The mancityfans.net football forum

nottsblue wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

Actually mate, Di Maria's initial transfer fee was report at £60 mil, that's GBP and they're letting him go a reported £44 mil which makes a book loss of approx Euros 28 million. In anybodies books, that's a huge loss.

However, as the goal and 3 assists he got in the early part of the season ensured them CL, then all is well and good.

But that is true if we assume the exchange rate of Euros to Pounds remains constant. It hasn't. In the last year the rate has gone from somewhere around 1.2 to 1.45. It is this which negates the loss, assuming the rags have a Euro account that they deal exclusively in. If they are stupid enough not to, then the loss is as large as reported as they will have converted Euros to pounds last year and this year. I just don't believe a top European club would conduct business this way.

It's an interesting subject that I know all too well. They're not daft but in this concept you're suggesting that we aren't in the same boat yet ours are put across as just.

We haven't got a clue on what they pay or how they pay, we just take the word of the media. The difference is that they pay through Caymen Islands, yet we are the dodgy ones.

As long as Blues don't start harping their shit, I'm happy.

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

They paid £67 million (including add-ons to third parties), whatever that is in Euros. They are now getting £44 million, whatever that is in Euros. Loss of £23 million.

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

They paid £67 million (including add-ons to third parties), whatever that is in Euros. They are now getting £44 million, whatever that is in Euros. Loss of £23 million.

I get that totally. But my point is they likely don't deal in Sterling. They deal in Euros. You may as well quote Vietnam Dongs for the relevance

nottsblue wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

They paid £67 million (including add-ons to third parties), whatever that is in Euros. They are now getting £44 million, whatever that is in Euros. Loss of £23 million.

I get that totally. But my point is they likely don't deal in Sterling. They deal in Euros. You may as well quote Vietnam Dongs for the relevance

I'd quote in Sterling. What a player, and a bargain ;-)

nottsblue wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

They paid £67 million (including add-ons to third parties), whatever that is in Euros. They are now getting £44 million, whatever that is in Euros. Loss of £23 million.

I get that totally. But my point is they likely don't deal in Sterling. They deal in Euros. You may as well quote Vietnam Dongs for the relevance

They've bought Vietnam Dongs? Can he play in central defence?

Beefymcfc wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

They paid £67 million (including add-ons to third parties), whatever that is in Euros. They are now getting £44 million, whatever that is in Euros. Loss of £23 million.

I get that totally. But my point is they likely don't deal in Sterling. They deal in Euros. You may as well quote Vietnam Dongs for the relevance

I'd quote in Sterling. What a player, and a bargain ;-)

Absolutely. I can see a 15 goal and 25 assist season for him

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

What I'm getting at is not the exchange rate but which currency the media use when it suits them to portray a perceived profit, by quoting euros, when it's actually a loss if you quote pounds because everyone has £59 million in their heads.

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

They paid £67 million (including add-ons to third parties), whatever that is in Euros. They are now getting £44 million, whatever that is in Euros. Loss of £23 million.

I get that totally. But my point is they likely don't deal in Sterling. They deal in Euros. You may as well quote Vietnam Dongs for the relevance

They've bought Vietnam Dongs? Can he play in central defence?

No, they're the latest, Asian Girl Group who are set to rock the music world.

They've bought them so that "Giggsy" can have his own, personalised enjoyment of them, both individually and collectively, in order to keep him away from his sister-in-law.

Edit : BBC World Service ! ( perhaps the reason for Dollars).

BBC reports a 68 mill Dollar deal for Tia.

The pound is at 1.56 to the dollar . 67mill pounds paid and sold for 68 mill dollars is an approx 33 loss in 1 year. Great investment Rags !

On the day he transferred to the Rags the exchange rate was 1 GBP = 1.6546

So even if we take Sparti's figures of 59.7 m pounds ( = 98,779,620 Dollars).
Therefore selling at 68,000,000 means a loss of 30 mill dollars at today rate of 1,56 = 19,230,769 pounds and 23 pence.

Ha ha ha, Wederburn seems to be happy reporting the move and now they have a report saying that they are short on talent.

Given some of the posts above talking about muddying the waters and reducing the reported loss with currency conversions, I thought I'd have a look at exactly how the different outlets are reporting this today, and it all looks very consistent:

BBC are reporting it all in great british pounds, and probably correctly. You can't really cite add ons when he's only been there a season and likely not triggered many of them, perhaps excepting qualification for champions league.

The winger, a British record £59.7m signing last summer, is expected in Doha on Sunday to meet PSG officials.

The fee for the 27-year-old Argentina international is believed to be about £44.5m.

Sky reporting the same figures as BBC

United paid a British record £59.7m fee to Real Madrid last August for the 27-year-old and were understood to want more than the £44m figure quoted in several national newspapers on Friday.

Talkshit also reporting the same figures as BBC

Manchester United agreed to sell the midfielder to the French club for €63million euros (£44.3m). United paid a British record £59.7m fee to Real Madrid last August for the 27-year-old, but after an encouraging start his form dipped drastically and he only started one of the final 10 games of last season.

Mirror also reporting the same numbers

Manchester United are expected to receive a fee of £44.3m for his services - approximately £15m less than the amount they paid Real Madrid for the winger just 12 months ago.

Express and here is the clue - everyone is reporting the same numbers based on a PA release, although only the Express have been honest enough to admit that they are reprinting syndicated news

Manchester United and PSG are said to have agreed a fee of £44million for the Argentina international, according to PA. Di Maria made the move to Old Trafford last summer for a club record fee of £59.7m, and despite a promising start, failed to hold down a place in the starting XI.

I don't know who the rag biased journos are, but perhaps someone could do something similar to above to expose the systematic hypocrisy people are saying exists on the subject?

Im_Spartacus wrote:Given some of the posts above talking about muddying the waters and reducing the reported loss with currency conversions, I thought I'd have a look at exactly how the different outlets are reporting this today, and it all looks very consistent:

BBC are reporting it all in great british pounds, and probably correctly. You can't really cite add ons when he's only been there a season and likely not triggered many of them, perhaps excepting qualification for champions league.

The winger, a British record £59.7m signing last summer, is expected in Doha on Sunday to meet PSG officials.

The fee for the 27-year-old Argentina international is believed to be about £44.5m.

Sky reporting the same figures as BBC

United paid a British record £59.7m fee to Real Madrid last August for the 27-year-old and were understood to want more than the £44m figure quoted in several national newspapers on Friday.

Talkshit also reporting the same figures as BBC

Manchester United agreed to sell the midfielder to the French club for €63million euros (£44.3m). United paid a British record £59.7m fee to Real Madrid last August for the 27-year-old, but after an encouraging start his form dipped drastically and he only started one of the final 10 games of last season.

Mirror also reporting the same numbers

Manchester United are expected to receive a fee of £44.3m for his services - approximately £15m less than the amount they paid Real Madrid for the winger just 12 months ago.

Express and here is the clue - everyone is reporting the same numbers based on a PA release, although only the Express have been honest enough to admit that they are reprinting syndicated news

Manchester United and PSG are said to have agreed a fee of £44million for the Argentina international, according to PA. Di Maria made the move to Old Trafford last summer for a club record fee of £59.7m, and despite a promising start, failed to hold down a place in the starting XI.

I don't know who the rag biased journos are, but perhaps someone could do something similar to above to expose the systematic hypocrisy people are saying exists on the subject?

So a £24 million LOSS in 12 months on a world class player who the manager couldn't get the best out of is ok ? Or just ok for the rags ? Or maybe it's ok in there deluded world ? Fuck there was a heap of shit flying about when we signed a young England international that just happened to be the highest rated young footballer in Europe but fuck it wasn't ok with all the fucking rag and dipper journo,s THATS HYPOCRISY with a capital fucking "H" !

I'll second that !!

Sparklehorse wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

What I'm getting at is not the exchange rate but which currency the media use when it suits them to portray a perceived profit, by quoting euros, when it's actually a loss if you quote pounds because everyone has £59 million in their heads.

The thing is the euro was stronger when they bought him and the purchase price was given at £63M at the time. Now in theory that is paid, so they cant suddenly reduce it to this year's rate and say United only paid 59M etc. Because the deal was done last year.

Anything to try and make them look in a better light.

nottsblue wrote:I get that totally. But my point is they likely don't deal in Sterling. They deal in Euros. You may as well quote Vietnam Dongs for the relevance

So they bought him for £68 million and are selling him for ₫150.2 billion

quite a deal they got there

I've read a few of these hack predictions and there's a definite pattern developing, regardless of the paper - we will be luck to finish top four and the only hope we have for a trophy is the league cup.

That is out of about 16 hack predictions I've read so far. One has us winning the league.

So ask yourself, was this well thought out with good reason or completely agenda driven?

Personally, I find it hard to believe all these football writers would disagree so strongly with the bookies.

I also doubt the vast majority would put their money where their mouth is. .. which probably answers my query in itself.

http://mobile.newsnow.co.uk/A/786564974?-1808:813

They are all too lazy to actually think of their own predictions, and downloaded a pre-written one from the same website, like kids do with their homework. Download this and back to the bar, lads.

Anyone who has the dippers to finish fourth and us to be below them should lose their jobs and be blacklisted from journalism when their prediction fails

nottsblue wrote:Anyone who has the dippers to finish fourth and us to be below them should lose their jobs and be blacklisted from journalism when their prediction fails

it's hilarious to read some of these.

Liverpool couldn't finish above us while they had Luis Suarez destroying every defense in the league. I guess Firmino will push them over the top ... oh and watch out for a 25 goal season from BIG HENDO!

I think they are just old wankers, who pretend nothing changes. Ozonited and the dippers plus Jose, are along with Wenger all they need. The BT pundits have had the same media training and will dis us at every chance. Gonna get a whole lot worse IMO.