Ted Hughes wrote:
Since the board changed the transfer policy, they have clearly stated that they won't be spending any more big money on players with no resale value & there have been NO incoming money transfers for players of Van Persie's age.
If Arsenal agreed to swap him for Tevez, then that would be different but otherwise, even if Mancini wanted to spend the money on him (which I don't believe he does) the board would not sanction it. Mancini will use the next allocated money for younger players, or he won't be allocated the money; it's that simple.
With he advent of he tevez situation, you could say that they are very wise to hold the view that they do.
Were tevez 2 years older we would have kissed goodbye to a decent transfer fee - it is also much more likely that a player aged 30 who has been replaced in the first team will do a tevez or at the very least be disruptive. If a player in mid 20s starts being a cunt or is surplus to requirements, we can move them on.
With the possible exception of milner and lescott, nearly all our squad have appreciated in transfer value since buying them which means that when we move them on, not only will we see a real profit, but the books will get a very healthy boost whenever we move a player on.
In the past, we havent technically made a loss on players due to the way the purchase price is accounted for over the term of the players contract, but we have rarely sold a player at a higher value than we paid and changing hat has to be a good hing and shows the manager is creating value
.gif)