₦airaland Forum

nateevs: You mean the same one who's done his ACL? Have you guys ever wondered if it's posible to get the real Falcao 'on loan'?

he's scored 2 goals in 3 games this season already. same tally as costa after just 3 games.

done his ACL? how did he pass his medicals at united then? so nateevs dey this sour grapes tip? nateevs, are you scared yet?


https://31.media.tumblr.com/3beb616df4b92fb4d2e90329225eed6a/tumblr_mf5729OYaB1r1fq7do1_500.gif

afrodoc2: Manchester City sold a player whose contract was worth 17.6 million pounds for less than 9 million pounds . This nullifies your theory.
The party who is concerned about the value of the remaining contract (i.e salary) is THE PLAYER not the selling club. That is why players can refuse to move to another club for less pay e.g Adebayor and of course the infamous Winston Bogarde.
If a player refuses to take a pay cut then the selling club has to augment the salary being offered by the buying club (that is if they are desperate to release the player). OR they could just allow him continue collecting salary for nothing the way Bogarde did.

it doesn't nullify my theory - no individual sells at a loss or trades at a loss. please, find a straight forward deal - no prior loans, no compensation or pay-off!

player A signs for club B just like we got mata or how bayern got lewandowski. no prior deals or precontract jargons. a straight deal where the buyer & the seller had no prior loan jargons about the said player.

ade's situation is a big anomaly!

elampiro: Now you admitted that the forces of demand and supply played the role. Not the wages and number of years left. So what are you arguing about?

the forces of demand & supply didn't play any role. looking at all the articles i have read, city deliberately sold at a loss to get him off their club. they were prepared to do anything to get ade off their books - that's their prerogative - they are rich & that loss was nothing to them.

ade's transfer deal is an anomaly!
no trader willingly sells at a loss - whatever the real truth in ade's transfer is between city & spurs. all i know is, it's not a straight forward deal. i couldn't find any article on ade's loan deal with spurs before the contract was made permanent - maybe that would shed more light to why city would be paying £95,000 per week to a player they announced they have sold.

afrodoc2: Adebayor's remaining contract was worth 17.6 m pounds so according to Coogar's theory City should have made at least 17.6 m pounds from his sale.
However City sold him for 9 million( or 5 million) pounds to Spurs and still paid compensation to him. It means City made 9 million minus whatever money they paid Adebayor as compensation.
However you calculate it Manchester City made less than 9 million pounds on selling a player whose contract was worth 17.6 million pounds

city willingly sold at a loss!
they could have kept adebayor to run down his contract. why should they be paying £95,000 weekly wage for a player that is not playing for them?

afrodoc2: The fact that Man City were still paying part of Adebayor's salary despite selling him for a fraction of his contract worth means they were making even more of a loss on selling him. That nullifies your argument Coogar.
A selling club does not have to recoup the worth of a player's contract when selling.......If you factor in Adebayor's transfer fee and factor in the salary still being paid by City they made a loss not a profit

the contract is a sham!
perhaps because city were ready to get rid, they willingly coughed out the difference. if it was more of the buying club more interested than city were willing to get rid, this wouldn't even occur.

city are still paying ade what they woulda paid him if he was still with them + £5m they received from spurs - that's not your normal transfer deal.

Andros Townsend could yet become a target for rival clubs after Tottenham's reward for his England heroics was a new four-year deal worth 'just' £16,000 a week.

The contract means that, despite a £10,000 per week pay-rise, the 22-year-old’s earnings will still be dwarfed by misfit team-mate Emmanuel Adebayor’s £170k weekly wage - which is partly paid by his former club, Manchester City.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/tottenhams-andros-townsend-still-being-2468116

Spy360: You must understand the business of contracts. Termination of contracts come at a price, that is a pay off. That is different from transfer of economic right.

How do you think clubs make profit from selling? Again if contracts determine transfer fees then transfer fees will not be by negotiation.

you misread me!
no one said contracts determines transfer fees. we said no club would sell a player lower than the remaining contract value.

if i am a player taking £1m a year in salary & i have 2 years left on my contract, there's no way the fee agreed between my club and the buying club be less than £2m.

it can be any amount in the world but it won't be less than the £2m they were going to pay me if i was staying in my club. they will not revoke my old contract for a lesser value.

elampiro: You are wrong. City have paid Adebayo off. He received £4m pounds.
..........
'It all means that Adebayor has been compensated for his reduced wages, Tottenham have secured their main attacking transfer target for around £9 million and Manchester City have succeeded in getting one of their major earners off the book'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/tottenham-hotspur/9490747/Tottenham-confirm-signing-of-Emmanuel-Adebayor-from-Manchester-City-in-deal-worth-9m.html

elampiro - city are still paying! the balance would be spread over the next 2 years to cover for the remainder of the original 5-year contract he signed for city in 2009.

elampiro: Stop talking like you didn't go to school.

Adebayo salary for two years is £17.6m. The breakdown of the deal below doesnt get close to £17.6m
..........

that's even a lie - adebayor's salary is £140k/week according to the dailymail link. 140k X 104 weeks isn't £17m.

Emmanuel Adebayor completes £5m move to Tottenham


http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/19334854
.....................


Adebayor had been on £170,000-a-week at City and, while that salary has been reduced to around £100,000 to fit Tottenham’s wage structure, he has also received a big pay-off to leave the Etihad Stadium.

It is understood that Adebayor received a signing-on fee from Tottenham of around £4 million. The transfer fee between Spurs and City for Adebayor was around £5 million.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/tottenham-hotspur/9490747/Tottenham-confirm-signing-of-Emmanuel-Adebayor-from-Manchester-City-in-deal-worth-9m.html

[/quote]city are still paying £95k per week to adebayor even while he's in spurs & they will pay for the next 2 years. ade refused to take a pay-cut otherwise he was ready to rot on the bench and still collect his £140k he signed for. that's the fact of the matter.

find another player - every player you have mentioned have been shredded.

Spy360: Transfer fee may influence contract payments but it is not statutory. Clubs increase players contract payments to hold them down so they can sell at a big fee on a later date, if the player rejects the offer, he wants to move sooner.

Take William Carvalho as example, he earns £5000 weekly at Porto with 2years to go but would have sold for £30m.

Again take Sami Khedira who is at £40,000 with a year to go, rejected a new deal at Madrid to hold him down so he can leave for free.

Clubs do not buy off players contracts they buy their economic rights, if not Transfer fees would not be negotiable. Thanks, hope I helped.

that economic rights is what would make the selling club tear up the old contracts. do you know any reason why a selling club would sell less than the present contract value?

elampiro: So how is £9m even close to £17.6m?
* Many sources out there stated £5m, including UKtransfers site.

your math is horrible!
city are still paying £95,000 of adebayor's weekly wages to balance up his original weekly pay at city. technically, ade is still on his old salary, nothing has changed + the £5m tottenham paid to sign him.

tottenham couldn't match city's wages cos it would disrupt their wage structure. ade refused to take a pay-cut at least for the remainder of his contract(2 years).....so city & spurs are joint-payers of adebayor's weekly wages for now until the original 5 years he signed at city expires.

elampiro: How can it be x24? There are 104 weeks in a year.

there are 52 weeks in a year......104 weeks in 2 years but all that is immaterial!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2513483/Manchester-City-paying-Emmanuel-Adebayor-40-000-week-Tottenham.html

Tottenham paid 5million, not 9m.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/tottenham-hotspur/9490747/Tottenham-confirm-signing-of-Emmanuel-Adebayor-from-Manchester-City-in-deal-worth-9m.html

elampiro: Another example is Adebayo who City sold for 5million when he had 2 years left in his contract. Adebayo was on 170k

That means he should have been sold for 17.6m.



More examples will come up. I want to log out.

this boy is an illiterate.
so £0.17m x 24 months remaining on adebayors contract is £17.6m?

your valuation is even wrong - tottenham paid £9m for adebayor. now lemme go & look at the various loan deals adebayor had while city was the parent club.

he had loan deals to madrid & spurs.
hold on, lemme bust your bubble!

elampiro: You will never agree.

Okay lets look at it. So you mean Evra's salary would have been 1.5m now in Man United. That is 28k/week?

With time I will give you more examples of players' transfers which rubbished your logic.

it would be less than that sef - shaw made evra a fringe player. he was going to have prolly 5-6 appearances with the arrival of shaw. shaw musta been promised close to 30+ league apps in his contract.

raumdeuter: A players wage has nothing to do with his transfer fees
Lewandoski was on like 2.5m a yr in Dortmund and in an open market would sell for over 50m
Ashley Young is on a 120k per week in Man Utd and in an open market wont sell for more than 10m
E.g Man Utd has e.g Nick Powell on 10k per week on a 4yr contract, If his skillset in the next 2yrs get to Messi's level, and he refused to sign an extension. Man Utd can sell him for 100m while he is still on a 10k per week salary

you are an idiöt!
one thing you have never had is common sense. ashley young is on £120k/week....his contract value reduces each year he completes.

if any club approaches united today for young, they would pay the remainder of his contract which is about 2 years or more. otherwise, no one would come for him & united would let him run down his contract till he becomes a free agent.

nick powell's example you brought up even shows you have no IQ. if powell becomes messi & united decide to sell him, they will sell him £1 billion if they wish but they will not sell him lower than his contract value

no one here has said the contract value must be equal to transfer fees. what we said was the transfer fee cannot be lower than the contract value.

when you see the headlines dayokanu is transferred to makurdi club for N50,000, it means that his economic rights were valued at N50,000 - which is the amount of money his former club was willing to let him go for and to revoke the contract between them.

explain why your former club would let you go for a value lower than the contract between you & your former club. this is common sense but then it seems common sense isn't common here.

elampiro: It;s widely reported that his new contract was 90k. BBC also confirmed that it was a rollover from the previous contract.

.......
He signed a one-year extension to his contract in May but asked to leave when Juventus approached United over his availability.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28409439

don't let english confuse you....
it was a new contract. the old contract ended on the 30th of june, 2014. evra signed it around 2010/11 circa & it was to pay him £90k/week as a starting xi.

there's no way united would put evra on a weekly wage he was receiving 3 years ago when he was fitter & more effective. there's no way evra would get £90k a week as a bench player.

a contract extension but a new deal!!

elampiro: Not yeye link. There are many sources. The old contract was renewed as it was.

it wasn't - otherwise, evra wouldn't have left when juventus flirted with him. the fact that evra was only offered a contract a month before his old contract was expiring should tell you the decision makers at old trafford were prepared to let him run his contract down.

ordinarily, he could have signed a pre-contract agreement with another club as far back as january. there's no way united were paying him £90k/week again with his old contract few weeks to expire. all player contracts end on the 30th of june.....evra signed in may ending.

you sef think am.
evra's new contract couldn't have been more than £15k/week. shaw was coming & shaw wasn't coming to sit on the bench after paying £28m to secure his services. evra musta been on a massive pay-cut in his new contract & that was why he flew the moment juve came calling with a longer contract & perhaps bigger pay.

elampiro: The new contract is 90k.


Patrice Evra is happy to accept a pay cut on his £90,000-a-week wage in order to seal a move away from Manchester United, reports Goal.trice Evra will accept pay cut to join Juventus
http://www.givemesport.com/466020-patrice-evra-will-accept-pay-cut-to-join-juventus

the new contract is not £90k
the old contract that ended in june was £90k - evra didn't receive a penny from the new contract before he got sold to juventus. the old contract was the one your yeye link was referring to.

like i said, stop muddying up the waters.

elampiro: Patrice Evra was on 90k/week= 4.68m.
He was sold for 1.5m

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27546993

evra's £90k a week contract ended at the end of last season. he signed a new one year contract - nobody knows the terms of his new contract before he was finally sold.

elampawa, stop muddying up the waters with your obsolete information.

elampiro: * Kagawa had a one year left in Dortmund when we bought him for 17 million pounds. But we sold him for 6.6m or so. Yet he was receiving higher salary at United.

you are a confused man
i am not interested in kagawa's contract at dortmund. how many years did he have left in his united contract? how much was he receiving per year at united? was it more or less than his transfer fee when multiplied by the number of years left on his united contract?

kagawa was earning £20k/week in dortmund. his wages here was about £50k or £60k(including add-ons)per week. kagawa earned £3 million a year at united. if he has got 2 years left on his contract here before moving back to dortmund then we sold higher than his contract value.

once again, my point has been proven.

* The number of years left in a contract is about how long a club has a right over the ownership of a player, and not how much he earns. How much he earns is not considered in determing the fee.

the selling club will not sell lower than their own valuation of the player. when both clubs are agreeing a fee, they would calculate how much they have left to pay on his contract - that will be the basepoint of where negotiations would start.

united had £5m to £6m left to pay kagawa over the next 2 years. the minimum any buying club must have is that amount before united can even go to the table & negotiate any fee. if they now get a club willing to pay £60m, then it's a bonus but united will not sell less than how much they have left to pay kagawa for the remainder of his contract.

elampiro: See Argument. Let me read in details and understand it very weel.

However, CIES valued Luke Shaw at 27 million pounds without another adds-ons. So it means United underpaid for Luke Shaw. Ukwu!!!

this has nothing to do with the argurment!

Coogar and Buntu, can you guys find some players to use as examples. Using your salary and years of contract left, can you fix Kagawa transfer from and to Dortmund into this? What about Balotelli. There could be many more players to use as example.

how much years were left on kagawa's contract. how much was he sold for? tabulate the same for balotelli.

If you ask me, players weekly salary has nothing to do with the transfer fee to be paid for player. After all the new club is going to continue paying that salary and not the old one. Ofcourse the number if years left comes into play because the club would be losing their grip on a player as time ticks down.

* A player form and the market forces are the most important determinant of transfer price.

so one side of the mouth, weekly wages have nothing to do with it and on the other side of your mouth, the number of years left on the contract comes into play?

there are many confused people on this section.

4llerbuntu: i doubt if you even read to comprehend.
when man yoo and chelsea do their agreement in writing, how does that agreement bind rooney or compel rooney to be obligated to chelsea?
smh.

nihilist is confused!

anyone buying rooney in the next transfer window must pay nothing less than £45m to man utd. rooney would have only used up one year of his new contract by then & united would not sell lower than their own valuation.

the buying club must pay united £45m plus more before agreeing personal terms with rooney. if rooney then decides he wants a pay-cut of £1 per week in his new contract with the buying club then it's entirely up to rooney.

4llerbuntu must be a player agent - see analysis. 4ller, i need an agent asap to help me secure a contract with dolphins fc portharcourt. i will give you 10% of my weekly wages for the entire length of the contract.

teddybiyasi: yh I'm just pulling your legs
if I should surpass fyh tomorrow I promise you mikuz head

good for you - make sure you win.

but fyh I'll do anything to murder me n anyone who dare stand on his way until he get hold of mikuz. any which way anybody who wins between me n him will surely aim for mikuz head

teddybiyasi - you are confident o. you want to take on FYH?? anyways, let me go & buy a casket in case. at least one of you must die in the battle & my smart money is on you to kick the bucket.

i hope you have cashed the cheque i sent to you.....spend the money before you die o!

Nihilist: That was for 4llerbuntu who came here to drop subliminals...it wasn't directed to you. The man claimed that football transfers involved the sale of a contract, I simply informed him via a wikipedia entry that he was wrong

As you were...

that's technically what it means - the buying club must be prepared to buy out the remainder of the existing contract plus other factors. the remainder of the contract is the starting point for all negotiations.

find an example on the internet that contradicts what 4llerbuntu & i have said. prove us wrong with just one example.

Nihilist: In professional football, a transfer is the action taken whenever a player under contract moves between clubs. It refers to the transferring of a player's registration from one association football club to another. In general, the players can only be transferred during a transfer window and according to the rules set by a governing body. Usually some sort of compensation is paid for the player's rights, which is known as a transfer fee. When a player moves from one club to another, his old contract is terminated and he negotiates a new one with the club he is moving to, unlike in American, Canadian and Australian sports, where teams essentially trade existing player contracts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_%28association_football%29

so which part of what you fonted in red says the new contract would worth less than the existing contract. i just can't stand people who wouldn't admit they are wrong.

of course the old contract is terminated but the selling club wouldn't sell at a loss. i have asked you to find one player who left at a value less than the remainder of his existing contract in more than 5 million player transfers on the internet.

if you cannot find one, don't come back here and quote what doesn't apply to the discussion.

Like I said before, a football transfer does NOT involve BUYING A CONTRACT. No Contract is being RE-ASSIGNED....What is sold is the player's ECONOMIC RIGHTS.

that's exactly what it is. the economic rights is the value of the existing contract remaining plus all other factors. stop using vocabulary to convince us. i have shredded your caroll example & if you bring more names, i would shred them.

The reason I didn't carry on with coogar is because I know he would never concede anyway even if Sep Blatter came down...so why bother?

the reason you didn't carry on is because you don't even know the difference between the transfer fee of a player & the value of his contract.

caroll's transfer fee is £35m
caroll's value of contract(liverpool) = £20m

caroll spent 1.5 seasons at liverpool before going on loan to west ham for a year. so he spent 2.5 years of his contract as a liverpool player. his contract remained 3 years at £70k per week before he was sold to west ham.

caroll's contract value before moving to west ham has now reduced to around £10m. liverpool bought him at £16m - which was what i have been trying to tell you that the buying club must pay at least the value of his remaining contract or more.

teddybiyasi: coogar still lives I tot ibime did the finishing chaiiii

which finishing?
that was a debatable battle - i had way less material than him. mikuz that swore on his balls that he would never allow stretching did nothing to trim ibime's verse to match mine.

if the quality of the verses are neck & neck but one verse has way more quantity, of course the verse with more quantity would edge the other one with less quantity.

awaiting ya brawl with u3 n also my money closeup should be paying me for this smiley

until the rules of battling are well-defined & the voting system is well structured, i will not be battling anyone for the foreseeable future. mikuz is a simpleton, a fraud & he cannot be trusted to oversee top-tier battles.

UlqU3: Ok.

@Mikuz, does this look like someone who made a mistake in his vote or someone with a grudge/point to prove? The fact that all these shenanigans have been allowed speaks volumes. Its sad that a good battle has turned into a popularity contest. Take care.

the voting system on NL is super-biased, deal with it. your only compensation is to take pride in the verse you have written...that's all to it. as long as you are happy with the quality of your verse then nothing else should matter.

if we had beef few days before your battle, then i am definitely voting for your opponent regardless of the quality of your verse. if your opponent is my homie, he gets my vote automatically too.

FYH & i tried to air out the inconsistencies when he battled mikuz.....this led to long arguments here & there but after all was said & done, mik got the W. so my guy, take pride in your written & leave the rest to your maker.

mikuz is a criminal!

winner to be decided after 3 votes? what kinda ridiculous rule is this? so what happens if any of mik's lapdogs are lying in wait for the verses to be dropped & 3 of them vote mikuz?

Nihilist: I am done.

bye.

Nihilist: Everton did not get Eto'o for 'free'. As his economic right's were not held by any club, Everton were free(pun intended ) to purchase his rights directly from him for whatever period of time stipulated in his contract. Which is why Everton can still SELL Etoo in January.

etoo was a free agent, rio was a free agent. no transfer fee was paid for any of them before moving to their new clubs. transpose that into garri/yam and let's see how clued up you are.

Like I said, I'm done with the whole Transfer Value Debate

because you have belatedly seen your flaw. caroll was on £70k per week at liverpool & he signed a 5.5 years contracts - it means the value of caroll's contract at liverpool was around £19m.

west ham paid £16m for him after making his deal permanent. as at that time, caroll's contract was way less than what west ham paid for him. forget the £35m liverpool paid newcastle, they overpaid or overvalued caroll.

Nihilist: I have explained that to you already: When a club buys a player, they are buying his economic rights. i.e The rights to make money via playing football in FIFA approved leagues for a finite amount of time which is stipulated between player an club. So when a player signs a 5 year contract with a club, he is effectively signing away his rights to make money from playing football for a period of 5 years. The parent club effectively owns the player's rights for the period of 5 years...and the rights can be traded to another club...which makes it a commodity...just like yam and garri.

you are arguing in circles again. in what circumstance can you go to the market & get a sack of garri for free like everton got etoo for free? you are tying yourself in a tortuous knot of logic comparing players in a contract to food commodities - there's a universe of difference.

The player is legally powerless because he has no economic rights for the period stipulated in his contract. However the player could choose to be a disruptive element in the dressing room/training ground/pitch forcing the club to assess his VALUE to the team, and choose to sell him at a knockdown price based on their VALUATION of his worth to the team....as we have seen with Tevez and Balotelli

what did you see with tevez & balotelli? let's discuss their contracts. state which of their contracts, how much they were taking in the existing contracts & how much they were sold?

Selling clubs routinely sell at a loss....Liverpool incurred significant losses on Carroll and Downing, and Chelsea agreed to bear part of the cost of Torres's wages simply to get rid of him

torres is on loan - chelsea still owns his registration so rule that out. caroll & downing? you are really clueless about this. we are not talking about the deduction of the transfer fee he was bought from the transfer fee he was sold.

we are talking about the length of the existing contract & the selling value. the value of caroll's contract in liverpool is different from how much he was bought from newcastle. that's pretty much what you are calculating in your example there.

You are confusing yourself about the way transfers work. There are two transactions during a player purchase.

Firstly, The buying club pays the selling club to relinquish control of the player's economic rights

Secondly, The buying club then offers a contract to the player to purchase his economic rights for a another set period of time.

i have pretty much explained this earlier that price = value + x.

Rooney's contract with Manyoo has no absolutely bearing on the transfer fee negotiations between the two clubs, and only serves as a precedent during negotiation between Rooney's camp and the buying club

it does.....
i have told you to find one player that was sold at a value less than his weekly wages X number of years left on his contract and you are dancing azonto.

caroll wasn't sold at a loss & downing wasn't sold at a loss. even though their transfer fees were high when liverpool bought them, their weekly wage was very moderate.

Nihilist: Without a doubt, players are commodities exactly like yam and garri...and when a club buys a player in association football, they are NOT buying the player's contract, but the economic rights of a player...hence a purchased player has to negotiate a new contract with the buying club.

in other words, garri & yam have existing contracts on the shelf & you might get lucky to buy a basket of yam for free cos the contract of the yam ran out?

Even if a buying club presented an offer for a player that represented the exact monetary amount that had been invested in the player so far, the selling club are not obliged to sell.

but in a circumstance where the player wishes to leave, what happens?

The selling club will only sell when they receive an offer that they consider appropriate recompense for the player's economic rights. Of course, the buying club might not consider the seller's asking price to be commensurate with their perceived estimation of the player's economic rights and break off negotiations.

and since the selling club would never sell at a loss, it then means the buying club must be prepared to buy out the existing contract first & foremost before they can even get near the negotiating table. that's the key!

rooney could have gone to chelsea last season for £25m to £30m as he had 2 years left on his contract as at then at £200k/week. that's £10m x 2 =£20m. it then means chelsea were willing to add extra £5m to £10m to rooney's contract value if we were willing to sell.

It is the very considerations in the paragraph above that constitute player value .

you are just going round in circle. if a buying club were to approach rooney in january, how much do you think rooney's transfer fee would be. he's got 3 years left on his £300k/week contract.

Contract worth is more or less irrelevant when it comes to negotiating between two clubs. The only factor involving contracts in player purchase in contract length. The longer the contract is, the less likely the player is to try and force a move.

the contract length means nothing - james rodriguez went to madrid after completing only one year of his contract. the key is if the buying club is prepared to buy out the length of his existing contract. the selling club aren't stüpid - they will not sell at a loss!

Why should a buying club offer Manyoo a minimum 45m for Rooney based on the value of his contract?

so why was chelsea willing to pay £30m for a damaged good called rooney as at august 2013? rooney was on £200k or £250k per week then & his contract only remained 2 years. rooney had fallen out of favour with fergie & he was benched for the remainder of 2012/13. did chelsea's valuation match rooney's contract value or not?

in short, go on the internet & find just one example of a player who was bought for what was way less than his existing contract.
if you don't find one example, don't come back here.

Nihilist: You have absolutely no idea what the meaning of value is.

Every commodity has a:

1. Value
2. Utility
3. Exchange Value
4. Price

That is economics 101.

you are looking at players like they are commodities like yams & garri. it's not so. when you buy a player, you are buying his existing contract & whatever it's on top which are determined by age, influence to the team(goals, points, etc)

The first 3 are subjective, as the seller and buyer have different ideas of how much a commodity is worth to them. A price is merely a means of quantifying value.

it's not about different idea. the buyer must clean out his existing contract. rooney has a £300k/week contract at 27 - he's only used one year out of that contract. anyone buying rooney now must clean out the remainder of that contract - that is the price the negotiation would start from, it can never be lower than that. that is rooney's value - take it or leave it.

Value is subjective because it encompasses emotions like greed and desperation on both sides and cannot be calculated.

i reiterate - players are not yams or cassava. players operate mainly by their market values. they all have existing contracts. as much as rooney's value is high, if we ever allow him to run down his contract before selling, the buyer would pay £0 for him. so stop applying the rules of economics to players - there are slight differences.

CIE attempt to calculate how much a player is worth based on statistics. But the player's value is also decided by how much profit the selling club wants, and how desperate the buyer wants the player.

the statistics, age, length of contract, etc = value. the price can then be x. price = value + x. x can be any amount depending on the greediness or the desperation you spoke about earlier but the value is constant! always constant.

The article also tries to assess player worth based on the amount invested in him by the selling club...this also a pretty stupidd approach....Beat's headphones reportedly cost only around 3 dollars to produce....but a set of beats headphones are not VALUED at 3 dollars are they?

headphones don't have existing contracts on the shelves. this is why you cannot compare it to player contracts 100%. beats headphones cannot be sold for £0 if they run out their contracts. you are basically comparing apples & oranges here.

rooney has a £15m per year contract he signed in feb this year. any buyer that wants to buy rooney in january next year must have £45m as his starting point cos rooney still has 3 years left on the contract. regardless of the buyer's valuation that rooney is crap - he must have £45m before he can even start negotiating.

Despite their calculations,Even CIE admit to estimating rather than stating outright value...because Value by it's very nature is not absolute

estimated value = market value(provided all other conditions are constant). there's a reason some players have buy-out clauses. you are basically buying out their contracts plus more perhaps. selling club will not sell lower than the existing contract regardless of the buyer's valuation.

WARRIBLOOD: Dem all forming kanye west for 9ja hiphop.....nor blame me if i ask wen dem go take blow....


Me a FAN of america shit...can Spit all slimshady lyrics wit no eye blinked (presently playin is latest "LEGACY"(
done quite lot of song....but not in ur wildest dream you see Me flow like Dem...

Smh...for all dis copycat

eminem's best piece of written since "stay wide awake." his rhyme scheme on that track is peerless.