Felipe Melo (9 Viewers)

Cronios

Cronios

Juventolog
#9,970
Jun 7, 2004
27,412
#9,970
Gerd said:
We bought melo for 25 mil , 3 years have passed so thanks to amortization
25 mil / 5 years = 5 mil per year
5 mil * 3 years = 15 mil
25 - 15 = 10 mil

If we sell melo for 10 we don't make a minus , we will probably sell him for 8 mil which means a 2 mil minus on the account books , which is pretty acceptable since he is on 3.6 mil wages .
There is no problem if we sell him for under 50% of what we got him , you don't and can't make a profit out of everything and even if you do you have to sell him for more than 10 mil to make a profit , there is no logical explanation why we should call it a success only if we sell him for over 50% (12.5 mil) .
Click to expand...
The point is to minimise damages, respect our invested capital and avoid making silly mistakes like Piazenzas and Padoins...
Marotta took a very hasty decision on this deal, it was a lose-lose situation, it was the worst possible moment to loan him and the worst possible destination.
Even keeping him would be far wiser, managerial wise.

I ve explained in great detail back then, also analyzed the alternatives. And it happened exactly as i expected, we were forced to waste even more money to Padoin and Piazenzas and lose the bigggest part of our investment.

And whats worse, is that this was not an exception, but this is happening again and AGAIN, with Marotta proving every year that he is completely incapable to complete decent sales...
Melo is yet another example and when i was using it as such, Marotta's boyfriends were claiming that this choice will end up well and i was wrong to accuse him and so here we are again, in the critical moment when the history will prove if i was right to criticise this loan deal or not...
 
Gerd

Gerd

Senior Member
#9,971
Dec 25, 2011
5,955
#9,971
Cronios said:
The point is to minimise damages, respect our invested capital and avoid making silly mistakes like Piazenzas and Padoins...
Marotta took a very hasty decision on this deal, it was a lose-lose situation, it was the worst possible moment to loan him and the worst possible destination.
Even keeping him would be far wiser, managerial wise.

I ve explained in great detail back then, also analyzed the alternatives. And it happened exactly as i expected, we were forced to waste even more money to Padoin and Piazenzas and lose the bigggest part of our investment.

And whats worse, is that this was not an exception, but this is happening again and AGAIN, with Marotta proving every year that he is completely incapable to complete decent sales...
Melo is yet another example and when i was using it as such, Marotta's boyfriends were claiming that this choice will end up well and i was wrong to accuse him and so here we are again, in the critical moment when the history will prove if i was right to criticise this loan deal or not...
Click to expand...
If you sell him for 10 mil there are no damages , for everything under that the damages are 10 - the fee you are selling him , so if for example you sell him for 2 mil that is a 2 mil minus in the account books . Pazienza is not an error considering that he came for 0 and he couldn't have done anything on padoin . Conte wanted him , what should he have done ?
Elia sold for 5.5 + 2 bonus with bonuses who are easily reachable , in this case he actually made a plus 300k if i remember correctly , with ziegler is all plus , with melo i doubt anyone would have done anything better than that , with krasic the loss is 1.6 mil . Those are pretty normal amounts considering that melo has a gigantic paycheck while krasic has been on the bench for a year .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 9)