I’m just referring to the basic principle of how value relates to ‘time served’. A £100m player on a 5 year deal for example is amortised at £20m a year of his contract. You may get £20m less selling him a year later, but quantifying that exclusively as some sort of loss doesn’t consider value added on the pitch.
In theory, Dortmund should have just sold him even last summer. His value would have been very high., but they wouldn’t have got the value they got from him on the pitch this season. Chelsea could put Werner on the market tomorrow, as they will get more money than if they do it when he has a year left. But they won’t get the football they paid for in the first place.
I know it doesn’t all relate directly to this case, but I’m simply introducing the possibility that Dortmund are also concerned about their football team as much as their balance sheet. We are still not certain what will happen with Pogba, but if he doesn’t sign next week, there is no guarantee we will decide that we are going to sell him this summer. We get more money, but we lose some of the Pogba we paid for in the first place, which is an actual footballer. Arsenal and Spurs waited until final 6 months to let Sanchez and Eriksen leave even. They aren’t complaining, they wanted the footballers. There was a trade off to be made, they could have gotten more money earlier, but would have lost the players.