2018/19 Yerry Mina

[ToffeeTim]

If he needs until after the international break to get fit then so be it. It's a long season and we need him at his best.

 

[MikeH72]

Most fans see a transfer fee and just add and subtract based on that. It doesn't include the overall liability, the true cost of a transfer is in fee and wages in fact wages are ultimately more important then a fee.

That isn’t a factor when discussing profit made on a player though. Every single player in the world has to be paid a wage.

 

[Neiler]

Yeah but most of us are footy fans who need a calculator to add up 2+2, I know I do anyway.

I mean sure the club needs to juggle these things, but we as fans only care about value for money from our signings.

Yeah im arguein a case for Yerry and explaing why i think ultimately he is cost neutral and we will make a small profit if Braca implement there by back.

But take this example and im going by figures posted earlier in the thread:

Klassen 24 million signing.
Wages 6 Million over 5 years.

True cost of his transfer: 54 million in a liability. (Loose figures).

You can see why we were keen to accept a loss on the fee this summer when you factor in 24 million in a liability was saved in wages over a 4 year period.

 

[Neiler]

That isn’t a factor when discussing profit made on a player though. Every single player in the world has to be paid a wage.

But them money comes from the exact same wallet as transfer money, there isnt transfer money and wages money there is just money. So what im saying after his fee and wage and we have met our liability if Barca were to evoke there right to buy him after two years, he will be cost neutral, albeit a small profit.

 

[Neiler]

But it also has to suit the player. It’s an option, not an obligation.

I presume his agent was involved in the negotiations in the deal etc.

 

[meagher94]

Really?

When players are signing you take on a total liability that liability consists of cost of their contract and also the fee for the players registration, both things come off the bottom line of the club.

So in simple Maths, if you sign a player for 30 million, pay him 10-15 million over a two year period, that is subtracted from the overall liability or the cumulative cost of a transfer. There arent separate pots for transfer fess or wages, all come of the bottom line of club finance. So factoring in the cost of this overall deal the liability and profit on the return is a probably about a few million over a two year period. Its fairly simple really.

Doing a simple adding and subtracting of fee paid and fee gotten is pretty meaning less really, you have to asses the rest of the liability.

Even using this logic, we still make a few million profit. Barcelona on the other hand, make around a 30m loss if they sign him back. Yet apparently we’ve been “had”.

 

[Neiler]

Even using this logic, we still make a few million profit. Barcelona on the other hand, make around a 30m loss if they sign him back. Yet apparently we’ve been “had”.

Yep that all im stating, we will make a small profit a 1-5 millionid say depending on his wage. Hes essentially cost neutral.

Not really when you consider they just made 20 million on him in 6 months and could sign him for 50 million and then sell him again for a further profit.

 

[MikeH72]

But them money comes from the exact same wallet as transfer money, there isnt transfer money and wages money there is just money. So what im saying after his fee and wage and we have met our liability if Barca were to evoke there right to buy him after two years, he will be cost neutral, albeit a small profit.

But then Barcelona will have to pay him a wage for 4 or 5 years after they’ve bought him back, so he’ll end up costing them about £120m by your logic. But you’re making it sound like an amazing deal for them.

And by the way, yes there definitely is a separate wage budget to transfer budget.

 

[Connor]

Not sure if the lad has a say if im honest mate.

Why would he not have a say?

That would be very strange if he didn’t get to make decisions on his future.

 

[Neiler]

Why would he not have a say?

That would be very strange if he didn’t get to make decisions on his future.

I presume his agent was involved in the negotiations in the deal etc.

 

[Neiler]

But then Barcelona will have to pay him a wage for 4 or 5 years after they’ve bought him back, so he’ll end up costing them about £120m by your logic. But you’re making it sound like an amazing deal for them.

And by the way, yes there definitely is a separate wage budget to transfer budget.

Well they paid 10 million for him and have made 20 million in 6 months. They could resign him for 50 if he proves promising and sell him again (even that week) if it looks a sound investment. They've done it before. Or they could decide to use him of course.

 

[twoblue]

Even using this logic, we still make a few million profit. Barcelona on the other hand, make around a 30m loss if they sign him back. Yet apparently we’ve been “had”.

Barcelona would have save two season of wages. If he is good enough they sign him back. The player would be more experienced. At the minute they probably feel he isn’t ready for 1st football and they are paying him to be there. It seems like a good deal for everyone involved. If nothing else Mina will know he can earn a deal back at Barcelona, it willhopefull mean he won’t be sitting around picking up a wage with little effor.
If we are signing (potential) world class players and having them four two season, I’m happy. As long as it’s a constant production line.

 

[MikeH72]

Well they paid 10 million for him and have made 20 million in 6 months. They could resign him for 50 if he proves promising and sell him again (even that week) if it looks a sound investment. They've done it before. Or they could decide to use him of course.

Well technically they’ve paid him about £3m in wages so really they’ve only made £17m back.

 

[Neiler]

Well they paid 10 million for him and have made 20 million in 6 months. They could resign him for 50 if he proves promising and sell him again (even that week) if it looks a sound investment. They've done it before. Or they could decide to use him of course.

Also they are getting him of there books and not paying his wage for a couple of years all of that would bring you close to about 35 mill in profit in my book on their original out lay of 10 mill.

 

[Neiler]

Well technically they’ve paid him about £3m in wages so really they’ve only made £17m back.

I think your getting it now mate, its all ball park of course we dont have the exact figures.