It's obvious i know what it means by the way i used the word and explained in my post.
If we lose Suarez, we're not as attractive to other players. Thats as obvious as it gets. Without CL football, without the names of Gerrard and Suarez to pull players, we won't be held as high as other clubs.
I have to question whether you know how to read in context.
I can read fine in context, but it's still obvious you have no clue about what depreciation actually is.
The CLUB does not depreciate in value, in fact if Suarez were sold, it could actually INCREASE the value of the club.
Players are deemed as assets, and only the book figure counts, which is useless as a depreciation tool, because the cost of the player and wages is amortized.
If/when the players leaves, a new player (or players) is brought in for the same or greater value, which has many knock on effects, not least of which is x amount sat on the books in amortized payments.
A player is not a car, and does not depreciate until other clubs are less willing to pay the price of his contract.
Suarez is at his peak, and will remain there for a few years yet, and his book value for the purposes of accounting is not the same as his market value, and this is where you are confusing depreciation of intangible assets with depreciation of fixed assets, which is what concerns the club.
You are also making huge assumptions regarding the motivations of players who or will not come here, based on nothing more than a slack jawed interpretation of what motivates players in a professional context.
Now if you want to get into an accounting debate with me, I'll happily school you, so try replying without the pissy attitude.
Logged