Super_Ally 0 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 .As long as we got a fee, it's cool with me. It's reported to be in the region of �£1,5m, but even if it's a bit less that's ok. Mendes has been more miss than hit & while he's definitely a skilled player, he's 31 and we'd have been likely to get nothing for him if we hadn't sold him now. Good business selling him now for some cash. I guess. �£1.5mil loss on him though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I guess. �£1.5mil loss on him though. . He played a lot of games for us last season & we won the SPL title & Scottish Cup, so I don't have any complaints about losing that sort of money. We didn't really 'lose' money on him if you consider everything. It probably works out even selling him half way through his contract for half what we initially paid for him. When you buy a 29/30 yr old player, you're not buying him thinking you'll get your money back unless he's a superstar & even then it's not common for clubs to get their money back on players they've bought at that sort of age. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 .He played a lot of games for us last season & we won the SPL title & Scottish Cup, so I don't have any complaints about losing that sort of money. We didn't really 'lose' money on him if you consider everything. It probably works out even selling him half way through his contract for half what we initially paid for him. When you buy a 29/30 yr old player, you're not buying him thinking you'll get your money back unless he's a superstar & even then it's not common for clubs to get their money back on players they've bought at that sort of age. Yeh, you are right I suppose. Just more concerned with getting a return on our investments with our current financial plight. However "return on investment" is probably a term more relevant to younger players as you point out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 These days when you buy an older established player you're writing off the fee over the length of the contract. So 3M in say a 3 year contract means 1M a year. Selling him for 1.5M after 1.5 years means that we've broken even. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 These days when you buy an older established player you're writing off the fee over the length of the contract. So 3M in say a 3 year contract means 1M a year. Selling him for 1.5M after 1.5 years means that we've broken even. Very true, but in our financial predicament cash is king. When you look at it objectively, Mendes came in and assisted us in winning the SPL title which meant a lot of money to the club, much needed money at that. He leaves with us 10 clear at the summit of the SPL (albeit played a game more), hasnt featured since October and for a reasonable fee. It appears, at this point at least, that we arent relying on him this season - effectively his injury has made him surplus to requirements. We save his wage which no doubt will be upwards of 10k a week so there is another 500k a year saved in wages. Had we held onto him the likelihood is we would have received very little by way of a fee so the time was right to do business on him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.