Ramsey to Juve on a free | Agrees £400k a week deal!

Jacob said:
Rojo? Mourinho? Jones? Young?
Click to expand...

you're missing my point. shit players like that showcase that footballers will never really be short of a job opportunity, particularly if you're in any way 'slightly above average'. so the risk of running down your contract really lies with injury, and even then, teams would likely take a punt once you'd recovered if they could get you on a free.

it's basically taking the money away from the clubs (the selling fee) and putting it in your own pocket.
 
NYAS said:
That says more about the tax rate in Italy than what Ramsey actually makes. The outrage in this thread is all about how such a player is getting paid “so much” and people are mentioning Ronaldo and Messi wages for reference. Based on this thread I doubt many people care about Juve’s cost on this deal.



If those top earners were available on a free then you would see their wages move into a completely different level than the “top earner” level you’re used to. Case in point, Sanchez. You wouldn’t have even mentioned him alongside Messi//Ronaldo/Neymar if he had been bought and not basically arrived on a free. If Messi/Ronaldo/Neymar ran down their contracts like Sanchez did, then they would be getting at least double what Ramsey is getting from Juve having done the same thing. That’s my point.

Also I said it would be embarrassingly low if the 145k already included his signing bonus.
Click to expand...
I suppose football and wages are heading into that type category. Ramsey, to my mind, is roughly around a £150k to £200k per week player based on his current status in the game.

So having almost doubled that to £250k to £300k has me thinking that that’s about par for the course, being free and all.

But yeah, trying to gauge what’s “market related” or not, in football these days, is a losing battle.
 
Ish said:
I suppose football and wages are heading into that type category. Ramsey, to my mind, is roughly around a £150k to £200k per week player based on his current status in the game.

So having almost doubled that to £250k to £300k has me thinking that that’s about par for the course, being free and all.

But yeah, trying to gauge what’s “market related” or not, in football these days, is a losing battle.
Click to expand...

Yeah if he’s signing on a free then that increase is definitely par for the course. It makes sense.

The agent just sits down with the new club and says “Look, we’ve run the risk of injury and unemployment by running down the contract. We’ve saved you a transfer fee worth millions. We expect to be compensated accordingly.”

Then you’d imagine the new club roughly calculating whether that increase in wages is worth saving on a transfer fee. In Ramsey’s case let’s say it’s an extra £100k/week. Over a 3-year contract that’s around £15.6m. Even if you were to include a generous signing bonus/agent fees of around £5m for a player of his level, that’s approx. £20m as the total increase in cost of the Ramsey transfer over the whole of the contract for Juve compared to what he might have been getting before.

Would Arsenal have accepted a £20m bid for Ramsey a couple of years ago? I doubt it, and that’s not even including his wages in such a scenario.

You can see it’s no wonder Juve like a freebie.


Edited to clarify that the above cost of contract was the possible increase in cost and not total cost.
 
Last edited:
NYAS said:
Yeah if he’s signing on a free then that increase is definitely par for the course. It makes sense.

The agent just sits down with the new club and says “Look, we’ve run the risk of injury and unemployment by running down the contract. We’ve saved you a transfer fee worth millions. We expect to be compensated accordingly.”

Then you’d imagine the new club roughly calculating whether that increase in wages is worth saving on a transfer fee. In Ramsey’s case let’s say it’s an extra £100k/week. Over a 3-year contract that’s around £15.6m. Even if you were to include a generous signing bonus/agent fees of around £5m for a player of his level, that’s approx. £20m as the total cost of the Ramsey transfer over the whole of the contract for Juve.

Would Arsenal have accepted a £20m bid for Ramsey a couple of years ago? I doubt it, and that’s not even including his wages in such a scenario.

You can see it’s no wonder Juve like a freebie.
Click to expand...
Juve and freebies - for sure :lol:
 
Ramsey is a £40m player in this market, probably a bit more. So Juventus are clearly saving a big transfer fee. But still, the cost of Ramsey is £83m over 4 years - so he’s not cheap. As someone else said, it’s just the played appropriating the economic costs that would traditionally be split between the player and the selling club.

Arsenal have lost a lot of money over the years with allowing players contracts to run down. Ramsey, RVP, Nasri and Sanchez immediately come to mind. I’m sure there are many more.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Ramsey is a £40m player in this market, probably a bit more. So Juventus are clearly saving a big transfer fee. But still, the cost of Ramsey is £83m over 4 years - so he’s not cheap. As someone else said, it’s just the played appropriating the economic costs that would traditionally be split between the player and the selling club.

Arsenal have lost a lot of money over the years with allowing players contracts to run down. Ramsey, RVP, Nasri and Sanchez immediately come to mind. I’m sure there are many more.
Click to expand...

THe alternative was selling them in the season before the contract expires, but they can afford to keep the player until the end of it.
 
Suedesi said:
So tell me why Juve got rid of Higuain and not Mandzukic?
Click to expand...

Because Higuain earned around double his salary and his annual depreciation was more than three times that of Mandzukic.

Higuain was bought for €90m and signed a 5-year contract, which means his transfer price is depreciated by €18m every year. He also cost around €7.5m in net wages (excl. bonuses), so around €15m per year. That's total expenses of €33m in our books for the next three years.

Mandzukic signed for €21m in 2015 and signed a four-year contract, which means his transfer price is depreciated by €5.25m every year. He earns around €4m in net wages, so around €8m per year. That's total expenses of €13.25m. But since his book value if almost entirely depreciated already, this will go down in future years if he extends his contract.

The accounting difference between getting rid of Higuain or Mandzukic is around €20m every year for the next couple of years. Of course, this was a big factor in the decision to sell him. It was a necessary choice to soften the financial burden of the Ronaldo acquisition and it does not make sense to hold it against Higuain.
 
People are really under rating him. I, personally, think he's a very good player and in the right set up could be significantly better.
 
I hate to shout, but since I have written it 3 or 4 times already...

It’s 250k GROSS, the title must be corrected since it is FALSE.

The BBC misinterpreted the gross wage as the net wage and thus wrongly reported 400k. That’s what Di Marzio, Romano, etc. are saying
 
pensionator said:
I hate to shout, but since I have written it 3 or 4 times already...

It’s 250k GROSS, the title must be corrected since it is FALSE.

The BBC misinterpreted the gross wage as the net wage and thus wrongly reported 400k. That’s what Di Marzio, Romano, etc. are saying
Click to expand...
Exactly In Italy we always talk in NET not gross unlike anywherelse in the world.
We dunno yet his salary. But from rumors it's going to be between 7.5 and 8m NET/year which means 153k Net week.

Ronaldo is on 31M NET which means almost 600k NET week!
 
Incredibly overrated player. Lacks pace, stamina and is injury prone.

Is he a ten? Passing and goalscoring isn't there with proper tens. Is he an eight? Lacks tactical discipline and guile for the middle of the park.

Obviously this is my opinion but yeah, Juve have had one here.
 
Suedesi said:
OMG, this place is full of gobbi.

So tell me why Juve got rid of Higuain and not Mandzukic? Forse perche era un bidone sovrappeso che solo marmotta poteva spendere 93 milioni per sto panzerotto. :nono::nono::nono:

Also that line about respecting Financial Fair Play is ironic in the extreme in this particular thread, don't you think (HINT: read the subject line).
Click to expand...

Because Higuaín earned a lot more...

You believe they got rid of Higuaín because they prefered Mandzukic? Really?
 
Suedesi said:
Higuain was not a success - if you recall he was the missing piece to win the CL (because Juve didn't need Higuain to win the scudetti) and he obviously wasn't the level required. Also, you got to remember this was pre-Neymar money, Higuain was actually the third or fourth most expensive signing ever, so he definitely did not live up to the hype.
Click to expand...

He 100% did though, you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

The Higuaín signing was a clear success for Juve and Juve fans think that’s the case. Their fans are all more than fine with it, yet you for some reason want to believe they aren’t and that is was a failure somehow. Higuaín was worth every penny of the 90 million they payed for him.

Saying Juve didn’t need Higuaín to win the scudetto might be one of the stupidest things ever written. Have you watched Juventus at all in the past two seasons?
 
He’s the most overrated player we’ve had at Arsenal under Wenger and there have been many. He’s a poundland Lampard and it’s a shame we didn’t manage to con a decent fee for him. Absolutely zero sadness at seeing him leave as I said it’s a shame he didn’t leave for a fee years ago.

Having said that he would have been better served signing for Utd and playing under Fergie. That would have sorted him out early as a more skillful and goalscoring version of Darren Fletcher rather than the mostly pointless attacking midfielder Wenger tried to turn him into. He never had the talent for that.
 
JuveGER said:
Because Higuain earned around double his salary and his annual depreciation was more than three times that of Mandzukic.

Higuain was bought for €90m and signed a 5-year contract, which means his transfer price is depreciated by €18m every year. He also cost around €7.5m in net wages (excl. bonuses), so around €15m per year. That's total expenses of €33m in our books for the next three years.

Mandzukic signed for €21m in 2015 and signed a four-year contract, which means his transfer price is depreciated by €5.25m every year. He earns around €4m in net wages, so around €8m per year. That's total expenses of €13.25m. But since his book value if almost entirely depreciated already, this will go down in future years if he extends his contract.

The accounting difference between getting rid of Higuain or Mandzukic is around €20m every year for the next couple of years. Of course, this was a big factor in the decision to sell him. It was a necessary choice to soften the financial burden of the Ronaldo acquisition and it does not make sense to hold it against Higuain.
Click to expand...

First of all you haven't sold him, you have just loaned him. He's the hot potato Juve are desperately trying to get rid of. The considerations are not simply monetary - if Higuain was such a good purchase, and if he was so indispensable Juve would have kept him despite the high salary and maybe not signed - gee I don't know - Aaron Ramsey? ;)

Fact of the matter is Higuain was expendable, his numbers were rapidly deteriorating, and that's why he was discarded (until June when he comes back if Chelsea are not stupid enough to buy).
 
Peyroteo said:
He 100% did though, you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

The Higuaín signing was a clear success for Juve and Juve fans think that’s the case. Their fans are all more than fine with it, yet you for some reason want to believe they aren’t and that is was a failure somehow. Higuaín was worth every penny of the 90 million they payed for him.

Saying Juve didn’t need Higuaín to win the scudetto might be one of the stupidest things ever written. Have you watched Juventus at all in the past two seasons?
Click to expand...

Fans are always fine with the club paying money for a big signing, it's not coming out of their pockets. Juve's key player in the scudetto last year - from an offensive pov was Paulo Dybala.
 
Suedesi said:
First of all you haven't sold him, you have just loaned him. He's the hot potato Juve are desperately trying to get rid of. The considerations are not simply monetary - if Higuain was such a good purchase, and if he was so indispensable Juve would have kept despite the high cost and maybe not signed gee I don't know - Aaron Ramsey.
Click to expand...

When you have the opportunity to sign Ronaldo and need to sell somebody to compensate somewhat financially, very few players are "indispensible". Again, that is not something to use as blame for Higuain.

I did not say considerations are simply monetary. You asked why we wanted to get rid of Higuain instead of Mandzukic. I explained one very important reason for that decision that you seemed to neglect. We needed to make financial room. Higuain was the best option to do so given his high salary and high amortisation, especially since we did not have to replace his main contribution (goals) condering that Ronaldo was joining. Considering we were stretching our financial limits to sign Ronaldo, a €20m cost difference is signficant enough to play a major role in our decision making.

The Ramsey transfer is irrelevant in this context. Ramsey will earn as much as Higuain but without the amortisation. And I expect us to compensate for his arrival and high salary by letting go of a midfielder (e.g. Khedira). His transfer is just not relevant in the Higuain discussion. He also solves a problem in midfield (hopefully), while Higuain's main contribution (goals) is well covered by Ronaldo. Higuain's transfer is linked to Ronaldo's, not Ramsey's.


Suedesi said:
Fact of the matter is Higuain was expendable, his numbers were rapidly deteriorating and that's why he was discarded (until June when he comes back if Chelsea are not stupid enough to buy)
Click to expand...

This did not help his case, and there are certainly doubts about his longevity given his frequent weight issues. But it is certainly not the only and probably not the most important reason. Ronaldo's transfer was an invaluable statement. It's just not a deal you say no to because you have Higuain. And to sign Ronaldo, we had to make sacrifices to make financial room. It's obvious looking at our financials. The only alternative to getting rid of Higuain that would have yield a comparable financial impact is a sale of Dybala who is much younger. It was no-brainer decision and in my opinion clearly related to financial considerations, not a statement about Higuain's quality.
 
JuveGER said:
When you have the opportunity to sign Ronaldo and need to sell somebody to compensate somewhat financially, very few players are "indispensible". Again, that is not something to use as blame for Higuain.

I did not say considerations are simply monetary. You asked why we wanted to get rid of Higuain instead of Mandzukic. I explained one very important reason for that decision that you seemed to neglect. We needed to make financial room. Higuain was the best option to do so given his high salary and high amortisation, especially since we did not have to replace his main contribution (goals) condering that Ronaldo was joining. Considering we were stretching our financial limits to sign Ronaldo, a €20m cost difference is signficant enough to play a major role in our decision making.

The Ramsey transfer is irrelevant in this context. Ramsey will earn as much as Higuain but without the amortisation. And I expect us to compensate for his arrival and high salary by letting go of a midfielder (e.g. Khedira). His transfer is just not relevant in the Higuain discussion. He also solves a problem in midfield (hopefully), while Higuain's main contribution (goals) is well covered by Ronaldo. Higuain's transfer is linked to Ronaldo's, not Ramsey's.




This did not help his case, and there are certainly doubts about his longevity given his frequent weight issues. But it is certainly not the only and probably not the most important reason. Ronaldo's transfer was an invaluable statement. It's just not a deal you say no to because you have Higuain. And to sign Ronaldo, we had to make sacrifices to make financial room. It's obvious looking at our financials. The only alternative to getting rid of Higuain that would have yield a comparable financial impact is a sale of Dybala who is much younger. It was no-brainer decision and in my opinion clearly related to financial considerations, not a statement about Higuain's quality.
Click to expand...

The worst thing in the Higuain deal is the depreciation, not only in money but in prestige of the player after just 2 seasons, okay, it was risky paying that much for a 29 y/o player but it works out if you milk 4/5 good seasons from him.

But now, after only 2 seasons you need to offload his wages wherever you can, and offer buy options at almost 1/3 of the price you paid, if you look at it from that perspective, paying ~60M + wages for 50 goals in two seasons is a bad deal, not horrible, and it could improve with the loan fee + buyout, but right now it's very possible that Juve may have to loan him for 1 or 2 seasons more.

And while it's true that, from a Serie A perspective it was unlikely that a better option than Higuain could be available so soon, it opens questions about how invested you really were on a player that came to be a game changer one and a half years ago.
 
Ishdalar said:
The worst thing in the Higuain deal is the depreciation, not only in money but in prestige of the player after just 2 seasons, okay, it was risky paying that much for a 29 y/o player but it works out if you milk 4/5 good seasons from him.

But now, after only 2 seasons you need to offload his wages wherever you can, and offer buy options at almost 1/3 of the price you paid, if you look at it from that perspective, paying ~60M + wages for 50 goals in two seasons is a bad deal, not horrible, and it could improve with the loan fee + buyout, but right now it's very possible that Juve may have to loan him for 1 or 2 seasons more.

And while it's true that, from a Serie A perspective it was unlikely that a better option than Higuain could be available so soon, it opens questions about how invested you really were on a player that came to be a game changer one and a half years ago.
Click to expand...

These loan deals have been structured in a way that we recover the amortisation, e.g. in the deal with Milan we loaned him for €18m with an option to buy for €36m, which is exactly his remaining book value. If we manage that, we avoid an accounting loss (although that does not necessarily make it a good deal). It will be a problem, though, if he returns in the summer.
 
JuveGER said:
When you have the opportunity to sign Ronaldo and need to sell somebody to compensate somewhat financially, very few players are "indispensible". Again, that is not something to use as blame for Higuain.

I did not say considerations are simply monetary. You asked why we wanted to get rid of Higuain instead of Mandzukic. I explained one very important reason for that decision that you seemed to neglect. We needed to make financial room. Higuain was the best option to do so given his high salary and high amortisation, especially since we did not have to replace his main contribution (goals) condering that Ronaldo was joining. Considering we were stretching our financial limits to sign Ronaldo, a €20m cost difference is signficant enough to play a major role in our decision making.

The Ramsey transfer is irrelevant in this context. Ramsey will earn as much as Higuain but without the amortisation. And I expect us to compensate for his arrival and high salary by letting go of a midfielder (e.g. Khedira). His transfer is just not relevant in the Higuain discussion. He also solves a problem in midfield (hopefully), while Higuain's main contribution (goals) is well covered by Ronaldo. Higuain's transfer is linked to Ronaldo's, not Ramsey's.




This did not help his case, and there are certainly doubts about his longevity given his frequent weight issues. But it is certainly not the only and probably not the most important reason. Ronaldo's transfer was an invaluable statement. It's just not a deal you say no to because you have Higuain. And to sign Ronaldo, we had to make sacrifices to make financial room. It's obvious looking at our financials. The only alternative to getting rid of Higuain that would have yield a comparable financial impact is a sale of Dybala who is much younger. It was no-brainer decision and in my opinion clearly related to financial considerations, not a statement about Higuain's quality.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
JuveGER said:
These loan deals have been structured in a way that we recover the amortisation, e.g. in the deal with Milan we loaned him for €18m with an option to buy for €36m, which is exactly his remaining book value. If we manage that, we avoid an accounting loss (although that does not necessarily make it a good deal). It will be a problem, though, if he returns in the summer.
Click to expand...

So, if you don't stuff it to Chelsea, you're left holding the bag ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.