Tiemoue Bakayoko

[Puliiszola 519]

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8606979/amp/Tiemoue-Bakayoko-prepared-50-wage-cut-return-AC-Milan-Chelsea-standing-firm.html

http://sportwitness.co.uk/chelsea-bakayoko-ac-milan-transfer/

So baka apparently willing to take a pay cut. Hopefully Milan pays the 20m€. Will be in interest of all 3 parties involved 

[NikkiCFC 7,950]

 

[King Kante 1,476]

4 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

 

With the Covid situation and the sheer number of dregs we have, the club had better start getting used to this. 

[killer1257 3,282]

Take it!

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk

[Puliiszola 519]

Bought him for 40m€, left 16m€ amortized value. So will be needing at least that. To be fair, we have earned 8m€ on loaned fees on him.

Think we will stick to 20m€. Baka himself is taking a massive pay cut, no way will milan let it go over 5m€.

[Vesper 28,801]

28 minutes ago, King Kante said:

With the Covid situation and the sheer number of dregs we have, the club had better start getting used to this. 

my 'hundreds of millions shit away' massively detailed posts (that multiple people scoffed at despite them being basic simple addition/subtraction maths) look better and better as each month goes by

[MoroccanBlue 5,297]

Thing is, we can account the €20m for Bakayoko for the year on the books if we sell him. The same applies for every player we sell. 

 For Havertz, I believe we only account for a portion of his fee on the books. Same goes for any player that comes in. 

[Puliiszola 519]

14 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Thing is, we can account the €20m for Bakayoko for the year on the books if we sell him. The same applies for every player we sell. 

 For Havertz, I believe we only account for a portion of his fee on the books. Same goes for any player that comes in. 

True that the whole 20m€ we get will be accounted in "player sales" but his "amortized fee" would also increase as the whole left amortized fee will have to be accounted for this season, so 16m€. 

"Profit" will be only 4m€, but most importantly we lessen our overall bloated amortized values and free up 8m€ for better players 

[Puliiszola 519]

14 hours ago, Vesper said:

my 'hundreds of millions shit away' massively detailed posts (that multiple people scoffed at despite them being basic simple addition/subtraction maths) look better and better as each month goes by

If we sell baka for 20m€ right now, we will have a profit of 4m€ this season. 

If we had sold him for 30m€ last sesson, we would have had a profit of 6m only and that would not have helped us in any way, as I am pretty sure are books will be well balanced for this year due to hazard. 

So unless one of the people on our board was a psychic who could predict the oncoming pandemic and see the devaluation, I think the board was spot on in their dealing of baka. Under normal circumstances, Monaco would have bought him for 30m€, giving us a 14m€ profit for 2020/21 books and massively helping in getting some targets.

[King Kante 1,476]

8 hours ago, Puliiszola said:

If we sell baka for 20m€ right now, we will have a profit of 4m€ this season. 

If we had sold him for 30m€ last sesson, we would have had a profit of 6m only and that would not have helped us in any way, as I am pretty sure are books will be well balanced for this year due to hazard. 

So unless one of the people on our board was a psychic who could predict the oncoming pandemic and see the devaluation, I think the board was spot on in their dealing of baka. Under normal circumstances, Monaco would have bought him for 30m€, giving us a 14m€ profit for 2020/21 books and massively helping in getting some targets.

Yes, this is true. However, taking that option is a risk. For instance, what happens if he blows his knee out like Van Ginkle? What happens if he loses form again? When do you decided to cut losses when you already have a vast number of players on loan/surplus? 

For me, Chelsea have been a bit too hard core at times with the values they want with the loan players. I mean we had offers of over £30m for Batsh*t and we all knew he was sh*t but with a good scoring record. Kenedy we got offered £20m by Newcastle but we said £30m after his first six months at Newcastle. 

Sure, holding onto players helped us with the likes of Kalas, Hector etc. However, I think we have hoarded too many and their should've been more churn as we always ran a serious risk of being lumbered with too many players if the economy went south. 

[Puliiszola 519]

21 minutes ago, King Kante said:

Yes, this is true. However, taking that option is a risk. For instance, what happens if he blows his knee out like Van Ginkle? What happens if he loses form again? When do you decided to cut losses when you already have a vast number of players on loan/surplus? 

For me, Chelsea have been a bit too hard core at times with the values they want with the loan players. I mean we had offers of over £30m for Batsh*t and we all knew he was sh*t but with a good scoring record. Kenedy we got offered £20m by Newcastle but we said £30m after his first six months at Newcastle. 

Sure, holding onto players helped us with the likes of Kalas, Hector etc. However, I think we have hoarded too many and their should've been more churn as we always ran a serious risk of being lumbered with too many players if the economy went south. 

I feel we are so harsh on the board.

Let's take batshuayi for example. If I go to his thread at the start of the season, people wanted him to be our no.1 striker. Also he simply does not fit the lamps' system, but is a decent prospect.

I feel for majority of cases, what we do works, we were even able to get majority of our money back for Morata. I feel that's exactly what would have happened for most of the players currently on loan or on the chopping block. Be it with youth players or with such loanees. It would have worked today too, if not for the unprecedented pandemic. Let's be fair, you can't prepare for something like that, can you.

But obviously, it has its pros and cons. Currently the cons are coming to fore heavily.

Let's just hope we are able to offload majority of the players that we don't need to simply get them off the books. Do agree, that it's high time, specially with the new loan rules.

[King Kante 1,476]

3 hours ago, Puliiszola said:

I feel we are so harsh on the board.

Let's take batshuayi for example. If I go to his thread at the start of the season, people wanted him to be our no.1 striker. Also he simply does not fit the lamps' system, but is a decent prospect.

I feel for majority of cases, what we do works, we were even able to get majority of our money back for Morata. I feel that's exactly what would have happened for most of the players currently on loan or on the chopping block. Be it with youth players or with such loanees. It would have worked today too, if not for the unprecedented pandemic. Let's be fair, you can't prepare for something like that, can you.

But obviously, it has its pros and cons. Currently the cons are coming to fore heavily.

Let's just hope we are able to offload majority of the players that we don't need to simply get them off the books. Do agree, that it's high time, specially with the new loan rules.

I do not disagree completely, my problem with it is that we went too extreme with it. When it comes to the loan players, a lot of them were brought to flip (i.e. buy low, then sell for profit.) I think however, we have at times gone too far as the amount of contracts meant that any downturn and we would be in trouble (this could've just been a stock market crash and not something like Covid.) 

I personally, buy and flip things and invest in equities and sometimes you need to sell slightly lower than you wish to free up capital and to ensure you're not over exposed. I feel, that Chelsea should've done this more as the risk was always there if a downturn came. 

I am not saying they should've brought and sold vast numbers every year, it is more that the numbers are dangerously high and it is going to cost Roman a lot. 

As for people who said Batsh*t should be our No.1 striker at the start of the season, those people shouldn't be taken seriously. Apart from his stats, which are good, his actual game play is incredibly poor and anyone who has seen him properly should have seen it. I am fairly new on here (around 6 months I think) however on another Chelsea forum I was saying everything that is being said about him now pretty much since he has been here. This is also why I often ask people who tout players if they have actually watched the player in question for more than 5 whole games as youtube and stats aren't enough. 

[Vesper 28,801]

The book on Bakayoko

Transfer fee + add-ons paid £40m

 £110K PW (some reports say£120K PW, but I am going with lower number to give this all the most positive spin possible)

£5.72m per year

we paid the majority of his wages whilst he was on loan at AC Milan

roughly £4m at AC Milan

and £2.2m of his wages at Monaco (as they paid a lower loan fee plus wanted an option to buy, which we STUPIDLY set far too high (42m  euro)

 

roughly £12m in wages paid by us so far

total cost so far in monies paid £52m

now, subtract his two loan fees

£4.5m at AC Milan, and £2.7m at Monaco

7.2m quid

leaves us on the hook so far for roughly 

£45m when his insurance cost is tallied in

 

now, we are supposedly willing to take only €20m (£18m for him, but AC only want to pay  €15m (£13.5m)

split the difference

€17.5m (16.8m quid)

and IF this deal goes through

we have a final NET LOSS when the books are closed

of £28.2m

IF Milan plays hardball, it might be a £30m or £31m net loss

and he is only fucking 25yo (26 in a week), so age has zero factor

BAD BAD business

people who are saying we make a profit off him are fucking gas-lighting the hell out of you

 

 

[Puliiszola 519]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

The book on Bakayoko

Transfer fee + add-ons paid £40m

 £110K PW (some reports say£120K PW, but I am going with lower number to give this all the most positive spin possible)

£5.72m per year

we paid the majority of his wages whilst he was on loan at AC Milan

roughly £4m at AC Milan

and £2.2m of his wages at Monaco (as they paid a lower loan fee plus wanted an option to buy, which we STUPIDLY set far too high (42m  euro)

 

roughly £12m in wages paid by us so far

total cost so far in monies paid £52m

now, subtract his two loan fees

£4.5m at AC Milan, and £2.7m at Monaco

7.2m quid

leaves us on the hook so far for roughly 

£45m when his insurance cost is tallied in

 

now, we are supposedly willing to take only €20m (£18m for him, but AC only want to pay  €15m (£13.5m)

split the difference

€17.5m (16.8m quid)

and IF this deal goes through

we have a final NET LOSS when the books are closed

of £28.2m

IF Milan plays hardball, it might be a £30m or £31m net loss

and he is only fucking 25yo (26 in a week), so age has zero factor

BAD BAD business

people who are saying we make a profit off him are fucking gas-lighting the hell out of you

 

 

When "people say that we are making a profit" out of hum, those "people" mean for the fiscal year of 2020-21. 

What has happened has happened in our previous years. That can not be changed, and doesn't even matter as we were able to balance out books THEN, get it?

For the fiscal year 2020-21. Baka has an amortized left fee of 16m€ (2 years left on his contract). We sell him for 20m€, we make a "player sale profit" of 4m€. Basic accountancy. A lot of people on here will validate it or you can read up on it. 

 

Ps - why would we pay half his wages at Milan 4m, but they pay us 4.5m in loan fee 😂. I mean would not it be the same as just paying his wages for the year, it would cost milan the same, it would cost us the same, and baka will get what he is contracted to get. 

Same with Monaco, we apparently paid 2.2m of his wages, but they paid 2.7m in loan fees? 😂 

Don't think we paid his wages in either Monaco or AC. Won't make any sense to get a "loan fee" of the same amount, but us paying the wages.

[Puliiszola 519]

4 hours ago, King Kante said:

I do not disagree completely, my problem with it is that we went too extreme with it. When it comes to the loan players, a lot of them were brought to flip (i.e. buy low, then sell for profit.) I think however, we have at times gone too far as the amount of contracts meant that any downturn and we would be in trouble (this could've just been a stock market crash and not something like Covid.) 

I personally, buy and flip things and invest in equities and sometimes you need to sell slightly lower than you wish to free up capital and to ensure you're not over exposed. I feel, that Chelsea should've done this more as the risk was always there if a downturn came. 

I am not saying they should've brought and sold vast numbers every year, it is more that the numbers are dangerously high and it is going to cost Roman a lot. 

As for people who said Batsh*t should be our No.1 striker at the start of the season, those people shouldn't be taken seriously. Apart from his stats, which are good, his actual game play is incredibly poor and anyone who has seen him properly should have seen it. I am fairly new on here (around 6 months I think) however on another Chelsea forum I was saying everything that is being said about him now pretty much since he has been here. This is also why I often ask people who tout players if they have actually watched the player in question for more than 5 whole games as youtube and stats aren't enough. 

Well said. 

Anyways, don't think uefa/fifa has even left us that option now. No more loan trafficking for us. 

[Vesper 28,801]

3 minutes ago, Puliiszola said:

 

Ps - why would we pay half his wages at Milan 4m, but they pay us 4.5m in loan fee 😂. I mean would not it be the same as just paying his wages for the year, it would cost milan the same, it would cost us the same, and baka will get what he is contracted to get. 

Same with Monaco, we apparently paid 2.2m of his wages, but they paid 2.7m in loan fees? 😂 

balance sheet accounting methodology

if you are challenging the veracity of it

then I am well done with you

you are very problematic

why don't you do some basic research and find out for yourself

 

[Puliiszola 519]

7 minutes ago, Vesper said:

balance sheet accounting methodology

if you are challenging the veracity of it

then I am well done with you

you are very problematic

why don't you do some basic research and find out for yourself

 

What? 

For 2018-19, baka's balance sheet would be 

Amortized fee - 8m€ ( 40m€ on 5 year contract)

Wages - 2m (as apparently paid by us)

Loan fees - 2m

So overall 8m+2m -2m = 8m, which would be the same as Monaco simply paying his wages and not giving a loan fee

Irrespective of however it happened, he would have costed us the same. 

Lol, anyone challenges some of the utter OTT things you post, becomes problematic for you. You pick and choose what you quote, just like the part of my previous response while ignoring the whole gist instead of accepting that 'people were not gas lighting", instead speaking depending on actual accounting techniques. Now similarly you have developed some weird "balance sheet accounting methodology". I would love to understand this particular methodology. Or even if you coukd provide a link.

[Jase 43,479]

FFS MARINA! JUST AGREE A CHEAPER PRICE AND SELL HIM OFF!