José Enrique

[madras]

why do some people only think about profit and loss as viewed by transfer fees ? if the club made a 1mill profit on transfers, it's a bit pointless if the club lost 25mill overall.

 

Also I don't quite get the digs at the policy of buying players with resale value. If their value goes up it means we've bought a good player. Does anyone have regrets that we only paid £3.5million for Tiote?

how many players have man utd bought without resale value in the past decade ?, i can only really think of owen (though not bought he still had a cost) and possibly van der sar.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

why do some people only think about profit and loss as viewed by transfer fees ? if the club made a 1mill profit on transfers, it's a bit pointless if the club lost 25mill overall.

 

I've been saying this for literally years, it's not like there's a separate bank account called 'transfer money' that can be ring-fenced for the club's financial situation in general.

[madras]

why do some people only think about profit and loss as viewed by transfer fees ? if the club made a 1mill profit on transfers, it's a bit pointless if the club lost 25mill overall.

 

I've been saying this for literally years, it's not like there's a separate bank account called 'transfer money' that can be ring-fenced for the club's financial situation in general.

thats me and you, we ought to spread the word, i'll get t-shirts printed.

[Optimistic Nut]

why do some people only think about profit and loss as viewed by transfer fees ? if the club made a 1mill profit on transfers, it's a bit pointless if the club lost 25mill overall.

 

Also I don't quite get the digs at the policy of buying players with resale value. If their value goes up it means we've bought a good player. Does anyone have regrets that we only paid £3.5million for Tiote?

 

It's fair point like. When you think we spent about £6m on Given, N'Zogbia, Milner & Carroll, and sold them for £60m+, no wonder the "net spend" is what it is.

[Guest Roger Kint]

All this common sense doesnt feel right...........someone get us back to woe and misery please? 

[Optimistic Nut]

It balances out mind when you think £35m spent on Owen, Boumsong & Luque and only about £3m brought in.

[TRon]

It balances out mind when you think £35m spent on Owen, Boumsong & Luque and only about £3m brought in.

 

Those three are pretty good reasons why the resale value should in most cases be taken into account. I'm sure there could be well considered exceptions.

[Dave]

If a player is doing well, why would we want to sell them?

 

The key is getting value for money in the first place, not looking at how much profit we could make.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

If a player is doing well, why would we want to sell them?

 

The key is getting value for money in the first place, not looking at how much profit we could make.

 

I agree basically Dave. All I would say is that I don't think we're buying people with the deliberate intention to sell them for a profit, we're just going for players who will have value throughout their contracts so we won't be left with as many overpaid players who we can't shift.

 

So the 'resale value' point is a bit misunderstood IMO, it's more a question of a player being a safe investment than them being sold later if they do well.

[Lotus]

If a player is doing well, why would we want to sell them?

 

The key is getting value for money in the first place, not looking at how much profit we could make.

 

That's a good point but i suppose not all signings will work out so having someone with some stock left in them makes sense.

 

A little voice in the back of me mind thinks it might be something else though.

[Optimistic Nut]

If a player is doing well, why would we want to sell them?

 

The key is getting value for money in the first place, not looking at how much profit we could make.

 

Given handed in a transfer request, N'Zogbia did, Carroll was a freak instance. Milner with hindsight was probably wrong though.

[QBG]

If a player is doing well, why would we want to sell them?

 

The key is getting value for money in the first place, not looking at how much profit we could make.

 

Given handed in a transfer request, N'Zogbia did, Carroll was a freak instance. Milner with hindsight was probably wrong though.

Widely believed to have been done to balance the books after the Colo signing though was it not? I know which one I prefer.

[Cajun]

Definite hindsight with Milner, no-one (even the fan boy) could believe the price.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Definite hindsight with Milner, no-one (even the fan boy) could believe the price.

 

I still think Milner was a decent sale, he's still overrated.

[Benwell Lad]

why do some people only think about profit and loss as viewed by transfer fees ? if the club made a 1mill profit on transfers, it's a bit pointless if the club lost 25mill overall.

 

I've been saying this for literally years, it's not like there's a separate bank account called 'transfer money' that can be ring-fenced for the club's financial situation in general.

 

Can't understand the fascination with transfer fees and the old "net spend" arguments are pretty futile nowadays.

Truth is no one really knows what the actual transfer fees are and quoted figures are often no more than press speculation.

It's all a bit irrelevant anyway post-Bosman, as signing on fees, agents fees and contract terms often dwarf the actual transfer fee.

[TRon]

Definite hindsight with Milner, no-one (even the fan boy) could believe the price.

 

I still think Milner was a decent sale, he's still overrated.

 

Agree with that tbh. Nothing to do with his ability, he's got most everything, but I still have doubts whether he mentally up for the big games. Similar to Guthrie, doesn't produce on a consistent basis.

[Dr.Spaceman]

He's too one dimensional.

[Consortium of one]

I seem to remember that everyone was stunned we got so much for Milner.

[madras]

why do some people only think about profit and loss as viewed by transfer fees ? if the club made a 1mill profit on transfers, it's a bit pointless if the club lost 25mill overall.

 

I've been saying this for literally years, it's not like there's a separate bank account called 'transfer money' that can be ring-fenced for the club's financial situation in general.

 

Can't understand the fascination with transfer fees and the old "net spend" arguments are pretty futile nowadays.

Truth is no one really knows what the actual transfer fees are and quoted figures are often no more than press speculation.

It's all a bit irrelevant anyway post-Bosman, as signing on fees, agents fees and contract terms often dwarf the actual transfer fee.

i've tried to point this out a few times, also works with the supposed wage cap. it wouild be more likely that the entire deal (transfer fee,wages,agents brown envelope etc) are all bundled together and divided by the length of the contract.

[Dave]

The £35m will have gone towards reducing the debt owed to Ashley then, surely?

[madras]

The £35m will have gone towards reducing the debt owed to Ashley then, surely?

it'll just all be thrown in the running costs pot i'd guess.

[Dave]

If we'd not sold Carroll, what do you think we'd have spent this summer? Nothing?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The £35m will have gone towards reducing the debt owed to Ashley then, surely?

 

Nobody's arguing that every bit of income immediately disappears into debt repayments. If that was the case we wouldn't be able to spend anything until we were making a regular profit - obviously not how any business works.

[madras]

If we'd not sold Carroll, what do you think we'd have spent this summer? Nothing?

we'd probably have spent something, don't know how much or wether we'd have been prepared to pay ba,mervaux and cabaye the wages they are apparently on.

[Guest michaelfoster]

We've got 6 months to convince him to sign a new contract, not impossible.

 

That's just for clubs abroad thankfully, clubs in England can't negotiate till 6 weeks before the contract ends