the frampton balti Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 amongst other things, maynard was worth 8 milll in september. now presumably his services would cost around 500k per year. so over a four year contract thats a total of 10 mill. does that mean that his signing on fee with a bosman is also worth 8 mill or do they pay him more .....ie 2.5 mill per year.(2.5 x 4 yers) what is a typical signing on fee for a prem footballer. if its not equivalent to the transfer fee then the figures dont add up. The point im getting at really is why dont we sign nicky for another 4 years and give him the lions share of any fee we acheive.??????? everyones a winner???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Where's £8m come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Where's £8m come from? The question is hypothetical really rog, Whether its 8 or 6 or 2.......todays forum purports leicester offered 9. 5 seems likely. Its more the way that players are valued in respect of their contracts that im interested in. If a player gets a signing on fee then surely logic states that that might be the same size as a transfer fee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 The question is hypothetical really rog, Whether its 8 or 6 or 2.......todays forum purports leicester offered 9. 5 seems likely. Its more the way that players are valued in respect of their contracts that im interested in. If a player gets a signing on fee then surely logic states that that might be the same size as a transfer fee? not at all. there is no connection. Although, when a player is available on a free, like nicky maynard will be - they are usually offered a much higher signing on fee, because the club they are signing for, are saving a bucket load by paying no transfer fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 not at all. there is no connection. Although, when a player is available on a free, like nicky maynard will be - they are usually offered a much higher signing on fee, because the club they are signing for, are saving a bucket load by paying no transfer fee. am I missing something?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 1325597802' post=1486095'] amongst other things, maynard was worth 8 milll in september. now presumably his services would cost around 500k per year. so over a four year contract thats a total of 10 mill. does that mean that his signing on fee with a bosman is also worth 8 mill or do they pay him more .....ie 2.5 mill per year.(2.5 x 4 yers) what is a typical signing on fee for a prem footballer. if its not equivalent to the transfer fee then the figures dont add up. The point im getting at really is why dont we sign nicky for another 4 years and give him the lions share of any fee we acheive.??????? everyones a winner???? A transfer value is fully subjective so that wouldn't work. What will happen is something like: Prem Club will see Maynard as a safe gamble as there is no fee so they are saving, arguably, £5million. Therefore, they will be happy to pay Maynard £500,000 to sign and probably around 20k per week over three years - a further £3m. If it doesn't work out then they can sell him for around £3m ala Beckford and haven't lost any money and Maynard has doubled his wages. They cannot pay him more wages as he would be out of sync with the rest of the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snufflelufagus Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Ah but another thing is that he would be paying 50% tax on all that lovely money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmabbuttshair Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 What I don't understand is complex numbers. Can any clever gits explain J notation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 A transfer value is fully subjective so that wouldn't work. What will happen is something like: Prem Club will see Maynard as a safe gamble as there is no fee so they are saving, arguably, £5million. Therefore, they will be happy to pay Maynard £500,000 to sign and probably around 20k per week over three years - a further £3m. If it doesn't work out then they can sell him for around £3m ala Beckford and haven't lost any money and Maynard has doubled his wages. They cannot pay him more wages as he would be out of sync with the rest of the squad. if thats the case then the figures simply do not stack up. It would make much more sense for nicky to sign a contract and for us to pay him a more substantial signing off fee out of the several millions we recoup. It does sound like nickys not being greedy but just wants his soonest possible crack at Premier League football?............still confused sorry dave im not satisfied with your explaination. I cant believe the financial world of football has left this huge ga pin the figures!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 am I missing something?? I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 What I dont understand is.................................. Chinese writing ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I think so. problem is its not the bit you think im missing unless im missing something else that it never occured to me that i might be missing ...gaud bless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 What I dont verstehen is Japanese and why its all double Dutch to me ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 extremely dissappointed with this forums efforts on this thread. members who think they have solved this conundrum are only kidding themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Ciderhead Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 extremely dissappointed with this forums efforts on this thread. members who think they have solved this conundrum are only kidding themselves. Well i'd like to see you try and read Chinese... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 1325630898' post=1486696'] extremely dissappointed with this forums efforts on this thread. members who think they have solved this conundrum are only kidding themselves. You're disappointed that you're not bright enough to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 You're disappointed that you're not bright enough to understand? look........ a player is either worth 5 million to a club or he is not. The combination of transfer fee, wages and signing on fee should be the same, if you were informing me that signing on fees are of a similar scale to transfer fees i would understand, otherwise it sounds like the value of a player is being wasted when there is gain to be acheived by either player, club or both. perhaps you should question your ability to explain your understanding of football transfer fees as opposed to accusing me of being fick!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 look........ a player is either worth 5 million to a club or he is not. The combination of transfer fee, wages and signing on fee should be the same, It doesn't work like that. Think of it more as though they split the difference. Why should the club signing him pay out the same money they would have if he's under contract? It's not about what he would have cost under contract because he isn't, it's about competing with other clubs' offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 It doesn't work like that. Think of it more as though they split the difference. Why should the club signing him pay out the same money they would have if he's under contract? It's not about what he would have cost under contract because he isn't, it's about competing with other clubs' offers. I am thinking of it as a spllit the difference, and there is as we all can see rather a big difference to split. think of it this way. ....... if the players future wages are the same regardless whether a player is bought out of an existing contract or ' out of contract' then if a club is prepared to pay a transfer fee then surely theyre prepared to pay an equivalent signing on fee ,all other circumstances the same. Are you suggesting that a Premier League team would only be interested in an out of contract nicky maynard because hes cheap! when formerly they were prepared to pay millions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellRedPhil Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I am thinking of it as a spllit the difference, and there is as we all can see rather a big difference to split. think of it this way. ....... if the players future wages are the same regardless whether a player is bought out of an existing contract or ' out of contract' then if a club is prepared to pay a transfer fee then surely theyre prepared to pay an equivalent signing on fee ,all other circumstances the same. Are you suggesting that a Premier League team would only be interested in an out of contract nicky maynard because hes cheap! when formerly they were prepared to pay millions They weren't though, hence no bids from PL teams for him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 They weren't though, hence no bids from PL teams for him... sorry i made a mistake mentioning maynard again . please substitute nicky maynard for billy the fish. hypothetically if you know what i mean. or a championship team like west ham or leicester who were interested at 5 mill plus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I am thinking of it as a spllit the difference, and there is as we all can see rather a big difference to split. think of it this way. ....... if the players future wages are the same regardless whether a player is bought out of an existing contract or ' out of contract' then if a club is prepared to pay a transfer fee then surely theyre prepared to pay an equivalent signing on fee ,all other circumstances the same. Are you suggesting that a Premier League team would only be interested in an out of contract nicky maynard because hes cheap! when formerly they were prepared to pay millions Let me see if I can simplify it. The signing club will pay the minimum amount possible to get the player to sign. When a player is under contract, that has to include a transfer fee. When not, it doesn't. In that case, the only thing driving up the salary/signing fee is competition for the player. Clubs will justify paying more because of the saving on the transfer fee. Most often it won't run to anywhere near 100% of that though. I don't think it can be expressed any more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I am thinking of it as a spllit the difference, and there is as we all can see rather a big difference to split. think of it this way. ....... if the players future wages are the same regardless whether a player is bought out of an existing contract or ' out of contract' then if a club is prepared to pay a transfer fee then surely theyre prepared to pay an equivalent signing on fee ,all other circumstances the same. Are you suggesting that a Premier League team would only be interested in an out of contract nicky maynard because hes cheap! when formerly they were prepared to pay millions Thats exactly the point... When a player is under contract, he cant just leave. He is CONTRACTED to the club. If another team want this player, they must offer the club a fee to acquire the player. The club who hold his contract must agree to this fee. A player with a year or less remaining on his contract will generally attract a smaller fee than a player with 3/4 years remaining, because, GENERALLY SPEAKING, a club will look to re-coup any fee they can in the last year, rather than risk the player walking out for free. If a player is not under contract, a club does not need to pay anything to sign him. They will offer the player a contract and it is down to him to accept. Chances are if the player is any good, he will be overwhelmed with offers, therefore clubs will offer a signing on fee to encourage the player to sign. This amount isnt what the club value the player at, it is purely an added incentive to sign with the club. Take the Maynard situation. If he had 3/4 years remaining on his contract, City could hold a buying club to ransom over a cost. If, say, Everton wanted him, the club know they dont have to sell because Nicky is contracted, so could demand a high fee from Everton As is the case, Maynard has 6 months remaining. Everton, for example, would know this, and it almost puts the buying club in control. If City are desperate to re-coup money for Nicky then they will be almost forced to accept whatever the buying club offer. The transfer fee is not normally relative to the value of the player, but more the value of the player to the club. Look at Carroll, hes not a £35m striker, but in terms of value to Newcastle he was priceless. So, can you see the difference now? Transfer fees are generally the value of the player to his current club, signing on fees are a "bribe" to encourage the player to sign. They are not relative to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Thats exactly the point... When a player is under contract, he cant just leave. He is CONTRACTED to the club. If another team want this player, they must offer the club a fee to acquire the player. The club who hold his contract must agree to this fee. A player with a year or less remaining on his contract will generally attract a smaller fee than a player with 3/4 years remaining, because, GENERALLY SPEAKING, a club will look to re-coup any fee they can in the last year, rather than risk the player walking out for free. If a player is not under contract, a club does not need to pay anything to sign him. They will offer the player a contract and it is down to him to accept. Chances are if the player is any good, he will be overwhelmed with offers, therefore clubs will offer a signing on fee to encourage the player to sign. This amount isnt what the club value the player at, it is purely an added incentive to sign with the club. Take the Maynard situation. If he had 3/4 years remaining on his contract, City could hold a buying club to ransom over a cost. If, say, Everton wanted him, the club know they dont have to sell because Nicky is contracted, so could demand a high fee from Everton As is the case, Maynard has 6 months remaining. Everton, for example, would know this, and it almost puts the buying club in control. If City are desperate to re-coup money for Nicky then they will be almost forced to accept whatever the buying club offer. The transfer fee is not normally relative to the value of the player, but more the value of the player to the club. Look at Carroll, hes not a £35m striker, but in terms of value to Newcastle he was priceless. So, can you see the difference now? Transfer fees are generally the value of the player to his current club, signing on fees are a "bribe" to encourage the player to sign. They are not relative to each other. Let me spell this out for you as i understand everything your saying but you seem not to understand the point i am making. If a team wants a player under contract it is prepared to pay say 10 million squandros for that player. If that player is not under contract then they are still prepared to pay the same surely A tin of heinz baked beans is a tin of heinz baked beans after all.......isnt it ( whereby the tin of beans is pro footballer on 20k on four year contract. GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Let me spell this out for you as i understand everything your saying but you seem not to understand the point i am making. If a team wants a player under contract it is prepared to pay say 10 million squandros for that player. If that player is not under contract then they are still prepared to pay the same surely A tin of heinz baked beans is a tin of heinz baked beans after all.......isnt it ( whereby the tin of beans is pro footballer on 20k on four year contract. GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!!!! That extra 10 million they save, would probabaly go part to the player and he would be offered bigger wages and a bigger signing on fee. Then they would save the rest.... You make a good point and it's a bargaining tool an agent would use when negiotiating a contract for a player on a free transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 That extra 10 million they save, would probabaly go part to the player and he would be offered bigger wages and a bigger signing on fee. Then they would save the rest.... You make a good point and it's a bargaining tool an agent would use when negiotiating a contract for a player on a free transfer. Aaaaah Haaaaa ! The agent has not been mentioned untill now ...this could help to explain the missing millions!!! Thank you riaz for at least understanding the point I'm making. You'l perhaps agree with me that given the scenarios discussed its difficult to see why a deal between city and maynard has not been struck. I still look for further clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Let me spell this out for you as i understand everything your saying but you seem not to understand the point i am making. If a team wants a player under contract it is prepared to pay say 10 million squandros for that player. If that player is not under contract then they are still prepared to pay the same surely A tin of heinz baked beans is a tin of heinz baked beans after all.......isnt it ( whereby the tin of beans is pro footballer on 20k on four year contract. GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!!!! No, your logic is arse about face Firstly, a club may not be prepared to pay what it costs to sign the player under contract. Secondly, just because a club is prepared to pay a maximum of x, doesn't mean they want to pay x. Thirdly, a club will pay as little as they possibly can to get the player. Why on earth would a club decide to pay a player more than they have to? If you can get a tin of beans for 30p, why would you pay 50p? You've created a premise and you're asking everyone to challenge it, which is easy because it's fundamentally illogical. Then you object by re-stating your original flawed premise. It's tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I dont really see what your offering in terms of an explaination. Theres nothing fundamentally illogical about market forces . My suggestion is that you crawl back underneath your stone. Unless you can think of something more enlightening to add to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redhyde Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Aaaaah Haaaaa ! The agent has not been mentioned untill now ...this could help to explain the missing millions!!! Thank you riaz for at least understanding the point I'm making. You'l perhaps agree with me that given the scenarios discussed its difficult to see why a deal between city and maynard has not been struck. I still look for further clarity. Clubs as well as quality also look for value. A £5 million Maynard is much less attractive than a £1-2 million free agent Maynard. Your scenario doesn't work unless there is a buyer so absolutely desperate (or rich) that they don't care about the money, they just want the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I dont really see what your offering in terms of an explaination. Theres nothing fundamentally illogical about market forces . My suggestion is that you crawl back underneath your stone. Unless you can think of something more enlightening to add to the discussion. Jesus ******* christ. Market forces? What market force dictates you pay more for something than you have to? If your tin of beans was on offer for half price, you'd go into the supermarket and say "I'll pay full price because that's what it's worth to me?" I think your quest to understand this will end in disappointment. It seems too complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.