Robin van Persie

Status
Not open for further replies.
Traub said:
If he signed a new contract, you would be able to get a bigger transfer fee than 12 million now - or in 12 months time.

Ignoring this, you're not taking account of the intangible aspects. Your best player and captain signing on would improve morale and improve the attractiveness of the club.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about opportunity costs as they may arise in practice, you're talking about hypotheticals that are not going to happen.
 
peterstorey said:
The future will be for players to see out their contracts and then be up for a wage auction, this is just an early example. Turning down £12M, given that we save £7M in wages and a sign-on fee, it effectively costs us just £5M to keep him for a year.
Click to expand...

This is one of the stupidest things I've read on the Caf. And I was in the newbies to witness Liam and CMO.






*The Jackie Chan meme would be perfect here
 
peterstorey said:
I'm talking about opportunity costs as they may arise in practice, you're talking about hypotheticals that are not going to happen.
Click to expand...

You're talking about the hypothetical cost of a signing on fee you have no opportunity of paying. You wouldn't be paying a £5m signing on fee for one year. The cost of that would be spread across a likely 5 year contract. Even using scouse maths like you have you'd still be off the mark, meaning your figure would be more like £9m.

He is using the very real prospect of a fee. The only thing hypothetical is the amount.
 
SteveJ said:
Maybe Arsenal's thinking is this: we won't let him go for less than CL-qualification would earn us.
Click to expand...

Not bad reasoning. Although they could take a gamble at something short of that figure and hope to get both. At the minute though Arsenal don't seem like a club wanting to keep the player.
 
peterstorey said:
More than Dzeko, even at 29.
Click to expand...

Now I agree that Van Persie is a better player than Dzeko. But Dzeko has years left on his contract, he is a lot younger and has proven he can score goals in Germany and England.
If value was just a matter of who was the best player then Tevez must be worth 50 million. But hes not, hes probably valued at under half that. If City value Tevez at 20-25 million then surely Van Persie would be around the 15 million mark considering the circumstances?
 
peterstorey said:
Most of them left when we made the call. Fabregas was the only real loss and we survived without him.
Click to expand...

'Survived' is subjective. Losing all your best players has seen you go from title contenders to also-rans. It's also a vicious cycle in that other players want to leave (RvP, for example) and you attract a lower standard of player in future.

Grinner said:
I'm not exactly convinced that losing RvP makes us massively weaker. Don't get me wrong, it's not good, but we do have two very good new signings in Giroud and Poldi. We also have the Walcott option. I don't see a huge drop-off in goals scored with that sort of attack.
Click to expand...

Quality signings but it's not the quantity of goals that matters. RvP scored SO MANY critical goals last season for you it's unreal. We have no idea whether Giroud or Podolski will have that mindset to step up and be counted when the team's up against it. We know that Walcott is fairly inconsistent and unreliable in that regard.
 
acnumber9 said:
You're talking about the hypothetical cost of a signing on fee you have no opportunity of paying. You wouldn't be paying a £5m signing on fee for one year. The cost of that would be spread across a likely 5 year contract. Even using scouse maths like you have you'd still be off the mark, meaning your figure would be more like £9m.

He is using the very real prospect of a fee. The only thing hypothetical is the amount.
Click to expand...
You're beginning to get the idea, good lad. Now you have to plug in the 3-year contract on the table at £130K/week v the current £90K and the upfront £5M signing on fee and you'll be there.
 
peterstorey said:
You're beginning to get the idea, good lad. Now you have to plug in the 3-year contract on the table at £130K/week v the current £90K and the upfront £5M signing on fee and you'll be there.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be paying a signing on fee for one year. If you want to use such stupid maths then pro rata it. Either way keeping him for a year is not costing Arsenal £5m.
 
Using Peterstorey's maths, all clubs would be better off forcing players who want to leave to see out the final year of their contract. Strange that never happens.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Now I agree that Van Persie is a better player than Dzeko. But Dzeko has years left on his contract, he is a lot younger and has proven he can score goals in Germany and England.
If value was just a matter of who was the best player then Tevez must be worth 50 million. But hes not, hes probably valued at under half that. If City value Tevez at 20-25 million then surely Van Persie would be around the 15 million mark considering the circumstances?
Click to expand...

when did fat ugly pikey's become the yardstick by which we measure transfer fees?
 
kps88 said:
Using Peterstorey's maths, all clubs would be better off forcing players who want to leave to see out the final year of their contract. Strange that never happens.
Click to expand...
Do keep up, it quite clearly depends on the opportunity cost, value to the club, wages, transfer fee and new contract among other things. Plenty of players don't get renewals or leave on Bosman's.
 
John_Jensen said:
when did fat ugly pikey's become the yardstick by which we measure transfer fees?
Click to expand...

Regardless of what he looks like, he is a terrific player. No one is saying he is the yardstick but surely any rational man could see that Tevez and Van Persie are a similar level of player. Tevez has 2 years on his contract and is younger than Van Persie. If Tevez is worth round the 20 million mark, would you not agree that Van Persie is worth less than that?
Why would anyone buy Van Persie for 25 million when they could get Tevez for round the same amount (apart from the rags for obvious reasons)
 
In cash flow terms if the transfer fee was structured over 3 years we'd be £2M better off in 2012-13 keeping him next year and then letting him go for nothing.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Regardless of what he looks like, he is a terrific player. No one is saying he is the yardstick but surely any rational man could see that Tevez and Van Persie are a similar level of player. Tevez has 2 years on his contract and is younger than Van Persie. If Tevez is worth round the 20 million mark, would you not agree that Van Persie is worth less than that?
Why would anyone buy Van Persie for 25 million when they could get Tevez for round the same amount (apart from the rags for obvious reasons)
Click to expand...

As has been said on here Ashley Young went for 18m with 1 year left on his contract.

Not only is Van Persie a vastly superior player but you're not going to replace him for 15m
 
peterstorey said:
In cash flow terms if the transfer fee was structured over 3 years we'd be £2M better off in 2012-13 keeping him next year and then letting him go for nothing.
Click to expand...

You never tire of making yourself look stupid. Thank you. You are very amusing.
 
I've already tried to educate you about opportunity cost, surely I don't have to teach you basic cash flow? It's just sums after all.
 
John_Jensen said:
As has been said on here Ashley Young went for 18m with 1 year left on his contract.

Not only is Van Persie a vastly superior player but you're not going to replace him for 15m
Click to expand...

Like I said, a players ability is not all that needs to be considered when it comes to value. I don't remember Ashley Young coming out and saying he would not renew or him being injury prone. Ashley Young is also younger.

Now is it really worth Arsenal keeping him for one season? Peterstorey can come out with all these fancy figures but Van Persie is not going to give his all if he wants out now. Plus if he gets injured over the next year then he will have no contract.

Clubs know this. So although Van Persie is a great player his value is not really what Arsenal and its fans are expecting.
 
peterstorey said:
I've already tried to educate you about opportunity cost, surely I don't have to teach you basic cash flow? It's just sums after all.
Click to expand...

Firstly you're making the assumption that you know the way any transfer is going to be structured. You don't. You can be pretty sure Arsenal won't be basing their decision on your maths. Cash flow is about having money in the business. Making an imaginary saving rather than bringing cash in does not improve cash flow. Maybe you need to teach yourself the basics.

Either way, proper maths or your idiotic maths, Arsenal are once again going to be waving goodbye to their captain.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Like I said, a players ability is not all that needs to be considered when it comes to value. I don't remember Ashley Young coming out and saying he would not renew or him being injury prone. Ashley Young is also younger.

Now is it really worth Arsenal keeping him for one season? Peterstorey can come out with all these fancy figures but Van Persie is not going to give his all if he wants out now. Plus if he gets injured over the next year then he will have no contract.

Clubs know this. So although Van Persie is a great player his value is not really what Arsenal and its fans are expecting.
Click to expand...

By the end of the of the transfer window it will be coming up on almost 2 years of him not being out for any injury. Young may be younger but he's not considerably so and he's a considerably inferior player.

If 15m is the best City can do i hope they are told to stick their Oil Money up their collective holes.
 
peterstorey said:
In cash flow terms if the transfer fee was structured over 3 years we'd be £2M better off in 2012-13 keeping him next year and then letting him go for nothing.
Click to expand...

That's assuming all other inflows and outflows are identical regardless of whether RVP stays or goes. That's a massive assumption that, in all likelihood, will not be the case.
 
peterstorey said:
In cash flow terms if the transfer fee was structured over 3 years we'd be £2M better off in 2012-13 keeping him next year and then letting him go for nothing.
Click to expand...

How did you get that? No money goes your way in this scenario and you pay him £4.5m to stay another year. In the opposite scenario a potential £20m fee goes your way and you spend nothing.
 
acnumber9 said:
Firstly you're making the assumption that you know the way any transfer is going to be structured. You don't. You can be pretty sure Arsenal won't be basing their decision on your maths. Cash flow is about having money in the business. Making an imaginary saving rather than bringing cash in does not improve cash flow. Maybe you need to teach yourself the basics.

Either way, proper maths or your idiotic maths, Arsenal are once again going to be waving goodbye to their captain.
Click to expand...

The last bit is the key bit really. Talking about it as good business is just severe rose tinted glasses. Losing your best player and captain for about the 5th time in 8 or 9 years is terrible for a club regardless of what fee you get for them. Especially when that fee is never reinvested properly in the squad.
 
Pexbo said:
The last bit is the key bit really. Talking about it as good business is just severe rose tinted glasses. Losing your best player and captain for about the 5th time in 8 or 9 years is terrible for a club regardless of what fee you get for them. Especially when that fee is never reinvested properly in the squad.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That's Vieira, Henry, Fabregas, Nasri and van Persie gone way below their market value in the last decade. Vieira could have gone to Real Madrid for €30m a year or two before easily and Henry would have cost around €30m or €35m a year or two before his transfer took place too.
 
John_Jensen said:
By the end of the of the transfer window it will be coming up on almost 2 years of him not being out for any injury. Young may be younger but he's not considerably so and he's a considerably inferior player.

If 15m is the best City can do i hope they are told to stick their Oil Money up their collective holes.
Click to expand...

Young is also English so he automatically gets overpriced. If RvP was English, you could easily expect 20m for him even now.
 
wr8_utd said:
Young is also English so he automatically gets overpriced. If RvP was English, you could easily expect 20m for him even now.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, it's PL players that are generally overpriced because they are 'proven'. Van Persie is as proven as it gets.
 
Bebe said:
This is one of the stupidest things I've read on the Caf. And I was in the newbies to witness Liam and CMO.






*The Jackie Chan meme would be perfect here
Click to expand...

I don't know about the numbers because I can't be bothered to work them out but the logic is sound. It's not really a suprise that the average caftard fails to grasp a mildly complex idea though.

Theoretically Arsenal have RVP for 1 more year, on relatively low wages for one of the top 5 strikers in the world. That's not a total disasterous position for Arsenal, even if he leaves for nothing next year. If he signs a new deal then they are shipping an extra £50000 (or whatever the rise is) per week + the signing on fee.

Alternatively (and the more likely scenario) they can cash in on their player. But what is his contract (1 more year on low wages) worth to Arsenal, 8,12,15,20,25 million?

This of course ignores RVP's apparant desire to get out quick - which could affect Arsenal if he was to stay.

Similarily with Modric last season - Spurs have the player with a long term contract on a relative pittance. Even in the face of a huge transfer fee, Spurs had a good incentive to keep the player because they already had him on a favourable deal. Redcafe said he was gone but ended up paying Glaston's electricity bill.
 
Sarni said:
Indeed. That's Vieira, Henry, Fabregas, Nasri and van Persie gone way below their market value in the last decade. Vieira could have gone to Real Madrid for €30m a year or two before easily and Henry would have cost around €30m or €35m a year or two before his transfer took place too.
Click to expand...

It was Arsenal's decision to let Vieira go, 2 years earlier would have been before the title winning side of 2004 and if they'd let Henry go i doubt we'd have qualified for CL & CL final in 2006 which more than covers the loss. And either way we'd still have been selling our captians.

Fabregas was a unique situation with the Barca thing, not a whole lot could have been done about that & Nasri wasn't bad business at 25m.

Van Persie is a different story though, he being the last real 'star' of the side and i'd prefer to make him see out his contract rather than take it in the arse from City again, especially for 15m.
 
Sultan said:
He'd have to be replaced. A lot of money.

Whichever way you calculate Arsenal are at a loss.
Click to expand...

He'll have to be replaced anyway. Whether it's now or a year down the line it doesn't really affect the maths. The cost of keeping Van Persie is still any potential fee plus his wages regardless of how Peter tries to spin it.
 
How can anyone argue that keeping an unhappy player at the club as captain is going to be worth losing £15 million. It'll also cost you Song and any other player a half decent team will look at. Its a joke in practice.

Very rarely does keeping an unhappy player pay off. When its someone who has as much influence on and off the pitch as the captain, its bending over and asking for something to happen.
 
dumbo said:
I don't know about the numbers because I can't be bothered to work them out but the logic is sound. It's not really a suprise that the average caftard fails to grasp a mildly complex idea though.

Theoretically Arsenal have RVP for 1 more year, on relatively low wages for one of the top 5 strikers in the world. That's not a total disasterous position for Arsenal, even if he leaves for nothing next year. If he signs a new deal then they are shipping an extra £50000 (or whatever the rise is) per week + the signing on fee.

Alternatively (and the more likely scenario) they can cash in on their player. But what is his contract (1 more year on low wages) worth to Arsenal, 8,12,15,20,25 million?

This of course ignores RVP's apparant desire to get out quick - which could affect Arsenal if he was to stay.

Similarily with Modric last season - Spurs have the player with a long term contract on a relative pittance. Even in the face of a huge transfer fee, Spurs had a good incentive to keep the player because they already had him on a favourable deal. Redcafe said he was gone but ended up paying Glaston's electricity bill.
Click to expand...

How is the logic sound? He is saying it will cost Arsenal £5m to keep him for a further year. It won't. It'll cost the minimum £12m fee plus his wages being saved. So chuck in another £3-4m. The books by selling him would be plus £12m as opposed to -£3-4m by letting him go for free and paying him. The real argument should be whether it is worth the hit to help their Champions League qualification.
 
Ekeke said:
How can anyone argue that keeping an unhappy player at the club as captain is going to be worth losing £15 million. It'll also cost you Song and any other player a half decent team will look at. Its a joke in practice.

Very rarely does keeping an unhappy player pay off. When its someone who has as much influence on and off the pitch as the captain, its bending over and asking for something to happen.
Click to expand...

In the unlikely event that he stays, he won't be captain.

I think the board would happily shave a couple of million off the transfer fee if Juve could convince him to go to Italy.
 
golden_blunder said:
They have already replaced him
Click to expand...

Yeah. They've signed Giroud and Podolski, assuming they keep one of Chamakh and Bendtner and stick to 433, they won't need to add anyone to their attack. Funnily it looks like Giroud and Podolski will have cost more than they receive for van Persie.
 
acnumber9 said:
How is the logic sound? He is saying it will cost Arsenal £5m to keep him for a further year. It won't. It'll cost the minimum £12m fee plus his wages being saved. So chuck in another £3-4m. The books by selling him would be plus £12m as opposed to -£3-4m by letting him go for free and paying him. The real argument should be whether it is worth the hit to help their Champions League qualification.
Click to expand...

The logic is: If RVP signs for Arsenal they greatly up his wages from tomorrow and give him a huge signing on fee. If he stays, he plays out his final year on small(ish) wages.

Thus there is value in keeping RVP even if he isn't signing a new deal. Keeping a cheap RVP for a year is perhaps worth 12,15, however many million.
 
dumbo said:
The logic is: If RVP signs for Arsenal they greatly up his wages from tomorrow and give him a huge signing on fee. If he stays, he plays out his final year on small(ish) wages.

Thus there is value in keeping RVP even if he isn't signing a new deal. Keeping a cheap RVP for a year is perhaps worth 12,15, however many million.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. Theoretically -Arsenal could end up saying no to £17-18 million in addition to maybe £5 million in wages for a player who disrupts the team spirits and who isn't prepared to give 100%

I am not saying this is the case with van Persie - but it is a risk Arsenal face if they keep him against his will
 
Status
Not open for further replies.