£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.

Yes you are fundamentally correct though there has been the exception of the mighty Brisbane Lions (my team:bowdown:). This is IMO because the cap, draft etc makes it difficult for teams to get hold of all the best players who are evenly spread among the teams. For example the star players rarely leave the clubs they play for. There are exceptions of course but Jon Brown the Lions star player is a Lion for life and idolised by the supporters. He would get the Lions share of the money, say $800,000 a season out of the salary cap of $8,000,000. Chicken **** money I know in comparison to Football but the comp could not afford to be a free for all. The clubs, the players the administration and the supporters know it. There is the odd grumble but the system is rigidly stuck to. Also the clubs have to have a minimum amount of players on there roster, 42 I think, so they then have to be very clever in how they spread the readies around.

I love both football and Rules and am loathe to want either to change the way things are done. It is easy for Rules to have caps and drafts. They so not have to compete with other countries for players and audience's. Even the game played at the Oval is just a game to let Expat Aussies living in the UK an excuse to get pissed:D


The clubs in AFL are very much established. Melbourne Demons for example have been established since 1858. Most of the Melbourne teams have a very long history. With the establishment of a national comp there is no doubt that the Perth clubs and the Crows in Adelaide are "newer". Port Adelaide are a fairly new team in the Competition but in fact they were established in 1870.
I would even argue that the Lions are an established club as we amalgamated with Fitzroy who were founded in 1883. The Sydney team was moved from Melbourne, previously called South Melbourne and established 1874, lock stock and barrel 1982.

The issue for the AFL is that the old Melbourne clubs are too "established".
There is a club too many in Melbourne and the problem is that one will "disappear" in the not too distant future and it will all end in tears of bitterness. The AFL has already agreed to an expansion club on the Gold Coast. North Melbourne Kangaroos were nudged to make a move but refused so it is going to be interesting to see if they can stand on their own.

Nor do I.

I gather from your knowledge you have watched a bit of Rules.

Jesus. My friend told me about this. Kaka definitely isn't worth it in the first place, and AC Milan is having a hard enough time to get in front of Juventus and Inter even with Kaka.

Futbol operates at a very different pay ethos than any other western sport, I can tell you that. You never hear of clubs investing this much into a player as Man City is willing to do.

Ah, sorry I didnt mean it like that. I know a lot of Aussie Rules clubs have been around a long time and they have a history. What I meant by established is that over here we have four clubs that established themselves as the top 4 clubs in the country. The title hasnt been outside of Manchester (United, obviously) or London (Arsenal & Chelsea) since 1991. Of course, this is the point I was trying to make as to whether this is a good thing or not but you guys dont have that over there as I see it. It almost seems like whoever wins your Premiers could be propping up the table the next season. The last club to show any kind of dominance was Brisbane 3 years in a row?


Yeah, I have. I really dont know much about it at all but I have family in Australia and I have been over once for 7 weeks. I understand it and everything but of course I still have limited knowledge. While I was there I watched it a lot on TV and went to 2 or 3 games. I have watched it a few times since but the channel is it on now is a channel I dont have.

I keep meaning to get back into it because I really did like it. I was hooked.

Almost but not quite.

Leeds won it in 92 & Blackburn in 95

Christ, how did I get this wrong?

I knew Leeds were the last winners of the old division one and that the Premier League was founded in 92 and had I stopped to think about it I would have realised both would have been in the same year. Doh.

Why was I thinking Rovers won the first title? I should know better ;)

I've got a feeling City will get Kaka.
It's clear Kaka wasn't too keen on the move, but my guess is Milan are after the £100 million and pushing Kaka away.

I was thinking that Man City's signings would show who was really in it for the money but then this bid came a long. Milan will do everything to push Kaka onto City surely.

Judging by the way this deal is developing e.g;
Kaka wants to stay at Milan and grow old with the club.
Followed by...Milan give Kaka the go ahead to talk to City.

I'd say the whole thing went a bit like this.
City approach Milan about a transfer and Milan say he's not for sale.
City say, "oh well... we're offering £100 million!"
Milan reply; "we'll get back to you"

It gets better...

BBC SPORT | Football | Kaka deal could be worth £250m - Bernstein

He's suggesting the £250m figure will be over the course of a 4 year deal?

Thats probably about right when he will be making £24m a year in wages alone.

Still ridiculous.

Pretty much. No-one in the world is worth that sort of money. On the bright side though he could turn out to be another Shevchenko :D

Even if they get Kaka theres no guarantee it would help matters. They shouldn't be where they are to begin with. I'd love to see Robinho and Kaka contracted to a Championship club. It'd be hilarious.

Rumour around town is he'll have a get out clause if City are relegated.
It includes being able to leave if another club make an offer with a pre determined amount.
In other words he'll be able to walk away from City for a fee less than the one they paid.
That'd be even more amusing to me.

I think that would have to be a given.

And yeah, I can see him having a clause in his contract like that. Who in their right mind what would want to go to City right now?

Haha it would be quite awesome if a scenario went like this:

* Kaka goes over to City for £100m
* City get relegated
* Kaka's clause activates and he opts to go to another club
* Milan buy Kaka back for £10m

Altogether now...

Chant of the season so far, this email has been doing the rounds

^^ Thats hilarious.

"Give me strength......HUGHES!!!!"

:D