It's not really the madness it's made out to be tho , , if it's a 4 year deal he earns £35.3 million , even if the deal is £40 million with signing on fees agent fees etc it still represents value, Sissoko on a four year deal is probably costing us 50 million when you include his transfer fee.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
It's not really the madness it's made out to be tho , , if it's a 4 year deal he earns £35.3 million , even if the deal is £40 million with signing on fees agent fees etc it still represents value, Sissoko on a four year deal is probably costing us 50 million when you include his transfer fee.
But it still becomes a bit of a gamble when you take Palace's own finances into account. Which are not that good
Not really , the player is costing them £8.84 million a year , PL survival ensures them about 100 million a year.
But the rest of the players are going to want raised salaries as well to as close to parity as possible. The average Palace salary is around 55 grand. so that would mean roughly doubling each players salary. They do not have that money
The purchase price, within reason, is meaningless as there is always a resell value (in a rising market they might make money on a resell. If his value drops they will be paying in instalments and the value of a player is written down each year in any case).
The salary though is utterly insane, a) he is not worth that salary IMO (see what City players get by comparison) b) If he ends up not playing well (doing a Holtby) then they will be unable to shift him. No other club will take him on for those wages. Look at the trouble Woolwich have had trying to shift 6-8 players for years, all on high wages happy to sit on the bench and collect, with no other club willing to match their wages. c) Palace don't have the income to support this kind of salary. They are totally dependant on TV revenues & this wage will only push up the wage bill beyond 70% which is very, very dangerous for the club. (FWIW I think Roy will keep them up, which lessens the nail bitting but there position is very precarious until they build a new stadium and get revenues in apart from TV).
Are there rule prohibiting Palace selling Meyer at a later date ? No there isn't, therefore transfer fee is very very relevant , crazy to suggest it's meaningless
All high profile transfers are a huge risk but the bottom line is Meyer will cost Palace 35 million all in , when you look at Other transfers like Siggurdsson and Richarlison and that Brazilian West Ham signed these teams are committing to a 70 million layout most likely when you add wages and transfer fees over the term the player has signed for.
Depends how they've structured the deal really , 170k might be the maximum value of the deal and his basic pay is significantly less , might have received a big payment upfront , it's not really a palace issue anyway most clubs have these issues , Woolwich players didn't all get double bubble or walk out when Eyesareoffside signed an 18 million a year deal.
good call. Not to mention signing Malcom who is also on a non EU passport
Arzani to Celtic via City Group
Aussie Yid in London
pleb
Aussie Yid in London
pleb
Arzani to Celtic via City Group
Is it actually happening? Fair play to the kid for how far he's come in less than a year.
I get the argument of total outlay and getting a player on a free will have some baring but the risk and exposure to the club on those wages for a player who has been by and large shit to average for two seasons now is a huge risk and only magnified further given palace's wage to earnings ratio.
But transfer fees generally are meaningless. Caveat to that is the buying club have to be able to afford the price but the payments are staggered over the period of the contract and then a percentage is written down each year, so even if they are garbage they can be sold and a fee can be recouped or at worse a loss minimised. Now that is dependant upon said players wages being paid, the buying club has to be able to afford those, if they can't the player remains unsold, this is a serious issue. (again look to Woolwich stuck with approx £15-20m pa wages stopping them buying new players in), wages are the single biggest factor in a players transfer/non-transfer.
The Richarlison fee was massive, but completely hides the fact that it almost certainly included compensation fee for Watford when Everton unsettled Silva that lead to him being sacked by Watford. Siggurdsson was also a crazy fee but if he has a decent season (not even a that good a season) they can sell him having only paid a couple of payments to Swansea and had 50% (I think it's 25% write down pa but I'll be honest I can't be certain I've got that figure correct but the amortisation is a big factor in reducing the exposure to a loss on a purchase of a player) of his purchase value written down. Now if he's on big wages and a new purchaser isn't willing to pay more or at least match his wages then he will not be sold (unless they do a City and pay them on behalf of the buying club).
It's mostly all about wages. They dictated the transfer, they dictate if a player moves or stays, irrespective of the selling clubs wishes, player gets to call the shots. It's as important in a good player leaving for more money as it is shit player staying picking up a big salary.
I think they are right however to push the boat out on players as the work that Hodgeson did last year, given their start and Allardyce's shitness, to finish 10th was superb, they were unlucky with a number of games losing several with almost the last kick of the game. I think they will be safe next year and they are looking to ensure this.
