Transfer Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread - Summer 2014 - Mod note in OP

Lucas Hood

rarnes1 wrote: »

Found the answer to this question

It was no surprise, should sell them extra copies today :rolleyes:

You'll prob find it was some freelance photographer.

Godge

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2731655/Mario-Balotelli-score-seven-goals-season-Liverpool-Premier-League-payback-16m-transfer.html

"The mathematics that say he needs seven goals per season to repay the investment in him is simple enough, and is based on him being given a three-year contract on wages of around £5million per year."

There really are some stupid journalists out there. Presumably, this was written to justify the amount of money being spend on Balotelli and it calculates that each goal is worth €1.5m in prize-money and that Balotelli will need to score only seven goals a season to give a return. Journalists writing these things don't think through what it actually means.

Let us imagine that this hypothesis is true (ignoring the contribution of all other players, management, other staff and other costs to success).

What does it mean Liverpool should have sold Suarez for?

Suarez had four years left on his contract at about €5m per year and would therefore cost Liverpool €20m. By selling him, they save that €20m plus any fee. Assume Liverpool are correct and the fee was €75m, then the financial gain to Liverpool is €95m, equivalent to 63 goals, just under two seasons output from Suarez. If the stupid Daily Mail article is correct, Liverpool should have held out for another €95m for Suarez as he had four years left on his contract, which is clearly a ridiculous sum.

Not saying Liverpool were right or wrong to either buy or sell either of the two players at those prices, but journalists can be ridiculous.

Quazzie

Based on those maths, Shane Long with his 8 goals a season is a bargain at £12M

KERSPLAT!

Godge wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2731655/Mario-Balotelli-score-seven-goals-season-Liverpool-Premier-League-payback-16m-transfer.html

"The mathematics that say he needs seven goals per season to repay the investment in him is simple enough, and is based on him being given a three-year contract on wages of around £5million per year."

There really are some stupid journalists out there. Presumably, this was written to justify the amount of money being spend on Balotelli and it calculates that each goal is worth €1.5m in prize-money and that Balotelli will need to score only seven goals a season to give a return. Journalists writing these things don't think through what it actually means.

Let us imagine that this hypothesis is true (ignoring the contribution of all other players, management, other staff and other costs to success).

What does it mean Liverpool should have sold Suarez for?

Suarez had four years left on his contract at about €5m per year and would therefore cost Liverpool €20m. By selling him, they save that €20m plus any fee. Assume Liverpool are correct and the fee was €75m, then the financial gain to Liverpool is €95m, equivalent to 63 goals, just under two seasons output from Suarez. If the stupid Daily Mail article is correct, Liverpool should have held out for another €95m for Suarez as he had four years left on his contract, which is clearly a ridiculous sum.

Not saying Liverpool were right or wrong to either buy or sell either of the two players at those prices, but journalists can be ridiculous.

You should stop reading the Daily Mail

Also wasn't Suarez on about £200k a week, that's a bit more than €5m a year

Washington Irving

Godge wrote: »

What does it mean Liverpool should have sold Suarez for?

Suarez had four years left on his contract at about €5m per year and would therefore cost Liverpool €20m. By selling him, they save that €20m plus any fee. Assume Liverpool are correct and the fee was €75m, then the financial gain to Liverpool is €95m, equivalent to 63 goals, just under two seasons output from Suarez. If the stupid Daily Mail article is correct, Liverpool should have held out for another €95m for Suarez as he had four years left on his contract, which is clearly a ridiculous sum.

Not saying Liverpool were right or wrong to either buy or sell either of the two players at those prices, but journalists can be ridiculous.

*£75m. Pound sterling, not euro.

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

wasn't Suarez on about £200k a week, that's a bit more than €5m a year

£120k p/w according to most reliable LFC journalists. Apparently, there was a clause for a pay rise for 14/15 season but that never came about for obvious reasons.


/pedant

Godge

Washington Irving wrote: »

*£75m. Pound sterling, not euro.



£120k p/w according to most reliable LFC journalists. Apparently, there was a clause for a pay rise for 14/15 season but that never came about for obvious reasons.


/pedant

Yeah should have used sterling signs rather than euros!

at £120k per week and £75m fee, Liverpool should have held out for £91m more, silly really, don't know why I am doing this.

Lucas Hood

Benatia must be on the move. Roma close to singing Vlad Chiriches from Spurs.

Smithwicks Man

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Benatia must be on the move. Roma close to singing Vlad Chiriches from Spurs.

Some step down in quality there.

Benatia is a real talent.

brianregan09

About the right level for that League though now sad as it is to say

Quazzie

If Suarez was £75M does that make him the most expensive player in the world. With the exchange rate how it is at the moment that would push him up past the rest.

Talib Fiasco

Quazzie wrote: »

If Suarez was £75M does that make him the most expensive player in the world. With the exchange rate how it is at the moment that would push him up past the rest.

Na Ronaldo was over 80m pound and Bale was a few more million above that again

Quazzie

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

Na Ronaldo was over 80m pound and Bale was a few more million above that again

But they buying club bought in Euro and then the exchange rate was much better. For example Ronaldo and Bale probably both cost under €100M where if Suarez was really £75M then that would be well over €100M at present.

Will I Amnt

Quazzie wrote: »

But they buying club bought in Euro and then the exchange rate was much better. For example Ronaldo and Bale probably both cost under €100M where if Suarez was really £75M then that would be well over €100M at present.

That's a weird way to look at it. Sure Ronaldo and Bale went to the same country for more money and presumably in the same currency.

Christy Browne

Quazzie wrote: »

But they buying club bought in Euro and then the exchange rate was much better. For example Ronaldo and Bale probably both cost under €100M where if Suarez was really £75M then that would be well over €100M at present.

Ronaldo and Bale much more expensive no matter what way you look at it

Quazzie

Christy Browne wrote: »

Ronaldo and Bale much more expensive no matter what way you look at it

Will I Amnt wrote: »

That's a weird way to look at it. Sure Ronaldo and Bale went to the same country for more money and presumably in the same currency.

Not really. Both Real and Barca will be counting the cost in Euro, and it cost a lot more Euro to buy £75M now than it did two years ago when Real bought Bale. You do know that exchange rates fluctuate massively and now in particular is a really bad time to buying anything in sterling with Euro.

Will I Amnt

Quazzie wrote: »

Not really. Both Real and Barca will be counting the cost in Euro, and it cost a lot more Euro to buy £75M now than it did two years ago when Real bought Bale. You do know that exchange rates fluctuate massively and now in particular is a really bad time to buying anything in sterling with Euro.

Ronaldo will go down in the records as costing 80m, Bale 85m and Suarez 75m.
They won't keep updating it every time the Euro decreases in value.

Quazzie

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Ronaldo will go down in the records as costing 80m, Bale 85m and Suarez 75m.
They won't keep updating it every time the Euro decreases in value.

Has the transfer record always been stated in Sterling. Do European clubs also use Sterling as a base for calculating the record?

I'm not saying that the record is constantly changing, just that if the amount paid in euro was recorded then Suarez is right up there.

Anyways it might look like I'm being argumentative for the sake of it, I'm not, I'm just interested in where Suarez would figure in the record books if it was classed at the Euro equivalent price at time of purchase.

I always assumed it was €75M not sterling so I was surprised to hear it was that high.

Will I Amnt

Quazzie wrote: »

Has the transfer record always been stated in Sterling. Do European clubs also use Sterling as a base for calculating the record?

I'm not saying that the record is constantly changing, just that if the amount paid in euro was recorded then Suarez is right up there.

£75m is €93m according to XE. Wasn't Bale over €100m when it went through?

Talib Fiasco

It doesn't matter if the club paid for them in euro or pound it just matters that Bale cost the most money followed by Ronaldo and then Suarez.

Quazzie

Will I Amnt wrote: »

£75m is €93m according to XE. Wasn't Bale over €100m when it went through?

Possibly. Like I said I was just curious because it's a bad time at the moment (was actually worse a few weeks back)

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the club paid for them in euro or pound it just matters that Bale cost the most money followed by Ronaldo and then Suarez.

That's debatable. If I sell an orange to you in Sterling for £1.00 but it costs you €1.05 to buy it, but in three weeks time I sell someone else an orange for £0.95 but it costs him €1.10 to buy it, then which is the most expensive item?

I suppose the records on how much the club received rather than how much the club paid. Then its undoubtedly in the order you stated.

Rayne Wooney

If you're going to factor in differing exchange rates then you might as well throw inflation in there as well

Also I don't think Suarez went for 75 million, 65 with add ons is closer to the truth. Maybe 70 million

Fees depend on who you talk to/read.

Funny that some people take them so serious

K-9

Balotelli for £16 Million and 80k a week, a 50% drop in wages, with performance bonuses on top. At that price it's worth the gamble and it's a positive sign about the move.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/22/mario-balotelli-liverpool-pay-brendan-rodgers

Vinz Mesrine

K-9 wrote: »

Balotelli for £16 Million and 80k a week, a 50% drop in wages, with performance bonuses on top. At that price it's worth the gamble and it's a positive sign about the move.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/22/mario-balotelli-liverpool-pay-brendan-rodgers

€16m so about £12m according to his agent.

cson

Given Shane Long went for £12m that's a great deal Liverpool are getting. Raging Arsenal didn't go for him; yeah he has his issues but the lad is talented and at his age for that price its a shot to nothing. Even if he bombs you're still going to get ~80% of the fee back at worst. So worst case scenario he costs you about 3 days matchday revenues.

I can see why FSG were all over this.

Dempsey

cson wrote: »

Given Shane Long went for £12m that's a great deal Liverpool are getting. Raging Arsenal didn't go for him; yeah he has his issues but the lad is talented and at his age for that price its a shot to nothing. Even if he bombs you're still going to get ~80% of the fee back at worst. So worst case scenario he costs you about 3 days matchday revenues.

I can see why FSG were all over this.

With the extortionate ticket prices in England, I dont think fans that go to matches would appreciate that thinking

LuckyLloyd

rarnes1 wrote: »

Fees depend on who you talk to/read.

Funny that some people take them so serious

It will always be very important to certain people at certain times to maximise / minimise fees depending on the player concerned.

Ranchu

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It will always be very important to certain people at certain times to maximise / minimise fees depending on the player concerned.

Depending on what club you support it becomes more of an important issue. Still not as important as wages paid which doesn't get as much attention for some reason.

SherlockWatson

cson wrote: »

Given Shane Long went for £12m that's a great deal Liverpool are getting. Raging Arsenal didn't go for him; yeah he has his issues but the lad is talented and at his age for that price its a shot to nothing. Even if he bombs you're still going to get ~80% of the fee back at worst. So worst case scenario he costs you about 3 days matchday revenues.

I can see why FSG were all over this.

Its a bit telling though that both of his previous clubs have sold him on pretty sharpish and were both happy to take a 4m loss on him.

K-9

SherlockWatson wrote: »

Its a bit telling though that both of his previous clubs have sold him on pretty sharpish and were both happy to take a 4m loss on him.

I don't think he had any serious issues at Milan, it seems more a financial move on behalf of Berlusconi with no CL.