₦airaland Forum

Leyqute: This elampiro shaa... always worshipping Rooney despite the BS he's playing.. blinded by love I guess

coded01: That led to




Haba! --- Your hate for suarez is glaring...



Obviously, its no rocket science to know you are "passionately" into rooney... --- He scored a total of 17 goals last season whereby he scored only 12 goals a season before that but yet you n friends pursued Moyes out of Old Trafford like he is Rooney's worst enemy...

But when questioned about Van Gaal, many of you say "Work In Progress"...

raumdeuter: Exactly.

Several forces affect transfer fees and player wage is the least of it.

Elampiro see as I dey support you today by next week if I oppose you, make you no cry wolf o

coogar: 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.

coogar: 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 - 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.

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




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.

coogar: your math is horrible!
city are still paying £95,000 of adebayor's wages to balance 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......so city & spurs are joint-payers of adebayor's weekly wages.

coogar: 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



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

coogar: 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!

coogar: 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!

coogar: 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.

.

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.

coogar: 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!!

coogar: 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.

Purist: If you read the report, you'll see that they included details of the other guys you listed here as well. For instance, Madrid overpaid for Rodriguez too. Barca actually underpaid for Suarez. Chelsea underpaid for Fabregas, etc. CIES calculate using variables like age, contract length, goals, points per match, etc.

You can calculate yourself using their online tool: http://www.football-observatory.com/The-CIES-Football-Observatory-transfer-value

coogar: 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.

coogar: 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.

Itzlinda: Many people here lack knowlegea about legal stuffs, that is why is difficult for them to understand what cooger and buntu are trying to explain.

coogar: 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 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.

Nihilist: My friend stop fooling yourself.

The legal foundation of these transfer fees is a clubs’ entitlement to receive damages for a breach of the employment contract prior to the end of the contract duration, between the club (employer) and the player (worker). In the far majority of the cases the damages are paid by the new club of the player. The damages are the actual transfer fees.

In other words, Transfer fees are paid to effectively TERMINATE CONTRACTS once Buying Club and Player reach an agreement...The contracts are NOT TRANSFERRED. How many times do you have to read this to understand?



http://www.asser.nl/events.aspx?id=386
http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/employment-law/item/third-party-ownership-a-brazilian-perspective

raumdeuter: WHat determines the value of a player are

1. The current skillset of the player

2. Prices/avalaibilty of comparable players with same skills

3. Lenght of contract

4 Speculated future improvement

5. Need of the buying team(How important is the role he needs to fill) and How important is the role he is currently filling for his old team - These would affect his valuation

6. Marketability

7 Other miscellaneous factors

coogar: this has nothing to do with the argurment!



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



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.

Nihilist: I have already shown you that The purchasing club does NOT buy the player's contract. The Club buys the RIGHTS of the player to make money from playing in a FIFA approved league

For avoidance of doubt....see here
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




This is just daft. A contract between Manyoo and Rooney is not the same as a contract between Manyoo and Chelsea. So I dont see the point of this statement...Are you suggesting that once Manyoo and Chelsea agree a fee even in writing for Rooney, Rooney is contractually obligated to Chelsea?



Another daft assertion. You know Chelsea actually bought Mikel from Manyoo right?

The rest of what you wrote is not in dispute, as I had already said that projected profits play a part in determining a player's value....