Deadline Day: Bring Out The Transfer Gimp!

amiable wrote: »

He would have received a portion of the transfer fee.
He also received over £4million in wages from Spurs from his time there.
Where is this profit?

Apologies, messed up my calculations. He only earned just over £3.5 million though, minus the £1.5 mill transfer profit that's £2 million, over 52 weeks that just £40,000 a week. Bear in mind the jersey sales and whatnot, and the fact that he actually played for us regularly enough. That's good business for a player of his calibre.

BINKY NIPPER wrote: »

I'm sure if he was so angry enough to teach Modric a lesson with all his antics to date then he would get and have Joe Lewis backing on this.

I don't think it's up to Joe Lewis either to dictate a FIFA rule

amiable wrote: »

Arsenal were never in for him.
It seems Spurs were his only serious suitors.

What? Type in "Jan Vertonghen Arsenal" into Google and whole host of results come up. He was heavily linked with both North London clubs. This is a quote from the man himself;

"They have shown me around, I have met all their key people and their chairman came to meet me on Monday. But Arsenal want me too."

THFC wrote: »

What? Type in "Jan Vertonghen Arsenal" into Google and whole host of results come up. He was heavily linked with both North London clubs. This is a quote from the man himself;

"They have shown me around, I have met all their key people and their chairman came to meet me on Monday. But Arsenal want me too."

The tabloids decided to link him. It doesn't make it so.
Type any players name in to google and often you'll see Liverpool suggested.
It doesn't make it so.

Lets reason it out though to suit you. Arsenal have finally an established centre back pairing that seems to be excellent in Vermaelen and Koscielny backed up by a German international with over 80 caps. Do you still think Spurs beat Arsenal to Vertonghen?

BINKY NIPPER wrote: »

Your just bitter that LFC are paying Joe Cole £5.2m a season:eek:

I fail to see the relevance

By the way, it's you are not your

amiable wrote: »

Jersey sales that Pienaar generated in a January transfer? Think about that one again.
So we've established Spurs didn't make money on Pienaar including subsidising his wages while on loan at Everton and giving him his payoff on his transfer back to Everton?

Yes, we've established that, without knowing what sales he generated, we paid approx £40,000 a week for a player of his calibre. Is that bad business? Do you know what sort of impact he had on the team?

From the outside looking in, we were paying mid-level wages to an experienced, talented footballer.

THFC wrote: »

Yes, we've established that, without knowing what sales he generated, we paid approx £40,000 a week for a player of his calibre. Is that bad business? Do you know what sort of impact he had on the team?

From the outside looking in, we were paying mid-level wages to an experienced, talented footballer.

Spurs paid more than £40 k per week for Pienaar.
He was on the higher scale of Spurs wages as he was almost on a bosman.
But you said Spurs made a profit on him. Surely we've established they didn't for a player that hardly played. Yes that is bad business IMO.
Not much of an impact did he have IMO from the bench or when he was at Everton having his wages subsidised.

BINKY NIPPER wrote: »

btw its you're and not you are....see what i just did?

never mind

It's actually either or but I didn't need to be checked on it and your point on Joe Cole is still not relevant.

amiable wrote: »

Spurs paid more than £40 k per week for Pienaar.
He was on the higher scale of Spurs wages as he was almost on a bosman.
But you said Spurs made a profit on him. Surely we've established they didn't for a player that hardly played. Yes that is bad business IMO.
Not much of an impact did he have IMO from the bench or when he was at Everton having his wages subsidised.

Honestly, are you even reading my posts?? Did I not take that bit back??

According to speculation, something which you so easily dismissed earlier on, Pienaar was due to earn £16,000,000 over 4 1/2 years = £68,000 a week. £68,000 by 52 (about the amount of weeks he was with us) = ~£3.5mill, minus the £1.5 mill profit, equals £2m. £2m divided by 52 = £38,500 a week. Factor in sales, impact on the team, dressing room, etc, my opinion is that that was a good bit of business, considering we sold him for a higher fee than we paid for him to the same club, without him playing as well as he was before he joined us.

Anyways, I've work in the morning at 8, I'm gone.

THFC wrote: »

Honestly, are you even reading my posts?? Did I not take that bit back??

According to speculation, something which you so easily dismissed earlier on, Pienaar was due to earn £16,000,000 over 4 1/2 years = £68,000 a week. £68,000 by 52 (about the amount of weeks he was with us) = ~£3.5mill, minus the £1.5 mill profit, equals £2m. £2m divided by 52 = £38,500 a week. Factor in sales, impact on the team, dressing room, etc, my opinion is that that was a good bit of business, considering we sold him for a higher fee than we paid for him to the same club, without him playing as well as he was before he joined us.

Whatever way you spin it Spurs paid money for a player they didn't really use. You also failed to factor in the money he earned from Spurs while on loan at Everton.

Yann M'Vila linked to Spurs now

Caveman1 wrote: »

Read a story earlier saying he'll be Modric's replacement?? Not even close to the same type of player, would do well in the PL though.

Was that the Duncan Castles piece?

Caveman1 wrote: »

It was indeed, he actually tweeted later on saying M'Vila was an alternative to Moutinho?

I read that too. His info on transfers is very reliable IMO.
His opinion on the ability of players is not as good.
Yann M'Vila would be a terrific signing at the price mentioned.