£100m Player?
 

BBC SPORT | Football | My Club | Man City | Reaction to Kaka bid

Thoughts?

If i was offered £500,000 a week to play for Man City i might do it.

Maybe.

Yeah but you would have to play with that donkey Darius Vassell :laughing:. In truth though, it's their money so what can you do? it's stupid stupid money but it's not ours is it?

Ridiculous all round. If i were Berlusconi i'd bite their hand off.

How times have changed since Robson was the first £1m player. Jermaine Defoe is now worth the same amount of money in the modern game that Shearer was when he went to Newcastle in 96 for a world record fee. No wonder most football clubs are in mountains of debt.

I think its complete ridiculous in every way. NO footballer is worth £100m. Its just stupid money. I wouldn't be for capping transfer fee's or anything but I would say that if i thought it could actually work I'd be all for the FA to be able to step in when such stupidly high sums of money are involved. ManchesterCity need to get out of the ****. They need to be buying players in the window and/or considering a change in management - anything to get them out and clear of the bottom three. So, naturally what does a struggling team do who need to be even thinking of 17th in the league as a result and a bullet dodged? They go for Kaka. I'd say they dont NEED to set their sights so high, they just need to strengthen their squad to get them out of the **** but then again I'm not the manager or a chairman of a football club crapping money.

They dont need to be concerning themselves with whether or not they will ultimately make money from Kaka or not, I know that but should they get him they may have one of the best players in the world and they may just succeed in avoiding the drop as a resultbut they will be raising the bar too high in terms of what is acceptable and what isnt when it comes to expenditure, they will more or less force other teams in this country and around the world to look for wealthier investors to be able to compete with the team who can buy anybody by just throwing cash at them, they will be yet another club who could quite possibly put less effort into developing future talent in THIS country (why bother when it isnt necessary to the success of your football club anymore?) and they will find themselves with countless players who will look at playing with Kaka as playing with the man who makes 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x etc the amount of money as they do for doing the same job.

Can someone answer me this? Given were in such tight times financially at the moment - if these investors give Mark Hughes £100m to bring Kaka to England plus £2m a month wages to keep him there and then they go bankrupt and **** off where does the debt go? Is that their debt or is it now Manchester City's debt?

Sounds like soccer needs a salary cap.
How could you ever pay someone so much to play fuckin soccer..makes me SICK.

What is this 'soccer' ?

To pay somone 50k a week is scandalous but that's how crazy it is these days. A lot of teams do have salary caps though.

They have a salary cap in Australian Rules and it works very well IMO. The difference is that it is a minor sport in the scheme of things and is required to keep the clubs from either committing financial suicide and/or dominating the comp. They have a draft system in place as well and that evens the comp up over a period of time.


But football is different. The day say England brings in a cap the players would make an exit to play in Italy, Spain or Germany.

I am not sure as to the answer to stop this type of extravagance. I have to say that it is crazy money though. If kaka is worth 100 million Euros what the heck is Ronaldo worth?

The other blatant difference of course that is that Aussie Rules have often seen a successful team one season have a terrible season the next. For a start theres been 5 different Premiership winners in the last 5 seasons and often teams just yo-yo from one end of the table to the next season to season.

Football in England is the complete opposite and I guess you could argue which is better. Over here you need to build a squad over a matter of years to be successful, over there though I'm sure its a lot more exciting to watch.

I like that we have more 'established' clubs and that that hasnt just happened overnight. However Chelsea are proof that when theres no restrictions in place you can buy success with the right backing, and Manchester City seem keen to follow in their footsteps. Of course our Premier League has been dominated by the same four clubs for some time now as well. In the not so distant past we had established clubs for sure, clubs that were always going to struggle, clubs that were always going to be there or there abouts at the top of the league but also a real fight for the championship. Not so much anymore, the more established clubs have monopolised the league for quite some time now and the only fight has been amongst themselves.

Ideally we'd have something that was somewhere in the middle I think, but I dont see how it will ever change as it just gets more and more out of hand financially.