Record buy ?

[theblackmafia.]

Why are you still posting UB5? You want to leave the board remember, or were you lying? Trying to attention seek maybe?

....only asking, no need to get all uppity (I can gather what the response will be!)

[BennyBoyRs]

Why don't you sell your WATRBs account to someone?

It'll only cost you a tenner in fees to get rid.

[theblackmafia.]

Why don't you sell your WATRBs account to someone?

It'll only cost you a tenner in fees to get rid.

[Bluehoop]

Why don't you sell your WATRBs account to someone?

It'll only cost you a tenner in fees to get rid.

But when it costs him a tenner will it be his biggest transfer profit EVER

[Nik29]

Why don't you sell your WATRBs account to someone?

It'll only cost you a tenner in fees to get rid.

But then if that person sells the account on to another person, he'll have to shell out another £64.00, asking the question is he WATRB record signing?

And is it worth paying £74.00 for one year on WATRB?

[wicksta]

I don't get what that has to do with this?

It's known as the "If all else fails on WATRB, #### off Paladini, I'm bound to get some support!" approach.

[Jeffro]

Don't worry ub5 they have been picking on me on my thread too.

[sirpiechucker]

With the possible sale of Tarrabt for £16m to PSG and the fact we have to pay Spurs 40% = £6.4m does this not mean that Tarrabt is our record buy ?

How many here would honestly have paid what equats to £6.4m to have Tarrabt for one season, although i don't think we would be where we are now if he wasn't in the team !!

Strange thread has developed from one simple question.

I'll use an analogy to explain the answer to your question.

I buy a house for £600k but if I want to sell it I have to pay the estate agent 40% when I sell it. I've still only paid £600k regardless of whether I sell the house for a profit or a loss. In the case of the Taraabt deal there maybe some clauses involved meaning that we might have had to pay a little more in the first place (i.e. if he played say 100 games the fee might go up to a million) but the fee we sell him on for has nothing to do with how much we paid for him. If you chose to sell your house for £15m and you've agreed to give the estate agent 40% you don't have to pay anymore than the original £600k in the first place. What you do get though is a stinking great big profit.

If Taraabt is sold and Warnock isn't given the money to reinvest in the squad then it doesn't matter what we sell him for as the club have arguably lost their best player and we aren't going to see an improvement in the team.

[cocneycowboy]

Strange thread has developed from one simple question.

I'll use an analogy to explain the answer to your question.

I buy a house for £600k but if I want to sell it I have to pay the estate agent 40% when I sell it. I've still only paid £600k regardless of whether I sell the house for a profit or a loss. In the case of the Taraabt deal there maybe some clauses involved meaning that we might have had to pay a little more in the first place (i.e. if he played say 100 games the fee might go up to a million) but the fee we sell him on for has nothing to do with how much we paid for him. If you chose to sell your house for £15m and you've agreed to give the estate agent 40% you don't have to pay anymore than the original £600k in the first place. What you do get though is a stinking great big profit.

If Taraabt is sold and Warnock isn't given the money to reinvest in the squad then it doesn't matter what we sell him for as the club have arguably lost their best player and we aren't going to see an improvement in the team.

So to use your analogy what Spurs have is an equity share in the player but you feel this does not constitute as a fee.

I disagree it may be a non defined fee but at realisation of the return it is a fee none the less. So if your giving away 40% of the profit you would of otherwise made what is that if its not a fee.

As somebody reported he cost 600K but when we got promoted we paid an additional 400k so if you use the same theory then we only paid 600k for him not 1 million.

What you cant argue with is that if sold for the 16 million suggested we will have paid Spurs 7 million pounds for him as it is 40% of the profit or the uplift in the players transfer amount. It doesn't matter how the fee has come about it is a fee none the less.

Just like the government and their stealth taxes.

[Ric-Roc]

So to use your analogy what Spurs have is an equity share in the player but you feel this does not constitute as a fee.

I disagree it may be a non defined fee but at realisation of the return it is a fee none the less. So if your giving away 40% of the profit you would of otherwise made what is that if its not a fee.

As somebody reported he cost 600K but when we got promoted we paid an additional 400k so if you use the same theory then we only paid 600k for him not 1 million.

What you cant argue with is that if sold for the 16 million suggested we will have paid Spurs 7 million pounds for him as it is 40% of the profit or the uplift in the players transfer amount. It doesn't matter how the fee has come about it is a fee none the less.

Just like the government and their stealth taxes.

You are clearly too intelligent for this board

[Stanley]

The main question is ; is Adel our record signing or doesn't the sell on clause count ?

No, it doesnt count.

Hope that helps.

[PeterG]

Our record signing is mike sheron and likely to remain so for the forseeable future by the looks of it