Gylfi to leave ?!!!

[Messiah]

You're still "assuming" those clubs are interested in him. You don't know they are, so as I have an opinion on value, and you have your opinion on his interest. I just don't see anyone willing to pay £10m for a striker that isn't consistent at that level.

[Sun Tzu]

Jay you have the wrong idea about player values.

There isn't a Glass's Guide. There is no way of working out what a player is 'worth' except when he is bought.

If two clubs need a striker, decide Doyle is the one they want and start bidding then the price goes up,especially if Wolves are unwilling sellers.

If only one club shows an interest and Wolves decide they need the cash to pay for (say) a keeper and a centre back) then he may go for less.

If Man City take a fancy to him then all bets are off as they 'll pay anything Wolves ask.

[Ian Royal]

You're still "assuming" those clubs are interested in him. You don't know they are, so as I have an opinion on value, and you have your opinion on his interest. I just don't see anyone willing to pay £10m for a striker that isn't consistent at that level.

If they're interested in him they'll have to pay. If they aren't he won't go anywhere. Therefore he's gonna cost more than £6.5m for certain, because Wolves aren't going to sell a player they want to keep to a better performing team for less than a decent profit.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

During 05/06 I was of the opinion that Doyle would end up at Man u in time, but he did not seem to improve by that special margin I was thinking he would, I agree with TBM if Villa Everton want him then he could easily go for £10m.

S Hunt almost went for £5m once, shame he didnt, as I am still of the opinion that it was the turning point in the relegation season.

[loyalroyal4life]

gylfi and feds out the door to help us raise the £4m that is required. If we get £6 between them and are allowed £2m to reinvest then that is the 2nd best thing to actually keeping them

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

People don't get the difference between cutting £4m and raising £4m do they??

[Sun Tzu]

People don't get the difference between cutting £4m and raising £4m do they??

Surely the difference is minimal ?

If there is a £4 million gap in your budget you have a mix of options.

Cut your expenditure / increase your income in some permutation

Selling players gives you a bit of both so you may sell a player for £3 million and save the cost of employing him of £1 million giving you your £4 million gap closed.

[TBM]

People don't get the difference between cutting £4m and raising £4m do they??

Surely the difference is minimal ?

If there is a £4 million gap in your budget you have a mix of options.

Cut your expenditure / increase your income in some permutation

Selling players gives you a bit of both so you may sell a player for £3 million and save the cost of employing him of £1 million giving you your £4 million gap closed.

But then you're 1 player short that you need to replace!

[Sun Tzu]

Not necessarily.

We've got 4 keepers. Lose one and there really is no need to sign another.

If we lost a midfielder we've got plenty of cover.

Depends on the player....

[Wycombe Royal]

Selling players gives you a bit of both so you may sell a player for £3 million and save the cost of employing him of £1 million giving you your £4 million gap closed.

The £4m gap is closed for 1 season only, the following season it is back up to £3m.

[Sun Tzu]

Selling players gives you a bit of both so you may sell a player for £3 million and save the cost of employing him of £1 million giving you your £4 million gap closed.

The £4m gap is closed for 1 season only, the following season it is back up to £3m.

How do you know ?

Unlikely your other income / expenditure will remain constant.

And how do you know that by saving money rather than selling you aren't just making one year savings as well (ie putting off expenditure)

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

People don't get the difference between cutting £4m and raising £4m do they??

Surely the difference is minimal ?

If there is a £4 million gap in your budget you have a mix of options.

Cut your expenditure / increase your income in some permutation

Selling players gives you a bit of both so you may sell a player for £3 million and save the cost of employing him of £1 million giving you your £4 million gap closed.

We don't need to sell anyone to cut £4m of the budget though was more my point.

Prob not worded great by myself, just a bit bored of people saying we are gonna have to sell Sig to raise the cash. When saving on contracts, plus fees from the likes of Rasiak, Marek, etc. More than covers any deficit.

Comes a point when the cuts have to stop though.

[TBM]

If Hunt moves to Wolves will we get anything? - what if Doyle leaves Wolves?.........then there's Sonko, Bikey and Kitson if they move on next season!

Its not just about selling our current squad, as someone said.

[Wycombe Royal]

Selling players gives you a bit of both so you may sell a player for £3 million and save the cost of employing him of £1 million giving you your £4 million gap closed.

The £4m gap is closed for 1 season only, the following season it is back up to £3m.

How do you know ?

Unlikely your other income / expenditure will remain constant.

And how do you know that by saving money rather than selling you aren't just making one year savings as well (ie putting off expenditure)

I was taking your transaction in isolation. I still read this issue as we need to cut COSTS by £4m, not increase income or a balance thereof. Working in an accounting environment as I do it is always about reducing costs in line with your forecasted revenue. The club will not include players sales in forecasted revenue.

Any additional revenue (such as a player sale) is then seen as a bonus.

[It Is What It Is]

Is harper still on loan until his contract ends? Get him to sign back up and sell him off cheap, no hassle for him, and profit for us. If only it was that easy...

[It Is What It Is]

Is harper still on loan until his contract ends? Get him to sign back up and sell him off cheap, no hassle for him, and profit for us. If only it was that easy...

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12874_6108908,00.html

Sheffield United midfielder James Harper admits his future is up in the air.

The former Reading man joined the Blades on a permanent basis earlier this year after initially signing on loan.

His current deal is due to expire in the summer and he admits that he has not yet held any talks with the club about extending his stay at Bramall Lane.
"My contract is up at the end of the season so who knows what's going to happen," Harpertold The Sheffield Star.

i stand corrected haha

[TBM]

Is harper still on loan until his contract ends? Get him to sign back up and sell him off cheap, no hassle for him, and profit for us. If only it was that easy...

Although not confirmed its obvious with the Harper situation that we got a loan fee from Sheff Utd for him......we keep that money and not offer him a new deal, he then signs for them next season for nothing. IF we sold him then we would have to pay Arsenal 40% sell on, so doing it via the loan fee way means we make a better profit, and dont pass any on to the Arse.

[Sun Tzu]

Is harper still on loan until his contract ends? Get him to sign back up and sell him off cheap, no hassle for him, and profit for us. If only it was that easy...

Although not confirmed its obvious with the Harper situation that we got a loan fee from Sheff Utd for him......we keep that money and not offer him a new deal, he then signs for them next season for nothing. IF we sold him then we would have to pay Arsenal 40% sell on, so doing it via the loan fee way means we make a better profit, and dont pass any on to the Arse.

Although would we have got more for him than we paid in the first place ?
If not then there would probably be no money to pay to Arsenal anyway.

And doesn't the article suggest it's his Blades deal that is up in the summer - he signed on loan in September and converted to a permenant deal in January.

I suspect the 'loan' was done because the deal was all a bit last minute and it gave all parties the chance to try before they buy. Does seem odd that harper only signed such a short term deal with them - why would anyone take a 6 month deal ?

[Ian Royal]

Is harper still on loan until his contract ends? Get him to sign back up and sell him off cheap, no hassle for him, and profit for us. If only it was that easy...

Although not confirmed its obvious with the Harper situation that we got a loan fee from Sheff Utd for him......we keep that money and not offer him a new deal, he then signs for them next season for nothing. IF we sold him then we would have to pay Arsenal 40% sell on, so doing it via the loan fee way means we make a better profit, and dont pass any on to the Arse.

Although would we have got more for him than we paid in the first place ?
If not then there would probably be no money to pay to Arsenal anyway.

And doesn't the article suggest it's his Blades deal that is up in the summer - he signed on loan in September and converted to a permenant deal in January.

I suspect the 'loan' was done because the deal was all a bit last minute and it gave all parties the chance to try before they buy. Does seem odd that harper only signed such a short term deal with them - why would anyone take a 6 month deal ?

Club said at the time that Howard <-> Harper was meant to be a loan swap. But that we decided we may as well just buy Howard (presumably with the money meant for Smith). Presumably Sheff didn't want / have the time to sign Harps permanently before the window closed so he was still a loan.

He did then sign for them permanently in January. Presumably with a 6 month contract.

[TBM]

Even so i reckon they paid us a loan fee initially and then we "sold" him for free in January - getting round the 40% sell on clause