Isn't it on profit ?PSG would be due £2.4m if the fee is £15m.
Yes. If its 15mill, then that's 40 to 50 % of 6mill profit. They bought him for 9.Isn't it on profit ?
mostly penalties tooI 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
Y? He was their best player for years and they are making a profitWhoever took responsibility in the deal signing him from PSG is a complete and utter moron lol
Chief penalty taker rite enuf.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
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.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.
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.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.
The only difference this makes to fan perception is positive for us, not negative.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.
Especially as he now knows where the goal is when playing them !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).
Too sensible for FF. In many peoples logic, Celtic player or fan =dud.Y? He was their best player for years and they are making a profit
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.
If you buy a player for 9mil, pay him wages and bonuses for years and sell him for 9mil you haven’t made any profit. No matter which blogging guru you are parroting.Or the price of football by Kieran Maguire
But you probably need to factor in what money a player has brought into a club too in that time - winning trophies, European money etcIt 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’s just part of a wider issue of Scottish media reporting negatively on Rangers and positively on CelticOf 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.
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.
£15m > £18m is VAT. Easy fudge that's often used to inflate a transfer fee, without any benefit or problem for either side.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.
But now you are moving goalposts.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.
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.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
It amazes ME that people think players are only signed to be soldIt 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.
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 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
I get that it's annoying the papers just increase the transfer fees each time they run the storyPeople 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.
Guardian (I believe) article not so long ago in this thread says otherwiseRead 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.
You’ll need to enlighten me on that.Guardian (I believe) article not so long ago in this thread says otherwise
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
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.is there anything stopping leicester signing him ?
i can't see him there for host of reasons
You don’t count all your house bills when you sell your house.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.
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.If they sign nisbett he will score a lot of goals for them. He’s a good player
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?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
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.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?
Shayny Duffers the Aussie Irish all rounder.I very much doubt Postecoglou brings in a player of better or even similar quality.