Would you accept 50 Million for Suarez?

I expect you said the same when torres was sold.

Your myopic view of finance and your continued histrionics and insults only serve to show that you are in fact what you claim others to be.

You have no grasp of the issues, and have shown that the finer points completely pass you by, and that it is your view that is short sighted.

All your wailing and gnashing of teeth as you strive desperately to show you are right only reminds me of an infant crying at the loss of an ice cream.

Yours is the short term view, mine is the long term, and if you had even an ounce of knowledge, you'd know that.

The clubs value has NEVER depreciated from the loss of one player, as you should know, in fact I can't be arsed talking to someone with half a wit so I'll leave you to stew in the self righteous anger that you so vehemently spew whilst digging a hole in the sand to hide your head from the reality of the factual world.


Didn't you USED to be a moderator?
I think I see why the past tense applies.

He's 21, didn't you talk out of your arse when you were that age?

That last bit, F***ing shithouse behaviour imo and a bit below the belt!

I expect you said the same when torres was sold.

Your myopic view of finance and your continued histrionics and insults only serve to show that you are in fact what you claim others to be.

You have no grasp of the issues, and have shown that the finer points completely pass you by, and that it is your view that is short sighted.

All your wailing and gnashing of teeth as you strive desperately to show you are right only reminds me of an infant crying at the loss of an ice cream.

Yours is the short term view, mine is the long term, and if you had even an ounce of knowledge, you'd know that.

The clubs value has NEVER depreciated from the loss of one player, as you should know, in fact I can't be arsed talking to someone with half a wit so I'll leave you to stew in the self righteous anger that you so vehemently spew whilst digging a hole in the sand to hide your head from the reality of the factual world.


Didn't you USED to be a moderator?
I think I see why the past tense applies.

Yeah i offered JD to find another mod who could actually put in time because i haven't been on the forums as much as a mod should. Not that anyones position should influence their opinion. What an ironically childish thing to say.

I would love for you to find where i cried over Torres leaving. I dont think i even posted on here much and was over him very quickly because he was declining before he left and 50m for him was a terrific deal.

At that stage we still had a good spine to the team, Gerrard hadn't hit his 30s, Pepe was still at his best and we had a lot to be positive about with Suarez and Carroll coming in + Kenny arriving all around the same time.

This time we'll be praying for promising players to fill the boots of truly world class players. Massive difference.

If that's not a long term concern than i don't know what is.

Oh, and at you for comparing me to a child when you do the exact same you're accusing me of.

Should have a look a who you're slagging off, he's malaysian without the same command of English as us, chill out kidda!

My appoligises

Surely the way BR is building his squad is based around Suarez being there for some time

No way. He is the premier leagues top scorer, not that I need to tell you, and has carried Liverpool almost alone. Some players are starting to put in performances,but at the moment we couldn't do without him. Selling him would mean we would have to immediately buy another attacker, and I just wouldn't want to trust those in charge to do that at the moment.

This question gets me thinking... It's money vs football. Assuming that goes into my pocket, 80m will be a straight yes. How many players are sold for 80m? At 50m, maybe not... because right now we need the goals and the CL money to sustain the club. But 80m as some bridging finance to tide over loss of CL money, then it might make some sense.

Of course from a football fan perspective, to hell with money. I don't get to keep a cent anyway. We just want to win every match, we just want Suraez to score a hat trick in every match, for pride and trophies. Then NO. not even 80m.

But who would pay £80million? Ronaldo went for £80million, but you can see, he and Mr Messi are on a different planet compared to Suarez and other players.

And who would replace him, there is no other forward I can see who can realistically replace him if he goes.  Burak Yilmaz and Cavani are quite good but not in the class of Suarez. Falcao would probably go to Chelsea.

No.

He is under long term contract and coming into his peak.

If he wants to go then fine. But 50m does not cut it for me. We should be looking for over 60m imo. There is not a player like him around at the moment. Yes he has his flaws...who doesn't... but he is one of the best all round players in the world at the moment and yet to hit his peak.

I'd swap him for Ronaldo or Messi, but not for anyone else. I think that puts his value right up there.

Amortisation comes into play when talking about players value as an asset on the accounts.

For example we paid £22.8m for Suarez on a five and a half year contract.

So you divide his transfer fee by the length of his contract.

Come the end of the season, Suarez will show as around a £12.6m asset on our accounts.

When you apply the same principles to Reina, he will show as a zero asset on our books as his first initial contract was completed a few years back.

So if Reina was sold now out of daftness for say £10m our books would show a £10m profit.

If Suarez was sold now for £50m our books would show roughly a £31.4m profit.

Is it "asset" or "liability" Daz?

Is it "asset" or "liability" Daz?

I think all players show as an asset until they have completed the length of their first initial contract mate.

That's the grasp I got from reading into it.

I think all players show as an asset until they have completed the length of their first initial contract mate.

That's the grasp I got from reading into it.

No problem mate.

I'd just assumed, in Luis' case that the "asset" side , of the accounts, would have been the £10.2m and the "liability" (sum still 'owing') would show as £12.6m... with Pepe there would be no "liability". Of course all players are an "asset" in that; they can realise a fee when sold. I believed that the value of the "asset" is determined by the price sold, minus the cost still remaining on the books.

My brain hurts. 

Swiss ramble talks about it here a bit.

 To explain this concept, football clubs do not expense transfer fees completely in the year of purchase, but treat players as assets. So the cost of buying players (in accounting terms) is spread over a number of years by writing-off the transfer fee evenly over the length of the players’ contract via amortisation. As an example, Marco Reus was bought for €17 million on a five-year deal, meaning the annual amortisation is €3.4 million.

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/

Swiss ramble talks about it here a bit.

I understand the concept fully mate; just not the language.

To explain this concept, football clubs do not expense transfer fees completely in the year of purchase

Interesting... devil's advocate here:

Does this mean that, in fact, FSG didn't spend all that money [£100m +], in one fell swoop, after all? That, in fact, they only spent (for e.g. and illustration purposes only): £4.56m on Luis; £7m on Carroll; £4m on Downing and £3.2m on Henderson - whilst realising a full £50m on Torres?