- Jan 2, 2011
- 7,255
- 7,665
The transfer fee on a player his age is much less relevant than his wages.
A transfer fee is an investment, wages are pure expenditure.
Think of it like a house.
Transfer fee = buying. If you can afford it you'd invest £1m on a new house as long as you thought it would increase or at least retain its value.
In fact the equation is the same if you spend £100k on a house or £100m, you do it if you think the investment works, but if for a moment you think the price is going to fall then you don't.
Wages = rent. You subtract your rent from your income and the equation is can I afford the rent and everything else I need because you know that at the end of the day whatever you spend is not coming back.
Weirdly the media and everyone else tend to focus on headline transfer fees (presumably because they're published and the large lump sum... er... grabs the headlines) but you can't know the true cost until the player moves on from the club.
Wages on the other hand make up a minimum of 80% of what a club spends on players. That's a massive majority of the cash a club spends on a player going on wages.
All of which is typically long-winded way for me to say that the transfer fee is almost irrelevant, it's all about the wages. And at £25m over five years (£25m you'll never get back) Ade is unaffordable.
omg your worse post ever.
£170k a week for 5 years is about £44m!!
obviously we wont be giving him £170k per week, £100k per week max.
Adebayor is a no brainer slam dunk purchase imo