leister with him on board he bailed out when we got a team together
 

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
It was The Times that broke the story last weekend and the deal they reported was £15m. Lo and behold, once the Scottish Sun and the Daily Record got a hold of it - and even though both directly referred to, and attributed the story to, the report in The Times - they were peddling £18m. Incredible really.
I have zero idea why it upsets people though. The Scottish Sun and DR will have exactly zero say on what the real figure is and the scum cannot spend any extra given to them by two bit peddlers of lies. Scottish papers could tell the world that celtc are getting £50 million for the player and it would make not one single little piece of one iota of a difference to anything at all.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
I have zero idea why it upsets people though. The Scottish Sun and DR will have exactly zero say on what the real figure is and the scum cannot spend any extra given to them by two bit peddlers of lies. Scottish papers could tell the world that celtc are getting £50 million for the player and it would make not one single little piece of one iota of a difference to anything at all.
Of course it won’t affect the ‘actual’ fee. The obvious question though would be why these newspapers would take the report from The Times, acknowledge in their article that they are re-reporting the story from The Times - and then distort the story without so much as a ‘Times says £15m but our sources say £18m’ to explain the difference. Why would BOTH choose to do that? Why not take The Times story and knock it down by £3m to a figure of £12m, for example? No doubt because their fans would slaughter them even more. Betcha that’s what they do with our first outgoing.

As you say, makes no difference to reality - the fee will be what the fee will be - but makes a huge difference in fans perceptions.
 

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
Of course it won’t affect the ‘actual’ fee. The obvious question though would be why these newspapers would take the report from The Times, acknowledge in their article that they are re-reporting the story from The Times - and then distort the story without so much as a ‘Times says £15m but our sources say £18m’ to explain the difference. Why would BOTH choose to do that? Why not take The Times story and knock it down by £3m to a figure of £12m, for example? No doubt because their fans would slaughter them even more. Betcha that’s what they do with our first outgoing.

As you say, makes no difference to reality - the fee will be what the fee will be - but makes a huge difference in fans perceptions.
The only difference this makes to fan perception is positive for us, not negative.


If the scum think they have pulled in £100 million on transfers and spend 2/6p that is not going to go down well at all.

It just seems like the most pointless thing to get worked up over. The fee they get is the fee they get and what the papers say does nothing other than raise their expectations.
 

Al khobar-ger

Well-Known Member
For a guy with one year left on his contract, to get £15m (say £12m net after PSG get their cut) that still looks like decent business. By way of comparison, it will be interesting to see what we do with Morelos. His contract has 2 years to run I think. We don't want him running his contract down to only a year to go. I think we need him extended again, or to cash in now (which I don't say lightly - I think we would miss him even more than many think we will and that he will be very hard to replace).
Especially as he now knows where the goal is when playing them !
 

Blueranger45

Well-Known Member
Sky have distorted the price because they are diseased with scum

also Fatson thinking he's worth £30m :D how does he get football jobs? other than being an ex-player for them
 

ProspectLoyal

Active Member
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.

It surprises me the number of people that think wages and signing on fees shouldn't be counted when calculating the profit made on a player.

There is more to a player transfer profit/loss than just the fee paid and fee received.

Edouard has been at celtic for almost 4 years on loan and permanent, if they have paid him about £30k per week in that time that is over £6m.

The transfer fee for him was said to be about £9m so if you add the £6m they have paid him in wages then they would need to get £15m to break even on him. That is before you consider the sell-on fee owed to PSG and his signing on fees.

If celtic only get £15m for Edouard it will probably work out as a net loss, they probably need to get about £20m to actually make a little money on him.
 

Fothyman

Well-Known Member
It surprises me the number of people that think wages and signing on fees shouldn't be counted when calculating the profit made on a player.

There is more to a player transfer profit/loss than just the fee paid and fee received.

Edouard has been at celtic for almost 4 years on loan and permanent, if they have paid him about £30k per week in that time that is over £6m.

The transfer fee for him was said to be about £9m so if you add the £6m they have paid him in wages then they would need to get £15m to break even on him. That is before you consider the sell-on fee owed to PSG and his signing on fees.

If celtic only get £15m for Edouard it will probably work out as a net loss, they probably need to get about £20m to actually make a little money on him.
But you probably need to factor in what money a player has brought into a club too in that time - winning trophies, European money etc
 

Tailwind

Well-Known Member
Of course it won’t affect the ‘actual’ fee. The obvious question though would be why these newspapers would take the report from The Times, acknowledge in their article that they are re-reporting the story from The Times - and then distort the story without so much as a ‘Times says £15m but our sources say £18m’ to explain the difference. Why would BOTH choose to do that? Why not take The Times story and knock it down by £3m to a figure of £12m, for example? No doubt because their fans would slaughter them even more. Betcha that’s what they do with our first outgoing.

As you say, makes no difference to reality - the fee will be what the fee will be - but makes a huge difference in fans perceptions.
It’s just part of a wider issue of Scottish media reporting negatively on Rangers and positively on Celtic

Its downright bizarre. This story says this player is going for x amount, it’s our source, but we’re going to randomly add an extra 20% on. It shows the duplicity of the Scottish press
 

Southbelfastloyal29

Well-Known Member
This is a pretty ridiculous way to look at it. Are you saying they’ve got no value from the asset? You’re not buying to sell you’re buying to get value first and foremost which is return in his case on goals and assists. In that regard it was a good investement. Wages and bonuses are for performance.
If you’re talking about profit on a sale then by your interpretation then buy for 9 sell for 9 is not profit. It’s literally how no one calculates tho when it comes down to the actual figures.


If you buy a player for 9mil, pay him wages and bonuses for years and sell him for 9mil you hany profit. No matter which blogging guru you are parroting.
 

Begbie's Moustache

Well-Known Member
Of course it won’t affect the ‘actual’ fee. The obvious question though would be why these newspapers would take the report from The Times, acknowledge in their article that they are re-reporting the story from The Times - and then distort the story without so much as a ‘Times says £15m but our sources say £18m’ to explain the difference. Why would BOTH choose to do that? Why not take The Times story and knock it down by £3m to a figure of £12m, for example? No doubt because their fans would slaughter them even more. Betcha that’s what they do with our first outgoing.

As you say, makes no difference to reality - the fee will be what the fee will be - but makes a huge difference in fans perceptions.
£15m > £18m is VAT. Easy fudge that's often used to inflate a transfer fee, without any benefit or problem for either side.
 

Tailwind

Well-Known Member
This is a pretty ridiculous way to look at it. Are you saying they’ve got no value from the asset? You’re not buying to sell you’re buying to get value first and foremost which is return in his case on goals and assists. In that regard it was a good investement. Wages and bonuses are for performance.
If you’re talking about profit on a sale then by your interpretation then buy for 9 sell for 9 is not profit. It’s literally how no one calculates tho when it comes down to the actual figures.
But now you are moving goalposts.

One guy posted if they sell for 15 they get ~3mil profit.

You replied saying it would be more than that.

I quoted your post saying you've been reading too much Scottish MSM.

The only point I have ever made is about profit on Eduoard. If you want to change and argue about other points of whether or not he was value for money, that's another question.

I am just saying that when you calculate profit on the Edouard deal you cannot ignore the 9mil initial outlay and no amount of creative accountant tricks and "amortisation" changes that fact. Perhaps you could just admit that your initial post was wrong and the guy you quoted to disagree with was right.

You can then start new debates about value for money.

But you cannot refute my posts and my arguments with arguments about a different (but related) point
 

Southbelfastloyal29

Well-Known Member
But now you are moving goalposts.

One guy posted if they sell for 15 they get ~3mil profit.

You replied saying it would be more than that.

I quoted your post saying you've been reading too much Scottish MSM.

The only point I have ever made is about profit on Eduoard. If you want to change and argue about other points of whether or not he was value for money, that's another question.

I am just saying that when you calculate profit on the Edouard deal you cannot ignore the 9mil initial outlay and no amount of creative accountant tricks and "amortisation" changes that fact. Perhaps you could just admit that your initial post was wrong and the guy you quoted to disagree with was right.

You can then start new debates about value for money.

But you cannot refute my posts and my arguments with arguments about a different (but related) point
Read my first post. I said how they would reflect it on their balance sheet. Which is factually correct. Can you tell me what the Scottish MSM has to do with player contracts and amortisation.

by the way you also moved the goal posts by talking about wages. Maybe you could admit that you’re wrong as that has nothing to do with calculating profit and loss on player trading by anyone’s standards.
 
Last edited:

Blueranger45

Well-Known Member
surprised the Scottish media haven't came out with bollocks like "Angie to keep Edouard, tells him he could play more games for the French U21s at Celtic"

without any evidence, he apparently seems to be the new messiah. Linked with us years ago, have to wonder what the responses to him if he had ended up at us would have been :rolleyes:
 

MrBearightside

Quiz Master
It surprises me the number of people that think wages and signing on fees shouldn't be counted when calculating the profit made on a player.

There is more to a player transfer profit/loss than just the fee paid and fee received.

Edouard has been at celtic for almost 4 years on loan and permanent, if they have paid him about £30k per week in that time that is over £6m.

The transfer fee for him was said to be about £9m so if you add the £6m they have paid him in wages then they would need to get £15m to break even on him. That is before you consider the sell-on fee owed to PSG and his signing on fees.

If celtic only get £15m for Edouard it will probably work out as a net loss, they probably need to get about £20m to actually make a little money on him.
It amazes ME that people think players are only signed to be sold

In his time there he made the tims money with helping them to titles and trophies.

Even if his transfer was £9m and his wages were £6m and they sell him for £12m... they made money out of it from prize money, season ticket sales, shirt sales etc.





When I bought my car for £8k and sold it for £4k, I also paid for petrol, insurance, tax etc (like every car costs)

But overall I made a profit as:

- It SAVED me money by not having to get the trian to work every day
- It SAVED me money by not needing a taxi to my mates
- it also helped me out with other areas of my life

I didn't buy the car just to sell it for profit

Take a step back and think 'overall, was this worth it?'

Duffy for example, bad business
 
Last edited:

Southbelfastloyal29

Well-Known Member
It amazes ME that people only think players are signed to be sold

In his time at season he made the tims money with helping them to titles and trophies.

Even if his transfer was £9m and his wages were £6m and they sell him for £12m... they made money out of it from prize money, season ticket sales, shirt sales etc.





When I bought my car for £8k and sold it for £4k, I also paid for petrol, insurance, tax etc (like every car costs)

But overall I made a profit as:

- It SAVED me money by not having to get the trian to work every day
- It SAVED me money by not needing a taxi to my mates
- it also helped me out with other areas of my life

I didn't buy the car just to sell it for profit

Take a step back and think 'overall, was this worth it?'

Duffy for example, bad business
People just add on stuff mate to make it seem like the tims will get the least amount of money you can possibly make a case for, whilst never applying that same logic if it was one of our players.

it’s literally the type of shite their support is at constant with us.
 

MrBearightside

Quiz Master
People just add on stuff mate to make it seem like the tims will get the least amount of money you can possibly make a case for, whilst never applying that same logic if it was one of our players.
I get that it's annoying the papers just increase the transfer fees each time they run the story

But a players value is his overall contribution to the club relative to the money he cost them

E.g Kamara, great value

But if we had signed Ibrahimovic for the season, and for that season we won the league, but he costs us £30m.... bad value
 

Post tenebras Lux

Active Member
I pray the deal falls through and he stays. The 15 million will be 5 million when January comes.
Ed holds all the aces and should milk them for everything.
And as a free agent next summer 125k a week would not be impossible
We are going to win the Lge anyway and I am happy to see them throw a lot of money at stopping 56 and failing
 

DylanGer

Well-Known Member
Not sure of the logic on this-Celtic getting the fee inflated in the media doesn't really help them just puts them under more pressure to spend because the punters think there is more money in the kitty.

There is without doubt more secrecy these days about fees etc as it does create problems for clubs on the fans expectations on a variety of levels.

Some of the criticism of the player is petty and daft-he's their best player what's not to like if he is off?
 

jigster

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
is there anything stopping leicester signing him ?


i can't see him there for host of reasons
 

Tailwind

Well-Known Member
Read my first post. I said how they would reflect it on their balance sheet. Which is factually correct. Can you tell me what the Scottish MSM has to do with player contracts and amortisation.

by the way you also moved the goal posts by talking about wages. Maybe you could admit that you’re wrong as that has nothing to do with calculating profit and loss on player trading by anyone’s standards.
Guardian (I believe) article not so long ago in this thread says otherwise ;)
 

ProspectLoyal

Active Member
It amazes ME that people think players are only signed to be sold

In his time there he made the tims money with helping them to titles and trophies.

Even if his transfer was £9m and his wages were £6m and they sell him for £12m... they made money out of it from prize money, season ticket sales, shirt sales etc.





When I bought my car for £8k and sold it for £4k, I also paid for petrol, insurance, tax etc (like every car costs)

But overall I made a profit as:

- It SAVED me money by not having to get the trian to work every day
- It SAVED me money by not needing a taxi to my mates
- it also helped me out with other areas of my life

I didn't buy the car just to sell it for profit

Take a step back and think 'overall, was this worth it?'

Duffy for example, bad business

In the SPL and other smaller leagues lots of players need to be signed with the intention of selling for a profit because there is so little TV money. Champions league money cannot be relied on because it is quite difficult to qualify.

In the EPL clubs can afford to sign players and lose money on their transfer fee because there is so much TV money.

The Portugese league is similar to the SPL a couple of big clubs and loads of small ones, so there isn't much TV money it. To survive clubs like Benfica and Porto have to develop players and sell them, Benfica seem to be one of the best teams in the world at making profit from players, in the last 10 years they have taken in about £1bn in transfer fees and spent way less than that so have made huge profits.

We need to be shrewd in our transfer policies too, players need to be sold before they get too old and their values decline and we lose money on them, younger players need to be signed who can be developed and sold on for big money. It doesn't make business sense spending millions on older players in their mid to late 20s with a declining transfer value who we are guaranteed to lose money on.
 

ForGodForCountryForever

Well-Known Member
is there anything stopping leicester signing him ?


i can't see him there for host of reasons
I also am confused since this was signed and delivered last week with Celtic banking a fortune just in time for Big Ange to start signing 10 new World Class players.

Did I miss the memo, or was it all hack nonsense?
 

BigDGrant

Well-Known Member
The amount of mental gymnastics on this thread for a guy who chucked it this season. Deary me.
Who gives a flying what his fee was?
%^*& him, we concentrate on ourselves and %^*& everybody else.
 

Corkinator

Well-Known Member
It surprises me the number of people that think wages and signing on fees shouldn't be counted when calculating the profit made on a player.

There is more to a player transfer profit/loss than just the fee paid and fee received.

Edouard has been at celtic for almost 4 years on loan and permanent, if they have paid him about £30k per week in that time that is over £6m.

The transfer fee for him was said to be about £9m so if you add the £6m they have paid him in wages then they would need to get £15m to break even on him. That is before you consider the sell-on fee owed to PSG and his signing on fees.

If celtic only get £15m for Edouard it will probably work out as a net loss, they probably need to get about £20m to actually make a little money on him.
You don’t count all your house bills when you sell your house.
the point I’m making is it’s given you something, a roof, security.
He’s played and earned his wages. If it wasn’t him it would be another player. Signing on fee when he leaves, I’ll agree with that, it comes of the top end but wages, etc over the years is just an expense.
 
If they sign nisbett he will score a lot of goals for them. He’s a good player
Totally agree, there’s is a snobbery about buying players from Scottish teams, he will give them goals and a nuisance factor that they have been missing.
Naismith like, maybe not as good but more goals
 

Badger

Well-Known Member
It’s being reported as a £15 million DEAL not FEE so that will take into account his wages also

There’s no way anyone is paying that money for a player with less than a year left on his contract, where were the bids when he had years left on his contract... nowhere it’s Timmy media spin

His record in Europe is woeful compared to Morelos’s

I don’t believe a word coming out the piggery... lies lies lies and spin
Just playing devils advocate here. Why would they lie about getting more money than they actually are. If their fans see money coming in to the club and don't see it being reinvested then it would backfire on the board, no?
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Just playing devils advocate here. Why would they lie about getting more money than they actually are. If their fans see money coming in to the club and don't see it being reinvested then it would backfire on the board, no?
I think they have the media feigning interest in their players and pushing up the players value. Edouard is a £30m valued player because a Celtic fan in the daily record says so. No actual bids of £50m, £30m has been made.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s still a Celtic player next season.
 

ProspectLoyal

Active Member
It would be hilarious if they sold Edouard for £15-20m and then Postecoglou spent £10m+ signing some overrated donkey like Dominic Solanke.

I would love to see them wasting £10m or so on some dud striker to replace Edouard. Most of their recent signings have been duds so there is precedent.
 

Empire

Administrator
Staff member
For what it’s worth I don’t think Nisbett will go to Celtic. He’ll likely have more offers from down south after the Euro’s.
 
Top