What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Kaka signs for Real Madrid

Ridders

Coach
Messages
10,831
I've always thought there was little chance that Ronaldo would leave Manchester. If Kaka does indeed sign, it would be a confirmation. I don't think even the club that signed both signed Zidane & Figo for a bazillion dollars would spend 130 million + on two players, especially in this economy.
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
Hopefully this means Ronaldo will be left alone now.

Doubt it though.

Rumour was he agreed this deal last January and thats why he never joined city.
 

weasel

First Grade
Messages
5,872
You guys are being a bit hard on City. Let's just take a look at two other clubs, their cross town rivals for one, and Kaka's current team as well. I will acknowledge that the comparison is a bit stretched considering these teams had both won the european cup prior to the last few decades and were indeed big fish in their domestic championships. But they were by no means the forces they are now until money came into play.

When Manchester United sold their soul and ceased being a football club to become a company in the early nineties they were sitting amongst a pack of the likes of Everton, Aston Villa and Arsenal, all successful clubs but living in the shadow of the far superior Liverpool. Heck, Nottingham Forest was bigger in Europe than the lot of them. Then along came the cash, and with it a title drought of 26 years turned into 11 championships in 17 years and two european cups to boot.

Milan were a distant second best in Serie A when Billionaire Berlusconi arrived, and shaded by Inter on the European stage. In the two decades since they've been the undisputed kings of Europe, eight finals appearances and five trophies to go with it, while winning the Serie A more times than any other club in the same period. The scene was set from the outset as they spent lavishly to bring in the famous dutch trio and turn around their fortunes.

You can talk about history all you like, try and pretend that some clubs have an inherit right to greatness while others will always be nobodies. But until Man Utd decided to worship at the altar of money, I'm sure they looked as pathetic to Liverpool fans as Manchester City does now to their supporters. And is the way they've gone about changing that anything to really be proud of? Well, it doesn't seem to be, by the way people are reacting to City's new wealth.

I thought back in January that it was a bit rich from Kaka to play the loyalty card when playing for a club like Milan. I wonder if its stupidity or perhaps just ignorance due to youth, I doubt many of these players who take so much pride in choosing big clubs over big bucks realise that these grand teams got to where they were in the same means as the nouveau rich they now reject.

I tell you what, if Kaka had gone to Manchester City and been the one to lead them to glory I'm sure his name would take on much greater significance in history than it would as just one of a long list of superstars that had passed through Milan. Just look at how the stint at Napoli adds to Maradona's mystic. So, just personally, I think he's a softcock for turning down that move.
 
Last edited:

Jason Maher

Immortal
Messages
35,991

Why is he named after probably the worst player to ever play for Queensland then?

he's the greatest player to ever lace on a boot?
Wishy was out their tonight it would have been NSW 36 qld 28

Look, Wishy was my hero as a kid, but even I'm not delusional enough to think he would have made one skerrick of difference to the result last night. ;-)

Anyway, back on topic, I've heard Man United and Chelsea repeatedly bashed for buying success, but no-one ever has a go at Real, who to my mind are the absolute masters at throwing large sums of money around?
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
The difference between United spending and Chelsea, Madrid and City is that United have made there money. Either through selling shares, which someone has to want to buy or tickets, merchandise, tv rights etc.

No sugar daddy there. We were building under Fergie and won the first league without a big money advantage over other teams. The big leap was the creation of the premier league and the wads of cash of Sky. We picked a good year to start winning again!! :)

Madrid are a disgrace though and technically broke EU competition laws, they were hundreds of millions in debt and the spanish government bought their training ground off them for the exact sum they needed to survive then let them use it for free! Must be good having the King as a supporter...

Back on topic though, The Milan supremo has said Kaka is only leaving for Madrid, not to the premiership. I also thought Kaka was a bit hypocritical talking about loyaly to Milan when everyone knew he was leaving in the summer.

Other rumours are Chelsea are interested in Pato, and Milan want Adebayor. United want Huntelaar apparently. Tevez staying at United, or going city, or Liverpool, or Madrid...
All these rumours are of course made up by journalists so we'll see.
 
Messages
33,280
The difference between United spending and Chelsea, Madrid and City is that United have made there money. Either through selling shares, which someone has to want to buy or tickets, merchandise, tv rights etc.

LOL and United still have £694m debt

Manchester United owed £649m, in figures revealed by Deloitte in its Annual Review of Football Finance. Arsenal's debt stood at £318 million, and Liverpool's at £300 million.
Read the full chart here


The figures also distinguish between the types of debt owed by leading clubs.
The overwhelming majority (£701 million of Chelsea's debt) is a 'soft loan' provided by Abramovich. In the season 2007/08, Abramovich provided a further £123 million to the club, also via a soft loan, which is interest free.
More than half of United's debt £469 million was in the form of net bank borrowings. This contributed to United facing a net interest bill of £69 million in 07/08.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...37039/Premier-League-debt-tops-3-billion.html
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
LOL and United still have £694m debt

No they don't. MUFC is very solvent. Glaziers other company red football holdings or something owes the money and use Uniteds profits to pay of the debt.

He bought the club using loans, and now me, as a fan is helping to pay of those loans so he can own the club. Hence he is not the most popular person in the Manchester right now.

Nothing like Chelsea, City or Madrid. Not even close.
 
Messages
33,280
You can call it what you like but it is debt against the club that is ever rising and incuring interest;

While the football club showed an operating profit, Red Football Ltd recorded a loss of £21.4 million, and Red Football Joint Ventures Ltd a loss of £44.8 million, due in large part to interest costs during the year of £68.8 million.
When the Glazers bought the club for £828 million in 2005 they borrowed £556 million to help them do it, securing about 70 per cent of that against the club. As of June last year, according to these accounts, that debt stood at £699 million.
The principle reason for the spiralling level of debt – it increased by £33 million compared to 2006-07 – is the structure of the loans. The majority of the debt, £518 million, is bank debt secured against the club and their assets, including Old Trafford and the Carrington training ground.
A further £175 million is in "payment in kind" loans, effectively a form of equity, accruing interest at a penal 14.25 per cent annually. That interest is not paid off but rolled over annually, swelling the PIK loans by £23 million in the last year.
Club sources argue that as this debt is effectively secured against the Glazers' assets, rather than the club, there is no need for concern. They also point out that the losses are swollen by the accounting device of writing off "goodwill", effectively the amount by which the Glazers overpaid to buy the club, which amounted to £35 million in the last year.
What will worry supporters and, those in the Government and the Football Association concerned by United's reliance on such a heavily-leverage business model, is that even the bank debt is increasing, by £8 million. Interest is being serviced, but debt is not being reduced.
In theory none of this will matter if United continue to perform on the pitch and commercially, and if the banks retain their appetite for carrying the club's debt as the impact of the credit crunch, which largely post-dates these accounts, plays out.
The questions concerning supporters last night were what happens if the pre-eminence of recent seasons is threatened. Will the recession impact on the club's ability to sell out Old Trafford and more importantly the 10,000 executive seats that contribute close to half the revenue? Will a significant bid for Cristiano Ronaldo prove irresistible?
And will chief executive David Gill, paid £1.7 million last year for guiding the club between the demands of their Scottish manager and American owners, secure a replacement for shirt sponsor AIG willing to match the £19 million the American insurer presently pays?
The answers will become clear in time, but last night fans were left to reflect on confirmation of the Glazers' legacy to United; a burden of debt that leaves even the most commercially astute and successful of clubs running to keep up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.html
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
Yup, that story is exactly like i said. We are NOTHING like other clubs in debt. Infact MUFC is not in debt. If every business was run like United then the world would be a better place!

oh and that story is just more United bashing in the media, what would worry supporters? They don't have a clue what worrys supporters.

Those figures change daily depending on who is making them up.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
154,028
back on topic, I read this this morning but probably not much more than a rumour

nothing agreed to yet by Ricky, but his dad want 11.5 mill for himself and 1.5 mill for his little brother and its apparently up to about 85mill so far which Madrid have not agreed to
 

AusKnightRKO

First Grade
Messages
7,412
the club has had a debt of over 400mill for years, and the season the miss CL Qualification if it happens soon will be huge thats about 60+ mill there the club would lose
 

CC_Eagle

First Grade
Messages
7,295
Debt is still debt, regardless of it's technical classification?

69 Million POUNDS in interest, that's f*cking incredible...
 

Jason Maher

Immortal
Messages
35,991
I must be missing something here: why on earth would a profitable football club (which we were pre-2005) allow a heavily-borrowing foreigner to buy us out using OUR assets as collateral? What on f**king earth were our board members and former shareholders thinking?
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
I must be missing something here: why on earth would a profitable football club (which we were pre-2005) allow a heavily-borrowing foreigner to buy us out using OUR assets as collateral? What on f**king earth were our board members and former shareholders thinking?

We were a public limited company. Anyone can buy the shares. As soon as you own 28% you have to put an offer in to buy the whole club. They bought the shares by borrowing money secured against the assets of the club. Now they use the clubs profits to pay of the loan. Shareholders made a lot of money off it.

We have just announced record profits of 75 million quid. Liverpool just recorded a £46 million loss and they have unitll July to re-finance. So if you think we have problems...

On topic... Nearly everything you hear concerning money is probably bobbins. Just newspapers filling pages.
 

Latest posts

Top