Estevão Dalbert

So what they pay his wage for one season and he comes back? So be it. Do that every season if we have to with this cunt

So just a week ago we were supposed to be getting €7m each for Joao Mario and Dalbert and as was entirely predictable, we end up getting zero for both. These cunts

thatdude said:

So frustrating. I mean I guess I’d prefer to play in Cagliari instead of somewhere in Turkey as well. Even if Trabzabspor is probably a better team.

Click to expand...

I actually disagree. Every time he plays against us he makes reckless/dirty tackles, as if he's trying to prove a point.

What I find puzzling is that Inter consistently offer long contracts to players regardless of their calibre. What I would really like to see is that when the club wants a aplyer to come on board, they will offer a contract length that suits the players abilities and calibre.

Let's use Dalberto Carlos as an example. He came from a French Ligue 1 club and did not appear all that flash. It was evident that his highlights reel largely depended on lax marking and his obvious pace. Beyond that, there was not much too him. Logically, he was coming to Serie A, a league renowned for its tactics, lack of space and emphasis on strong defending (in comparison to Ligue 1).

It would have been prudent for Inter to offer him a shorter contract so as to allow the club to see how he would adapt to the league and playing at a higher level. The problem we have now is that we have an overpaid player on a long contract after the club discovered in his early matches that he was not up to standard.

I acknowledge the difficulties in offering shorter contracts. Ideally, players want stability and want to be paid well. I also realise that if it came down to it, a player would most likely opt for a contract of three years as opposed to two years if clubs competing for his signature were offering the same amount in terms of wages. But surely, there is a better way of managing these kinds of transfers and competing for the Dalberts of this world than Inter are currently doing.

And honestly. if Inter are offering shorter contracts to largely untested players, I would rather the club miss out on this kind of player than be stuck with a long contract and a player that no other club wants. Also, I think this should be a pre-requisite for no-name players coming from Portugal and France: Mario and Dalbert are cases on point.

Long contracts also spread the amortization, so there was also that.

Contract length was not the problem, the price paid was. If his contract was shorter but the price was the same, the annual amortization cost would have been higher.

If the price where lower, like half what it was the contract length wouldn't be the problem. We could sell him easier since his book value at this point would be half of what it is now. But now we need to eat yet another amortization cost for this season if we loan him for free.

Generally long contract is always reasonable unless the wage is huge (well if the price paid is big, contract needs to be long). That protects the club so that the player won't go to free agency too soon. Dalbert's salary is quite low so that is not the problem. Amortization cost is because of the price paid.

Why you keep repeating the amortization cost when FFP is not applied atm? It is no longer important.

Amortization costs have been there always, even before the FFP. We've done those plusvalenza deals with Milan over kids for 20 years. It's not about FFP but about accounting. It's about making losses or profits in a year and owners care about that if you're not named Moratti.

PHM1605 said:

Why you keep repeating the amortization cost when FFP is not applied atm? It is no longer important.

Click to expand...

It was when Dalbert was signed.

CafeCordoba said:

Amortization costs have been there always, even before the FFP. We've done those plusvalenza deals with Milan over kids for 20 years. It's not about FFP but about accounting. It's about making losses or profits in a year and owners care about that if you're not named Moratti.

Click to expand...

Amortization and accounting are two different things.

The former is for FFP. For the latter, we only have to measure the unpaid salary left, not transfer fee. That 24m has been paid once already.

Only in e.g Lukaku type-of-deals, a multiple-year payment, then two terms are equal.

PHM1605 said:

Amortization and accounting are two different things.

The former is for FFP. For the latter, we only have to measure the unpaid salary left, not transfer fee. That 24m has been paid once already.

Only in e.g Lukaku type-of-deals, a multiple-year payment, then two terms are equal.

Click to expand...

Amortization is a core practice of accounting.

PHM1605 said:

Amortization and accounting are two different things.

The former is for FFP. For the latter, we only have to measure the unpaid salary left, not transfer fee. That 24m has been paid once already.

Only in e.g Lukaku type-of-deals, a multiple-year payment, then two terms are equal.

Click to expand...

Like brehme said, amortization is part of accounting. FFP is a separate thing, external to accounting and only rules created by Uefa to check that football clubs' finances are in order. This checking included looking at balance sheets and thus accounting.

Players are bought by clubs and they are treated as assets in the balance sheet. The value of the asset is amortized for the duration of the asset (in this case the contrary).

You can make an analogy to some factory which needs a machine to produce products. Company buys the machine and amortizes it for the duration of machine's expected life. They won't put the machines full value to buying year since it would put the company finances in trouble for that year.

Same happens in football. Lukaku had book value of 75m€ (if bonuses counted) in 2019 when we bought him. We've amortized that value two years now so his book value is only 75-30 now, 45m€. Thus, if we sold him for 50m€, we would book small profit from that sale. If we sold him last summer, we would have made loss with the sale.

Actual money being paid to other clubs are then completely different thing and has little to do with accounting. Until it becomes relevant like when you don't have liquidity (cash) to fulfill your commitments like those payments to other clubs or player salaries, like happened to Inter.

Calciomercato.com also confirm that Dalbert is set to join Cagliari on loan with an option to buy. The Rossoblu can sign the player on a permanent €7m deal when the 2021-22 campaign ends. We here on FIF already KNOW they won`t pay anything for player they can get for free. Why do we keep bending over for them?!

I know the Cagliari president is an Inter fan, but he seems to freakin` own this club after Godin, Naiggolan and now Dalbert deals. Very curious to see what price we get for Nandez after all these gifts.

Insane bullshit to loan him to Cagliari.

It's as if in addition to all the BS, the player himself doesn't seem to have any ambition.

Didn't this guy once say he didn't even enjoy playing football? (I forget the exact quote)
How do we end up with these players.

I would also not enjoy playing football if I was as bad as Dalbert.

we should be very happy for this loan offer from cagliari

nobody wants him even for free

According to Pedulla, Dalbert accepted Cagliari's offer and the deal is now done. Loan with option to buy. He had 3 other offers from Spain and Turkey but he chose to stay in Italy.

He'll be given a golden handshake next summer.

Yeah one contract year left next summer. He chose to stay in Italy because Sardinia is a nice island.

So we go from getting 7m€ to getting nothing and having to worry about this same thing next summer.

Effectively all the money we get out of Joao Mario, Dalbert, Nainggolan will be 4m€ (waived agent fees by Pastorello). Let's add Lazaro who will be probably loaned for nothing.