Conor Sammon

[LorenzoMoresco]

"0ee43494d3d4fc0ac995d8fc81a331fe" alt="0ee43494d3d4fc0ac995d8fc81a331fe">

 

Sam Rush's response when asked about the Jamie Ward rumours. Give it a rest please 

 

Leicester haven't bid for him, but are interested. He would debunk rumours if there is no substance, IE a formal offer.

 

Leicester made an enquiry. Doesn't mean you'll sell unless your valuation is met.

 

Twitter: @LorenzoMoresco

[Srg]

3 posts with transfer info... well I never.

[CumbrianRam]

You'd honestly take a loss on a player who had a direct hand in 21.5% of our goals last season?

Any thing under £2 mill would be loss when we consider agent fees, wages etc.

[eddie]

Any thing under £2 mill would be loss when we consider agent fees, wages etc.

 

'Loss' being the operative word where Leicester are concerned.

 

Dead loss.

[RamNut]

There is an argument that........

If we paid what he (sammon) is worth then......

If sammon cost £1.2m and is on a 4 year deal then at the end of year 1 he is worth 75% .......i.e. £900 k

If he cost £1m then he is worth £750k now.

So £800k is about right.

Alternatively you could argue that he is worth £2m, £3m whatever figure you want to put on it.

Whatever.....i think he's worth about £800k.

If anything that might be a bit too much.

I personally don't think that he is worth millions and that there are better value players to be had for that sort of money.

Just my view.....

[eddie]

What on earth are you all doing in this thread when Forest are in transfer action meltdown again?

[Alph]

We supplied him with a couple of penalties...

[Guest]

There is an argument that........

If we paid what he (sammon) is worth then......

If sammon cost £1.2m and is on a 4 year deal then at the end of year 1 he is worth 75% .......i.e. £900 k

If he cost £1m then he is worth £750k now.

So £800k is about right.

Alternatively you could argue that he is worth £2m, £3m whatever figure you want to put on it.

Whatever.....i think he's worth about £800k.

If anything that might be a bit too much.

I personally don't think that he is worth millions and that there are better value players to be had for that sort of money.

Just my view.....

Would you only value brayford at around 150k then?

[RamNut]

Would you only value brayford at around 150k then?

Er.....no

But we will struggle to get more than 500k for him in jan

[rynny]

Would Sammon get as much stick if he hadn't had a terrible time at Wigan?

[San Fran Van Rams]

There is an argument that........

If we paid what he (sammon) is worth then......

If sammon cost £1.2m and is on a 4 year deal then at the end of year 1 he is worth 75% .......i.e. £900 k

If he cost £1m then he is worth £750k now.

So £800k is about right.

Alternatively you could argue that he is worth £2m, £3m whatever figure you want to put on it.

Whatever.....i think he's worth about £800k.

If anything that might be a bit too much.

I personally don't think that he is worth millions and that there are better value players to be had for that sort of money.

Just my view.....

 

Players can't really be depreciated like that... granted they might be worth less near the end of their contract, but in general players don't get less valuable as time goes on because they don't get worn out (like cars or machinery etc.).

 

Obviously a player getting badly injured or getting towards the end of their playing days is the exception to this. However, Sammon is neither injured nor getting old and still has 3 years left on his contract. There's no reason to value him 250K less per year just because he has less time on his contract.

 

If anything he should be worth alot more than the 1.2m or whatever price we paid for him because a) he is now in the international set up and b) he played pretty much every game last season and is therefore valuable to the club. Anway, a player is only worth whatever someone is willing to pay for them/ the club are willing to accept, and in my mind the club would be silly to accept less than what they paid a year ago for a player that was probably NCs first name on the team sheet all season.

[ChaddesdenRam]

Sammon was vital last season no matter what people say. I'm not saying he is bad or good simply we needed him lay season.

This season I can't see it being long before in a 433

Russell Martin Ward

Will become our front line.

In a 442 it might be different because Sammon does more running.

[spike1969]

 

There is an argument that........

If we paid what he (sammon) is worth then......

If sammon cost £1.2m and is on a 4 year deal then at the end of year 1 he is worth 75% .......i.e. £900 k

If he cost £1m then he is worth £750k now.

So £800k is about right.

Alternatively you could argue that he is worth £2m, £3m whatever figure you want to put on it.

Whatever.....i think he's worth about £800k.

If anything that might be a bit too much.

I personally don't think that he is worth millions and that there are better value players to be had for that sort of money.

Just my view.....

 

That is a crazy way of trying to attach a valuation to a player. By this methodology, the price of a player that has been purchased from another club can never go up. This is how accountants depreciate capital equipment but a footballer is an investment who's value can go up or down depending on a variety factors, the main ones being performance and ability related.

[Srg]

That is a crazy way of trying to attach a valuation to a player. By this methodology, the price of a player that has been purchased from another club can never go up. This is how accountants depreciate capital equipment but a footballer is an investment who's value can go up or down depending on a variety factors, the main ones being performance and ability related.

What are you on about? Don't you know whenever we buy a player they won't get better, therefore, must depreciate like scrap metal.

[Boycie]

Scrap metal is up and down at the minute.

[Martyn]

That is a crazy way of trying to attach a valuation to a player. By this methodology, the price of a player that has been purchased from another club can never go up. This is how accountants depreciate capital equipment but a footballer is an investment who's value can go up or down depending on a variety factors, the main ones being performance and ability related.

No it's not really, as at the end of their contract their value is £0 and this is why it's exactly how players' book value is calculated in the accounts.

Brayford *is* different of course, but that's because his intrinsic value has increased, what he's "worth" you may say.

If a player is generally deemed to be as good now as when you bought him the "book" value is probably your best guess what you may get for him.

[spike1969]

 

No it's not really, as at the end of their contract their value is £0 and this is why it's exactly how players' book value is calculated in the accounts.

Brayford *is* different of course, but that's because his intrinsic value has increased, what he's "worth" you may say.

If a player is generally deemed to be as good now as when you bought him the "book" value is probably your best guess what you may get for him.

 

Book value is a completely different thing to market value. Book value methodlogy is fine for applying a valuation to an asset for the purpose of preparing your end of year accounts, P&L etc but it has little basis in determining a transfer valuation.

The Brayford scenario has nothing to do with depreciation in value it is risk mitigation. You run the risk of an asset who's value has increased leaving for zero because you lose ownership. I think you can only start to think this way when your near the final year of a contract. A player who signs a 4 year contract will not be worth any less on the market after 1 year or even after 2 years (assuming they are equally as good as when they were purchased).

[spike1969]

 

What are you on about? Don't you know whenever we buy a player they won't get better, therefore, must depreciate like scrap metal.

 

Maybe Barks value has gone up as a result of the additional metal that is now in his legs

[AccountantRam]

You need to differentiate between market value and book value ( ie. what is in the accounts ), and also understand that it’s the players registration that gets capitalised and not the player himself.

Using Connor Sammon as an example; if we paid £1.2m for a three year contract that gets apportioned to the accounts at £400k per year. If we sold him after one year for £1m, then a profit of £200k would be recorded in that years accounts.

Players are not shown at their “market value” as this figure is subjective and cannot be calculated with any certainty.

This is one reason why the accounts keep showing big losses, as they can include ”costs” from a prior year – unfortunately cash is not the same thing as profit/loss.

Hope that helps ?

[ramexpat]

You need to differentiate between market value and book value ( ie. what is in the accounts ), and also understand that it’s the players registration that gets capitalised and not the player himself.

Using Connor Sammon as an example; if we paid £1.2m for a three year contract that gets apportioned to the accounts at £400k per year. If we sold him after one year for £1m, then a profit of £200k would be recorded in that years accounts.

Players are not shown at their “market value” as this figure is subjective and cannot be calculated with any certainty.

This is one reason why the accounts keep showing big losses, as they can include ”costs” from a prior year – unfortunately cash is not the same thing as profit/loss.

Hope that helps ?

This might be a long shot , and i dont like making assumptions ,,, but are you an accountant