| As Deals Go was this BAD 19:07 - May 29 with 8348 views | OldFart71 |
So apparently Delap goes for £30 million. So that's a £15 million profit ? In the words of a pantomime "Oh yes it is", sadly "Oh no it isn't"
City apparently have a sell on clause of 30% of the £15 million profit, so £15 million now becomes £11.5 million.
Is that really a good deal for a player that could get Chelsea 20 goals next season putting his value at the top end of the £100 million mark.
Whilst I realise City may not have sold Delap to us without this clause did MA really protect Towns interests as £11.5 million isn't going to make much of a dent in the £130 million spent. |  | | |  |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:02 - May 29 with 999 views | Meadowlark |
Yeah, we'd have done better signing me. My wage bill would have been far less and they could sell me for exactly the same price they paid for or me. I would not have demanded a release clause and no other club would claim 20% on my sell on. Ashton missed a trick here. What a twit........ |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:04 - May 29 with 988 views | Tonytown |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 19:46 - May 29 by textbackup |
Alright Mark calm down, you’re still a great CEO |
Thanks texters, don’t forget that though | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:12 - May 29 with 960 views | peterleeblue |
Genuine question what was the point of the £30m release clause.
That’s isn’t in City’s interest.
Market value at best is say £40m so in reality why was the clause there? |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:15 - May 29 with 954 views | RonFearonsHair |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:12 - May 29 by peterleeblue |
Genuine question what was the point of the £30m release clause.
That’s isn’t in City’s interest.
Market value at best is say £40m so in reality why was the clause there? |
Because the £10m the clubs are saving on the perceived value can go towards wages and signing on fees, which massively benefits the player’s bank balance. |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:16 - May 29 with 952 views | textbackup |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:12 - May 29 by peterleeblue |
Genuine question what was the point of the £30m release clause.
That’s isn’t in City’s interest.
Market value at best is say £40m so in reality why was the clause there? |
My best guess would be he backed himself to do something at that level, knew there was a chance we’d go down, and didn’t want to get stuck in the championship/have MA price clubs out of a deal. |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:17 - May 29 with 938 views | Swailsey |
Fk me, this is getting so boring now.
It’s profit.
We had no way of knowing how well he’d do.
If this was the only way to get him through the door, would you rather we didn’t at all? |  |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:25 - May 29 with 894 views | Swansea_Blue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:15 - May 29 by RonFearonsHair |
Because the £10m the clubs are saving on the perceived value can go towards wages and signing on fees, which massively benefits the player’s bank balance. |
I’m sure that’s part of it. Ease of getting out when relegated too, as Texters says. It’s fairly obvious we had to bend a bit to secure him in the first place. That was a gamble worth making imo.
We now move on. The money should be irrelevant to most of us anyway. I don’t know many fans who follow football because their main interest is the profit and loss sheet. |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:30 - May 29 with 872 views | jonbull88 |
And if we put a 20-30% sell on clause and he makes £100m we bank another £20-30m. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:44 - May 29 with 842 views | vilanovablue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:12 - May 29 by peterleeblue |
Genuine question what was the point of the £30m release clause.
That’s isn’t in City’s interest.
Market value at best is say £40m so in reality why was the clause there? |
He'd done v little in the prem, I think the realise clause was fair. It was only because he did well we're upset. If he'd got 8 goals and someone signed him for this price nobody a
Would have blinked most likely. He's been hyped up and we've all gone crazy. |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:46 - May 29 with 824 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 19:46 - May 29 by textbackup |
Alright Mark calm down, you’re still a great CEO |
If we would have been victorious against Leicester the other week it would have been about 30% of what we are getting for him in terms of profit. In fact even if we would have won against WHU I think!
How depressing giving the circumstances and the current market. |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:48 - May 29 with 810 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 19:43 - May 29 by Tonytown |
It’s still over £10m profit on a take it or leave it deal.
Why are so many posters so stupid? Asking for a friend btw |
We have also capped profit on our deals massively. If players turn out to be duds, get injured etc we incur the full £20m and get nothing back. If they are good, we sell them for limited profit. | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:07 - May 29 with 757 views | Tonytown |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 20:48 - May 29 by sjg |
We have also capped profit on our deals massively. If players turn out to be duds, get injured etc we incur the full £20m and get nothing back. If they are good, we sell them for limited profit. |
That may have been the only way that we could have signed them.
Good players want release clauses if we get relegated as we want wage reductions if that happens too.
That’s all part of the negotiation process | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:15 - May 29 with 728 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:07 - May 29 by Tonytown |
That may have been the only way that we could have signed them.
Good players want release clauses if we get relegated as we want wage reductions if that happens too.
That’s all part of the negotiation process |
Then I don’t think it’s unfair to say we have negotiated poorly | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:20 - May 29 with 704 views | Swansea_Blue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:15 - May 29 by sjg |
Then I don’t think it’s unfair to say we have negotiated poorly |
You have no idea what was involved. | |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:24 - May 29 with 690 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:20 - May 29 by Swansea_Blue |
You have no idea what was involved. |
Please see my comment above where I have explained my position | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:26 - May 29 with 686 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:15 - May 29 by sjg |
Then I don’t think it’s unfair to say we have negotiated poorly |
Liam, we all know we will get relegated and you will be a hit in the Premier League and be worth more than £30M. Probably as much as £35M with add-ons too. So we don't want to include a relegation release clause; you will just have to suck it up and stay with us when we are relegated.
What do you mean, you are signing for Southampton, Liam? Where's your ambition? |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:29 - May 29 with 674 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:26 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Liam, we all know we will get relegated and you will be a hit in the Premier League and be worth more than £30M. Probably as much as £35M with add-ons too. So we don't want to include a relegation release clause; you will just have to suck it up and stay with us when we are relegated.
What do you mean, you are signing for Southampton, Liam? Where's your ambition? |
Did we know he would be a hit in the Premier League? He could have broken his leg in the first game or turned out to be absolute turd. It’s poor negotiation (across the board, not just the Delap deal if you read my actual point) because we have limited our upside potential and not downside. Of the £130m (in initial fees, not including add ons) we spent in the summer, if we assume an average contract length of 4 years, we’ve got £32.5m in amortisation costs just on the lads we signed in the summer. So the mega profit we are making covers approximately 25% of that | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:31 - May 29 with 665 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:29 - May 29 by sjg |
Did we know he would be a hit in the Premier League? He could have broken his leg in the first game or turned out to be absolute turd. It’s poor negotiation (across the board, not just the Delap deal if you read my actual point) because we have limited our upside potential and not downside. Of the £130m (in initial fees, not including add ons) we spent in the summer, if we assume an average contract length of 4 years, we’ve got £32.5m in amortisation costs just on the lads we signed in the summer. So the mega profit we are making covers approximately 25% of that |
Whoosh.
EDIT: "not limited the downside" Do you not think failing to sign him at all was quite a downside? [Post edited 29 May 21:34]
| |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:32 - May 29 with 660 views | Tonytown |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:15 - May 29 by sjg |
Then I don’t think it’s unfair to say we have negotiated poorly |
It certainly is unfair to say that to all but an imbecile | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:32 - May 29 with 654 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:31 - May 29 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Whoosh.
EDIT: "not limited the downside" Do you not think failing to sign him at all was quite a downside? [Post edited 29 May 21:34]
|
Thicko | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:32 - May 29 with 649 views | Tonytown |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:29 - May 29 by sjg |
Did we know he would be a hit in the Premier League? He could have broken his leg in the first game or turned out to be absolute turd. It’s poor negotiation (across the board, not just the Delap deal if you read my actual point) because we have limited our upside potential and not downside. Of the £130m (in initial fees, not including add ons) we spent in the summer, if we assume an average contract length of 4 years, we’ve got £32.5m in amortisation costs just on the lads we signed in the summer. So the mega profit we are making covers approximately 25% of that |
Moron | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:33 - May 29 with 647 views | Churchman |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 19:34 - May 29 by cressi |
Better than signing Rory Fallon. |
Yes but if we’d resigned Rory Fallon we’d not have lost out on a £50m deal. Bring in Rory!
For the tears of rage foot stamping brigade, what should have been the deal? Who actually held the cards? The player, Man City, Southampton or ourselves? What could ITFC have done to better it?
I’d be really interested to know. |  | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:34 - May 29 with 631 views | sjg |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:32 - May 29 by Tonytown |
Moron |
Thicko | | | |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:35 - May 29 with 618 views | Pinewoodblue |
Think the original post should have been made on the comments section, where bedwetters reside. |  |
| |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:36 - May 29 with 617 views | Tonytown |
| As Deals Go was this BAD on 21:34 - May 29 by sjg |
Thicko |
Your posts are moronic and show a lack of brain power and understanding | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
