Confirmed Transfers Thread 17/18

[Renegade]

Yeah, I give up, I've explained it twice now and you didn't get my point about marginal benefit (or you got it and still don't think it explains why only West Ham were willing to pay for his services). My head is getting sore from banging it against this brick wall, so I'm going to stop now. Nuance R.I.P.

It'll be "exhibit a" next.

Is exhibit a English though?

 

[St. Juste]

Yeah, I give up, I've explained it twice now and you didn't get my point about marginal benefit. My head is getting sore from banging it against this brick wall, so I'm going to stop now. Nuance R.I.P.

I fully understand the concept of marginal benefit, in many more contexts than this, but it doesn't make my statement any more or less accurate.

Every PL team could afford Hart, none have chosen to do so. That's the long and short of the matter.

 

[JimJams]

What are you not getting?

The rather stupid statement that you keep making and the fact you've then gone on to explain something that doesn't support the stupid statement.
What you've explained is that they can't loan him without subsidising the wages. That's a far cry from saying they can't give him away for free.
You do realise that they are not the same thing don't you?
Hart has a market value, so City are not going to just let him go for nothing. But if they were to do so, Hart would likely not agree to go unless he could get the same wage elsewhere. Now if his value were lets say 15mill, and he wants 150k a week, but clubs were only happy to go for 75k if they bought him then the outlay for 4 years when buying him is about 30million. If City agreed to release him for free, and Hart agreed if a suitor offered him 150k a week, their outlay would still be 30mill.
But City aren't trying to give him away for free, if they were other clubs would be interested. So this rather stupid comment you keep peddling just makes you look, well, stupid.
There are a lot of players who get their wages subsidised when out on loan. That doesn't mean the parent clubs can't give them away for free.
As it happens City were asking for 25mill for Hart which nobody wanted to pay. To you this means they can't give him away for free.

 

[JimJams]

And just having had a look at the figures. West Ham are paying Hart 2.5mill and City 2mill. That 2 mill then goes to Hart to cover his wage. So the 4.5 mill to loan Hart has been completely covered by West Ham with City waiving a loan fee. So he has in actuality gone for free. So you're talking bollocks.

 

[G.B]

Lewis Gibson to Everton confirmed.

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/2017/07/27/blues-snap-up-gibson

 

[smat]

He is pure shite.

 

[Bilo]

Lewis Gibson to Everton confirmed.

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/2017/07/27/blues-snap-up-gibson

What's your take on that, will he amount to anything?

 

[St. Juste]

And just having had a look at the figures. West Ham are paying Hart 2.5mill and City 2mill. That 2 mill then goes to Hart to cover his wage. So the 4.5 mill to loan Hart has been completely covered by West Ham with City waiving a loan fee. So he has in actuality gone for free. So you're talking bollocks.

Before we go any further, where is the evidence for this?

A loan fee would seem redundant if you're not even covering his wages....

I imagine Torino also paid a big loan fee despite only covering a fraction of his wages as well?

Man City have been subsidising his wages for two years, for what benefit?

 

[JimJams]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/07/18/joe-hart-joins-west-ham-loan-man-city-45m-deal/

 

[Stevencc]

Errr, do you not have a Scottish source?

 

[St. Juste]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/07/18/joe-hart-joins-west-ham-loan-man-city-45m-deal/

I stand corrected, West Ham are effectively covering his wages and no more. Some good quotes from the article though:

"Joe Hart joined West Ham United on a season long loan on Tuesday as Manchester City waived a fee for the England goalkeeper only weeks after hoping to sell him permanently for £25 million.

Hart’s departure is the latest example of the acute battle City are having trying to offload a stockpile of unwanted players this summer as potential suitors refuse to meet their valuations.

Hart will receive £2.5 million a year from West Ham, who have also paid City a fee of £2 million that the Manchester club will, in turn, give to Hart to cover the rest of his wages. In effect, it means City have waived a loan fee to facilitate the transfer."

What I was correct about, no one seems willing to pay any kind of transfer fee for Hart - City have given him away subsidised to Torino and free issue to West Ham.

 

[JimJams]

Certainly nobody will pay 25mill for him as well as paying 4.5mill a year in wages. Thats not even up for debate. City are having a hard time with selling on any of their surplus players thanks to unrealistic fees on top of players current wages. Only Iheanacho, who should be on his way to us, is going for their valuation.

 

[St. Juste]

Certainly nobody will pay 25mill for him as well as paying 4.5mill a year in wages. Thats not even up for debate. City are having a hard time with selling on any of their surplus players thanks to unrealistic fees on top of players current wages. Only Iheanacho, who should be on his way to us, is going for their valuation.

We are in agreement with that, but would Man City have taken, say, £5 million to sell him this season?

All they have done is cover his wages for the next year, at which point he will have a year remaining on his contract and be even less marketable.

When Guardiola took charge Hart had a three year contract, they had to subsidy his wages to go to Torino, are just covering them (with no fee) for him to go to West Ham and at the end of that Hart will have one year left on his contract, surely worth far less than at the start.

Man City overspending on transfer fees and wages coming to roost, it's even worse for the likes of Nasri and Mangala.

In future, they will encounter a similar problem with, for example, Stones and potentially a few others.

 

[Renegade]

Considering they wanted £25 million, I'm going to guess they wouldn't have. I suspect someone - West Ham - will purchase him next season once his value has depreciated enough (due to contract length) to offset his wages. What was the value cited? £12 million or so?

Ihenacho could be a sneaky bargain, despite going for his valuation. Quality player.

 

[St. Juste]

Considering they wanted £25 million, I'm going to guess they wouldn't have. I suspect someone - West Ham - will purchase him next season once his value has depreciated enough (due to contract length) to offset his wages. What was the value cited? £12 million or so?

Ihenacho could be a sneaky bargain, despite going for his valuation. Quality player.

An asset is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, they couldn't even get a loan fee this year (or last) so I wouldn't hold out much hope on £25m or £12m.

His value will be determined largely by how he performs this season. If badly, I imagine they will have to subsidise his wages to punt him on loan again - as they did last year.

I suspect City know this, due to him being down to one year left on his contract next year, it's very unlikely that his market value will rise, it's far more likely to fall.

 

[G.B]

What's your take on that, will he amount to anything?

No, he's English and therefore shite.


He's really promising but hasn't been challenged at all. Stuck in the u18's despite being better than that, hence him leaving for guaranteed u23's football at a club that can actually develop youngsters.

 

[Kopper]

Signing Lukaku and Matic is Mourinho's way of putting one hand on the title.

 

[JimJams]

Same was said last year when they signed Pogba, Ibra and Mkhitaryan.

 

[smat]

Signing Lukaku and Matic is Mourinho's way of putting one hand on the title.

Yeah but with his other hand he's jacking it to old videos of him winning the league in like 2006.

 

[SALTIRE]

Signing Lukaku and Matic is Mourinho's way of putting one hand on the title.

Na I think it'll be decided between Chelsea, City and possibly Spurs if they can get the Wembley thing to work.

 

[Pagnell]

They won't. Spurs won't make top 4 this season.

 

[epic73]

Top 4 will be Chelsea, us, City/Spurs, and Liverpool/Arsenal.

 

[Skinner]

That's some prediction that.

 

[Relentless]

Top 4 will be Chelsea, us, City/Spurs, and Liverpool/Arsenal.

Since when are Mainz in the prem?

 

[JimJams]

They won't. Spurs won't make top 4 this season.

Where's the real Pagnell?
That's a pretty bold statement given over the past 2 seasons they're the highest placed side.

 

[Pagnell]

Where's the real Pagnell?
That's a pretty bold statement given over the past 2 seasons they're the highest placed side.

It would be a bold statement if they weren't playing half their league matches at Wembley. It's a whole new dynamic, both for the team and for the crowd and what atmosphere they create.

 

[St. Juste]

The size of the pitch at Wembley, relative to WHL, has also proven a serious problem for them.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't make top 4 this season.

 

[Stevencc]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

 

[SALTIRE]

I think they'll settle in there after 6 games or so and be fine. Those European games they've played there have to be played differently than the PL games and they'll be ok imo. Even when they were beaten by Chelsea in the cup semi there, they were the better side but Chelsea had the luck on the day.

 

[Nilsson]

Delighted with that. We desperately needed a sitter and he's one of the best around. He should slot in perfectly alongside Herrera and Pogba.

And having a Serbian called Nemanja at the club again is truly wonderful.