Romelu Lukaku

[Eligius 121]

Your math is wrong. Whenever we sell Torres and replace him, this is how it works:

Add: Torres transfer fee (10M maybe even less)

Add: Torres wages for the year (9M)

Deduct: Torres unamortized value (approx. 10M for each year remaining on contract)

Deduct: New striker amortized transfer fee (30M for 5 years, 6M/yr)

Deduct: New striker annual wages (6M)

Last summer: 10M + 9M - 30M - 6M - 6M = 20M loss

This summer: 10M + 9M - 20M - 6M - 6M = 13M loss

Next summer: 10M + 9M - 10M - 6M - 6M = 3M loss

Of course, if we can't even get 10M for Torres, then the losses get even bigger. The only real gain is the wages, because he's on considerably higher wages than 90% of the players that could possibly replace him.

Not really. My math is right, I just didn't include adding in a new striker into the equation.

Also, if we did go by the new striker variable, than as you mentioned with your numbers, we would have a 20m loss last season and a gain of 7m the next 2 seasons.....

Rather than having a 13m loss, and only a gain of 7 m for the last season.

[Eligius 121]

dude seriously again!!!!

I just explained the dynamics with torres. It is unacceptable to spend 30mil for one position and get a loss of 10mil on that. Also I just explained that if we sell torres this season how much sense it would make.

As for by not selling torres we lost out on a PL and other title argument, a club is not run like a fifa game. Jose made it clear that our objective was top 4 and not the title. If we do get the title then its perfect but that is not what we were fighting for. Plus jose and the board thought torres was good enough for that which considering our situation right now, was a good decision. Again, please don't treat it like fifa.

When I said youth, how did u get to marin? How is he yiuth or academy related? He was bought last season as a squad player and his transfer was a disaster. Piazon is an investment. Every club will have some players who they think is good enough to nake the next step. Where are u getting at with these things? How is it related to lukaku and /or even qpr/remy?

Jose says a lot of things. Selling Torres for a difference of 7m is what? A huge Loss, when we would recover it back the following season as a gain. We purchased Willian, Schurrle and MVG. Sold Essien for nothing and will probably release both Cole and Lampard.

Your basically saying the best alternative was to sell when his unamortized value is at its lowest point.

So, you think keeping Torres, instead of purchasing Costa at a 30m price to save 7m was what the board was thinking on why we didn't sell him?

When I say a million youngsters on payroll, when did I say youth academy when we have a million loanees that are on the books.

[Bir_CFC 3,455]

Not really. My math is right, I just didn't include adding in a new striker into the equation.

Also, if we did go by the new striker variable, than as you mentioned with your numbers, we would have a 20m loss last season and a gain of 7m the next 2 seasons.....

Rather than having a 13m loss, and only a gain of 7 m for the last season.

Not sure how you're getting gains? Unless we get a huge transfer for Torres, it's almost impossible to actually make a gain.

[Eligius 121]

No the reason he was sent out on loan is because he earns about £70,000 p/w and QPR play in the Championship. Their finances are a mess so they needed to remove at least some of his wages from their bill, as well as getting a fee from Newcastle for the loan.

Not true. It's highly likely that even if QPR got promoted these guys would either be loaned out again or sold because QPR are massively in debt. They would probably look to go a more frugal route to achieve survival rather than repeat the mistakes of before.

Highly likely. As for Granero he probably could play for Cardiff, but Cardiff couldn't afford him. QPR DOUBLED his wages when he joined them so moving him on is very difficult.

Exactly. QPR board made a complete mess for themselves with blind transfee fees and huge wages..

[Eligius 121]

Not sure how you're getting gains? Unless we get a huge transfer for Torres, it's almost impossible to actually make a gain.

The gain would be the amount we would have to pay if he was still on the books....

10m unamortized value + 9m in wages -12m=7m for both 2014 and 2015.

If we sold him this upcoming summer we would have a loss of 13m as you mentioned and only a gain of 7m for the final contract year.

So, essentially, as you learn in basic accounting, everything balances out.

[Bir_CFC 3,455]

The gain would be the amount we would have to pay if he was still on the books....

10m unamortized value + 9m in wages -12m=7m for both 2014 and 2015.

So, essentially, as you learn in basic accounting, everything balances out.

What you fail to understand is that his transfer fee cannot be amortized if he's being sold. The ENTIRE unamortized transfer fee has to be recorded as a loss in the year he's sold. You can't sell him this year and record 10M loss and this year and then another 10M next year. Whenever he's sold, that's when the entire unamortized transfer fee has to be recorded as a loss.

I can understand what you're trying to say, that he's costing us 19M/yr and the new striker will cost 12m/yr. But it doesn't work that way in basic accounting. If he's being sold, then the entire unamortized transfer fee has to be recorded as a loss in that same year. We'll be better off financially if he's off the books in the future, but the year he's sold in, we'd be forced to record a loss from his sale.

[Eligius 121]

What you fail to understand is that his transfer fee cannot be amortized if he's being sold. The ENTIRE unamortized transfer fee has to be recorded as a loss in the year he's sold. You can't sell him this year and record 10M loss and this year and then another 10M next year. Whenever he's sold, that's when the entire unamortized transfer fee has to be recorded as a loss.

I can understand what you're trying to say, that he's costing us 19M/yr and the new striker will cost 12m/yr. But it doesn't work that way in basic accounting. If he's being sold, then the entire unamortized transfer fee has to be recorded as a loss in that same year. We'll be better off financially if he's off the books in the future, but the year he's sold in, we'd be forced to record a loss from his sale.

What do I fail to understand?

Umm, we already took the entire unamortized amount into consideration into the calculation. Which as you pointed out was 30m. Hence, 30m-10-9m+6+6= 20m loss

Also, I dont think you understand the 10m is the gain we would of paid for the unamoritzed amount had we kept Torres on a yearly basis + 9m in wages=19m

Subtract that from the proposed new striker which is 12m. Equals a net of 7m gain per year....

Also, I said to him basically, what your saying is that we should sell him in his final year of his contract since his unamortized value would be at it lowest.

The numbers would be like this.

2013: 20m loss

2014: 7m gain

2015: 7m gain

vs Keep Torres for another season

2014: 13m loss

2015: 7m gain.

[Bir_CFC 3,455]

What do I fail to understand?

Umm, we already took the entire unamortized amount into consideration into the calculation. Which as you pointed out was 30m. Hence, 30m-10-9m+6+6= 20m loss

Also, I dont think you understand the 10m is the gain we would of paid for the unamoritzed amount had we kept Torres on a yearly basis + 9m in wages=19m

Subtract that from the proposed new striker which is 12m. Equals a net of 7m gain per year....

Also, I said to him basically, what your saying is that we should sell him in his final year of his contract since his unamortized value would be at it lowest.

I don't understand what you mean here? You're comparing two alternatives, while I'm talking specifically from an accounting perspective.

I agree, we'd be better off without Torres and with a striker who costs less, that's obvious, not even worth arguing, that's simple arithmetic (19m/year vs 12m/year). But in accounting it doesn't work like that. What I'm saying is like you mentioned that we have to look at his entire unamortized value when calculating the loss in the year he's sold.

[Eligius 121]

I don't understand what you mean here? You're comparing two alternatives, while I'm talking specifically from an accounting perspective.

I agree, we'd be better off without Torres and with a striker who costs less, that's obvious, not even worth arguing, that's simple arithmetic (19m/year vs 12m/year). But in accounting it doesn't work like that. What I'm saying is like you mentioned that we have to look at his entire unamortized value when calculating the loss in the year he's sold.

Yea.

If we sell Torres in 2013. We would have a net loss of 20m as you said.

Than we would have gains of 7m for the next 2 seasons...

vs

If we sell Torres in 2014 we would have a loss of 13m as you said with only a gain of 7m in the final season. Since, that is essentially what we are saving if we sell Ft9.

So, essentially, the numbers are the same. It's just spaced out differently. I dont understand why you keep saying I fail to understand the unamortized value is 30m and not 10 when I use 30 m in the calculations...

Edit...

I'll rephrased my wording. We are saving 7m for the next 2 seasons, rather than saving just for ft9 final contract year had we sold FT9 in 2013.

On the books, the difference with Torres on the books vs 30m striker on the books is essentially that.

[Bir_CFC 3,455]

Yea.

If we sell Torres in 2013. We would have a net loss of 20m as you said.

Than we would have gains of 7m for the next 2 seasons...

vs

If we sell Torres in 2014 we would have a loss of 13m as you said with only a gain of 7m in the final season. Since, that is essentially what we are saving if we sell Ft9.

So, essentially, the numbers are the same. It's just spaced out differently. I dont understand why you keep saying I fail to understand the unamortized value is 30m and not 10 when I use 30 m in the calculations...

Edit...

I'll rephrased my wording. We are saving 7m for the next 2 seasons, rather than saving just for ft9 final contract year had we sold FT9 in 2013.

On the books, the difference with Torres on the books vs 30m striker on the books is essentially that.

Yeah, we were both right. You were looking at future projections with and without Torres and I was just focusing on the year itself he's sold. Management vs financial accounting

[didierforever 7,349]

Jose says a lot of things. Selling Torres for a difference of 7m is what? A huge Loss, when we would recover it back the following season as a gain. We purchased Willian, Schurrle and MVG. Sold Essien for nothing and will probably release both Cole and Lampard.

Your basically saying the best alternative was to sell when his unamortized value is at its lowest point.

So, you think keeping Torres, instead of purchasing Costa at a 30m price to say 7m was what the board was thinking on why we didn't sell him?

When I say a million youngsters on payroll, when did I say youth academy when we have a million loanees that are on the books.

Dude. U really are a piece of work.

I ll try and explain it you in the most easiest of the way possible ever.

Lets start from the begining. U said we were not ABLE to sell torres. When it could not be far from the truth. We dint want to sell torres. We could not afford to sell torres.

Also if u actually remember, we were in for a 30mil rated rooney. We could AFFORD to buy a new striker but selling torres was not even taken into accoubt. Does that give you a hint as to what the actual dynamics of the situation was. Selling torres (for 10mil) this season would have meant a LOSS of 17mil plus losing a striker. How difficult is that to grasp for u??

I ll try to explain it to u like I would to my niece. Torres costs us 19mil a season.

If we had sold him we would have taken a loss of 17mil just thru the sale plus the acquisitin of a new striker who would take torres' place (this striker should not be confused with a new striker cos that was different, this striker only replaves torres) would cost 12mil. Hence for just one striker position we woild be spendong 29 mil compared to the 19 we have paid now.

Now this season, if we simply subtract the 10mil deleted from the amortized value, the new striker replacing torres would cost us about 19-20 mil which about the same value that torres costs us anyway. Get it!!!! I don't know why its so hard? I am pretty sure my niece has understood it by now.

Did u read the article I gave u? If yes then why in the name of hell are u talkinf about essien again. Lamps and cole are CLUB legends. U don't sell them. NEVER.

We have 20+ loanees. Last year kdb was one. We earned a mega profit on his sale. What in the name of god has that got to do with this. Infact the system of loaning out and selling/integrating into the squad is so that we can deal with FFP and be safe for the future. How the hell does that effect us poorly by ffp.

[Eligius 121]

Dude. U really are a piece of work.

I ll try and explain it you in the most easiest of the way possible ever.

Lets start from the begining. U said we were not ABLE to sell torres. When it could not be far from the truth. We dint want to sell torres. We could not afford to sell torres.

Also if u actually remember, we were in for a 30mil rated rooney. We could AFFORD to buy a new striker but selling torres was not even taken into accoubt. Does that give you a hint as to what the actual dynamics of the situation was. Selling torres (for 10mil) this season would have meant a LOSS of 17mil plus losing a striker. How difficult is that to grasp for u??

I ll try to explain it to u like I would to my niece. Torres costs us 19mil a season.

If we had sold him we would have taken a loss of 17mil just thru the sale plus the acquisitin of a new striker who would take torres' place (this striker should not be confused with a new striker cos that was different, this striker only replaves torres) would cost 12mil. Hence for just one striker position we woild be spendong 29 mil compared to the 19 we have paid now.

Now this season, if we simply subtract the 10mil deleted from the amortized value, the new striker replacing torres would cost us about 19-20 mil which about the same value that torres costs us anyway. Get it!!!! I don't know why its so hard? I am pretty sure my niece has understood it by now.

Did u read the article I gave u? If yes then why in the name of hell are u talkinf about essien again. Lamps and cole are CLUB legends. U don't sell them. NEVER.

We have 20+ loanees. Last year kdb was one. We earned a mega profit on his sale. What in the name of god has that got to do with this. Infact the system of loaning out and selling/integrating into the squad is so that we can deal with FFP and be safe for the future. How the hell does that effect us poorly by ffp.

Umm. We could afford to sell Torres, we just couldn't find the right deal. Just as QPR could afford to sell their players, but they couldn't because of high wages in their contracts.

Selling Torres this season would of yielded a loss as I said in the whole page.

However, in the next 2 seasons we would have saved 7m/year for 2 years and had a better striker for us....

You understand that or is that too complicated for you? The difference would of been 7m in the first year (2013) as I said was definetely not a factor on why we couldnt sell FT9. 7m differential loss in 2013 vs getting aka Rooney/Costa with a 7m gain in 2014 and 2015.

Do the math or maybe its too complicated.

I'll make it simple.

Would you rather have Drogba in his prime for an additional 7m in the first year with gains of 7m the following seasons or would you rather have Shevchenko/Crespo for another season just to save 7m for one year even though everything evens out financially.

[BloodIsBlue 291]

If we loan out Torrs we will still end up paying 10m of his wages so that he could play somewhere else... I'd give him away at this point and let someone else deal with a 13m a year pylon.

[didierforever 7,349]

Umm. We could afford to sell Torres, we just couldn't find the right deal. Just as QPR could afford to sell their players, but they couldn't because of high wages in their contracts.

Selling Torres this season would of yielded a loss as I said in the whole page.

However, in the next 2 seasons we would have saved 7m/year for 2 years and had a better striker for us....

You understand that or is that too complicated for you? The difference would of been 7m in the first year (2013) as I said was definetely not a factor on why we couldnt sell FT9. 7m differential loss in 2013 vs getting aka Rooney/Costa with a 7m gain in 2014 and 2015.

Do the math or maybe its too complicated.

I'll make it simple.

Would you rather have Drogba in his prime for an additional 7m in the first year with gains of 7m the following seasons or would you rather have Shevchenko/Crespo for another season just to save 7m for one year even though everything evens out financially.

So what are you basing this on? I am basinf my posts on what I have seen from mou and chelsea. Torres was never even said to be in ANY kind of a deal. We would be very weird if our board was absolutely hell bent on offloadinf Torres. But wait there was nothin. But let your imagination again make you say whatever u want since that is all u having been doing.

Let me say this again, this is reality not FIFA/FM. please reply again keeping that in mind.

Also lol at what you have understood so far.

U do know that we have already acquired a loss of 34 mil for 11-12 and 12-13 seasons and the permissible loss for 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, is just 38.5mil. But since you have eveeything sorted out while playing fifa 14, our board should have done thw same. Lol.simply lol.

Simply can't be bothered any nore.

[Eligius 121]

So what are you basing this on? I am basinf my posts on what I have seen from mou and chelsea. Torres was never even said to be in ANY kind of a deal. We would be very weird if our board was absolutely hell bent on offloadinf Torres. But wait there was nothin. But let your imagination again make you say whatever u want since that is all u having been doing.

Let me say this again, this is reality not FIFA/FM. please reply again keeping that in mind.

Also lol at what you have understood so far.

U do know that we have already acquired a loss of 34 mil for 11-12 and 12-13 seasons and the permissible loss for 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, is just 38.5mil. But since you have eveeything sorted out while playing fifa 14, our board should have done thw same. Lol.simply lol.

Simply can't be bothered any nore.

Torres was reported all over the summer to leave Chelsea... Same as Mata was.

LOL, FIFA/Fm... You do know we purchased Willian and Schurrle and MVG in the summer. In addition, if the 7m was a huge factor, wtf would we buy 2 ams instead of a solid CF when we were stacked in AMs?

Maybe this concept is too complicated for you to understand.

No wonder why you failed basic accounting 101.

[didierforever 7,349]

Torres was reported all over the summer to leave Chelsea... Same as Mata was.

LOL, FIFA/Fm... You do know we purchased Willian and Schurrle and MVG in the summer. In addition, if the 7m was a huge factor, wtf would we buy 2 ams instead of a solid CF when we were stacked in AMs?

Maybe this concept is too complicated for you to understand.

No wonder why you failed basic accounting 101.

We were stacked in ams? LOL.

oscar - no. 1 am.

Hazard no.1 lw.

Mata- sold cos does not fit the system

Kdb- sold cos does not fit the system

Moses- can't get a start ahead of sterling

Maron - lol.

True dude, I can definitely see why jose should not have gone for willian and schurrle who have been a mega part of our seasob. LOL.

CM was a much needed reinforcement which mvg was.

Basic accounting along with some chelsea knowledge is what is needed here dude. One of which you defo seem to lack.

I am talking about somwthing substantial. Not dailyfail reports. Abything concrete? Jose had said before hand that mata would need to adapt, that oscar was his no.1 no.10. That mata would be played as RW.suprising that their was absolutely nothibg about torres.

[Eligius 121]

We were stacked in ams? LOL.

oscar - no. 1 am.

Hazard no.1 lw.

Mata- sold cos does not fit the system

Kdb- sold cos does not fit the system

Moses- can't get a start ahead of sterling

Maron - lol.

True dude, I can definitely see why jose should not have gone for willian and schurrle who have been a mega part of our seasob. LOL.

CM was a much needed reinforcement which mvg was.

Basic accounting along with some chelsea knowledge is what is needed here dude. One of which you defo seem to lack.

You forget we had

Oscar, hazard, mata, kdb, moses and marin......

If anything we had a solid 4 with Moses who i consider decent at least.

For striker you think Torres fits the system that Mourinho wants? Ba plays the number 9 that Mourinho wants? Lukaku plays the number 9 that Mourinho wants?

By your logic, we should of sold all 3.

[didierforever 7,349]

You forget we had

Oscar, hazard, mata, kdb, moses and marin......

If anything we had a solid 4 with Moses who i consider decent at least.

For striker you think Torres fits the system that Mourinho wants? Ba plays the number 9 that Mourinho wants? Lukaku plays the number 9 that Mourinho wants?

By your logic, we should of sold all 3.

How do I forgwt those guys when u r quoting a post in which I have named all 6 of them... LOL-MAX

Jose's systems is more reliant on speed and wingers than strikers. Our 3 behind the striker is more important than the strikwr himaelf. We needed speed on the wings which mata definitely doea not give and kdb winning as just a flop here.

So, by my logic, jose decided to strengthen in our nost important area and get players which suited our system. Our objective for the season was top 4, plus building for the future which jose thiught we could do with those 3 strikers and with the AM buys.

Infact in hindsight, the buys seem very good considering the system we have employed and how much mata and kdb would have struggled in it.