As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
That when we buy a player, they have to factor in both the transfer fee and the player's wages for the period of the contract ..
i.e. £10m fee + £5m per year x4 (£20m), and thus the real total is up to £30m;
And yet when we sell a player, we don't add the wages saved over the remainder of what was due in his contract to what we received in the same way ..
i.e. £10m fee received + £5m per year x 2 saved (let's say the time left of that contract), and therefore making the real total of the transfer £20m.
Can anyone that knows a bit about finance answer that? Failing that, I'm even willing to read what Boomer has to say about it.
On the original question, the club do include it. So when/if they say that we have sold Eboue for £4m, it really means that we're paying the other club to take him.
Isnt it creative number crunching to appease the modern day football fan who seems more interested in financial matters than whats happening on the pitch therefore making excuses for non-signings..... ie Wenger/Gazidis can say we didnt buy Mata because he would have cost us £xxxxxxxx amount and all the Wenger fan boys can say 'see if we had bought him we would end up like Portsmouth/Leeds'. You dont need the same bullshit when selling
Just to add you dont hear how much Chamakh cost us in wages when he signed because it doesnt suit the agenda, its all wa-hey!!!! a free signing
probably because if they say "we've not only profited 30m with the sale of cesc fabregas, we also avoided having to pay him 50m in wages" fans will be expecting that that money is spent in new players as well?
don't know, just guessing... but it sounds a good way to say "HEEEY, we spent a lot on this new player, it's X from the transfer fee plus Y in wages" but when someone is sold they just stay quiet... because it suits them.
and maybe also because when you replace a player with another one (not something that we really do at arsenal) you tend to pay wages similar to the ones you were paying the old player before (even if a bit higher or lower), so in the end it's not much difference?
Also how is it that when a player we sold gets sold on we have these great stories of how we got extra cash for the deal we made when selling entitling us to a % sell on but yet we never hear of us having to pay extra for players we bought and then sold on ?
brazilianGOONER wrote:probably because if they say "we've not only profited 30m with the sale of cesc fabregas, we also avoided having to pay him 50m in wages" fans will be expecting that that money is spent in new players as well?
don't know, just guessing... but it sounds a good way to say "HEEEY, we spent a lot on this new player, it's X from the transfer fee plus Y in wages" but when someone is sold they just stay quiet... because it suits them.
and maybe also because when you replace a player with another one (not something that we really do at arsenal) you tend to pay wages similar to the ones you were paying the old player before (even if a bit higher or lower), so in the end it's not much difference?
That's how most people would think things went, so why would there be the need for the club to say it's going to cost £X amount in wages on top of the transfer fee (thus making the total price allegedly prohibitive to us), if it all more or less balances itself out?
brazilianGOONER wrote:probably because if they say "we've not only profited 30m with the sale of cesc fabregas, we also avoided having to pay him 50m in wages" fans will be expecting that that money is spent in new players as well?
don't know, just guessing... but it sounds a good way to say "HEEEY, we spent a lot on this new player, it's X from the transfer fee plus Y in wages" but when someone is sold they just stay quiet... because it suits them.
and maybe also because when you replace a player with another one (not something that we really do at arsenal) you tend to pay wages similar to the ones you were paying the old player before (even if a bit higher or lower), so in the end it's not much difference?
So why would there be the need for the club to say it's going to cost £X amount in wages on top of the transfer fee (thus making the total price allegedly prohibitive to us), if it all more or less balances itself out?
yeah, that's a good question, but i think that it's the same as praising almunia on pravda.com when he has a good match and simply shutting up when fucks up (as usual).
PR always tries to highlight when we spend money or do something else that the fans will enjoy or approve, but they sure as hell won't come out to say "hey, we've just saved a lot of millions by selling some of the deadwood and now we're cash rich! YAYYY!"
again that may be bullshit, but it's what i think.
and unlike some mentioned here, we obviously DON'T keep paying the player's wages when he moves on. the contract is terminated and the new club becomes responsible for his new contract (and wages). hence why can't sell bendtner and almunia (no one wants to pay the same wages we do, and the players obviously don't want to earn less than they did at arsenal)
augie wrote:Also how is it that when a player we sold gets sold on we have these great stories of how we got extra cash for the deal we made when selling entitling us to a % sell on but yet we never hear of us having to pay extra for players we bought and then sold on ?
Probably because we insist on that clause when we sell and won't agree to it when we buy.
Hence why we buy so fucking little and less often.
Number 5 wrote:Isn't it because unless the player specifically request a transfer a club would have to pay out the remainder of their contract?
That can't be entirely it, surely? Because effectively you saying that if a player gets transferred by his club, he gets both his wage at the new club and also the remainder of what he would have earned off his contract from his old club (albeit probably in a lump sum) - providing that he didn't ask for a transfer? And we're supposed to feel sorry for the fuckers and not dare criticise the poor sensitive souls!!
brazilianGOONER wrote:and unlike some mentioned here, we obviously DON'T keep paying the player's wages when he moves on. the contract is terminated and the new club becomes responsible for his new contract (and wages). hence why can't sell bendtner and almunia (no one wants to pay the same wages we do, and the players obviously don't want to earn less than they did at arsenal)
As I've understood in the past, the player would get a payment in one lump sum at contract termination point.
I haven't read or talked about this in a while, it may have changed, but I'm sure the exact thing happened when we let Sol go first time round.
We had to pay him a bomb just so we could let him go to Portsmouth because he didn't submit a transfer request.
brazilianGOONER wrote:and unlike some mentioned here, we obviously DON'T keep paying the player's wages when he moves on. the contract is terminated and the new club becomes responsible for his new contract (and wages). hence why can't sell bendtner and almunia (no one wants to pay the same wages we do, and the players obviously don't want to earn less than they did at arsenal)
As I've understood in the past, the player would get a payment in one lump sum at contract termination point.
I haven't read or talked about this in a while, it may have changed, but I'm sure the exact thing happened when we let Sol go first time round.
We had to pay him a bomb just so we could let him go to Portsmouth because he didn't submit a transfer request.
I think the players who dont put in a transfer request paid a loyalty bonus of some kind but not their contract paid up its an agreed fee at the time of signing a contract
Failing that, I'm even willing to read what Boomer has to say about it. 
