BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 £270k actually. Regardless of how much of the fee we had paid to Rapid Vienna, if we paid £4M and sold for £5.5M then if you take the fees off both ends of the deal (two agents involved in our sale) and a sell on amount then it is entirely possible that the "profit" was only £270k. Cashflow is quite another matter; that would depend on how much we still had to pay and how much Everton paid us up front. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 This is something which would only put our hesitency in the transfer window into perspective as well as shedding more insight into the modern day transfer dealings. On a sidenote though ... "profit" now would still mean that we got a large bit of the 5.5m now, but compared to what have we paid back then, the actual profit from both deals was minimal. Not that this is unusal in this day and age, unless you want to buy a player from (sic!) the EPL (or Porto). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 "profit" now would still mean that we got a large bit of the 5.5m now I'm sorry but you are not correct, you are confusing cashflow with profit. The "profit" is the sale price less the purchase price excluding fees, VAT and any other expenses involved. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I'm sorry but you are not correct, you are confusing cashflow with profit. The "profit" is the sale price less the purchase price excluding fees, VAT and any other expenses involved. As far as I see it, we bought Jelavic for 4m (plus agent fees), sold him for 5.5m (plus agent fees), and made "a profit" of some 270k (at least going by the poster above). While that holds true, the fee was paid back then and has been dealt with in the accounts and whatnot. The money we got for him now are these 5.5m (minus agents fees; whether or not in one sum or not), thus we are now 5,5m better off than before January 31st. Thus, this money (or however much Everton paid; minus agent fees) is now ready for use, no matter how much the "actual profit" on the Jelavic deals brought to Rangers. What is being done with these millions is another matter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 As far as I see it, we bought Jelavic for 4m (plus agent fees), sold him for 5.5m (plus agent fees), and made "a profit" of some 270k (at least going by the poster above). While that holds true, the fee was paid back then and has been dealt with in the accounts and whatnot. The money we got for him now are these 5.5m (minus agents fees; whether or not in one sum or not), thus we are now 5,5m better off than before January 31st. Thus, this money (or however much Everton paid; minus agent fees) is now ready for use, no matter how much the "actual profit" on the Jelavic deals brought to Rangers. What is being done with these millions is another matter. Broadly speaking you are correct in terms of the cashflow effect of the transaction (less VAT). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I suppose we save on his wages as well, but it sure doesn't look like deal of the century, whatever way you look at it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I suppose we save on his wages as well, but it sure doesn't look like deal of the century, whatever way you look at it. Smacks of desperation in my view. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.