Robinho wanted to reject a move to Manchester City as he wanted to move to Chelsea, according to the player's former agent. However, Real Madrid's "pride" ensure they would not deal with Chelsea as the transfer window deadline approached.
According to Setanta.com, Wagner Ribeiro had expected to fly to London on deadline day in order to secure a move to Stamford Bridge for Robinho. But the staggering goings-on at Manchester City, who suddenly became the richest club in the world, changed the situation and Chelsea's bid was trumped.
Ribeiro said: "'If you are going to sell cakes in the market, we have a better offer from Manchester City' he (Real's sporting director Predrag Mijatovic) said. I told him that Robinho will reject it but they accepted it. I then demanded a salary higher than Chelsea's offer and got 15 percent more. At the last moment, Chelsea offered €42 million but Real did not want to hear of it. Their pride would not allow it."
The claim again shows just how much money Manchester City have to spend. Offering 15 per cent more wages than any other "top" Premier League club would be staggering, but outbidding Chelsea by such an amount is, quite frankly, frightening. And it's not as though Robinho is the only player in the world who would make a less-than dream move in exchange for a big pot of gold.
January should be interesting, and the summer window may be nothing short of ridiculous, as there is no reason to expect Manchester City to do anything other than use their practically limitless resources to win whatever they want to.
Showing posts with label Man City. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Man City. Show all posts
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
There's no point in hating Man City
Graham Fisher has penned an interesting blog entry over at 4sportsake.com, where he admits to hating Chelsea following their takeover by Roman Abramovich, but having no such feelings about Manchester City.
It's an interesting thought. Perhaps, without wanting to put words into somebody's mouth (or should that be without forcing their fingers towards a keyboard?), it may be because the Chelsea takeover was the first mega-money takeover and those that have followed have been caused by the first.
Sure, takeovers are nothing new. But the Chelsea deal marked the first time somebody came along with the attitude of "hey, I'm a billionaire, I don't care about making a profit, let's get some trophies in any way we can". And, of course, Chelsea and Roman achieved their aim..
Those who own Man City clearly have far more cash than Roman - though when it comes to these sorts of sums, does comparing bank balances really make any difference? Probably not, as their modus operandi appear to be similar - ie spend, spend, spend, win, win, win!
Other traditionalists may not even hold anything against Roman and Chelsea. For it is quite possible to point towards the Sky takeover of English top-flight football - for that's what it was, for all intents - and argue the door had already been opened at that point for the mega-money men.
As soon as the Premier League, backed by Sky (or is that "controlled"?), offered a platform for the super-rich to get one over other super-rich people, and on a global scale, it was only a matter of time before it was exploited. They buy bigger and bigger yachts, give more and more money to charity, do whatever they want to win a big-money piddling contest, and football club ownership is just the current fad.
So is it worth hating Man City? Is it worth hating Chelsea? There are probably reasons to do so, but few have anything to do with money. If they remained the same clubs they were 10-15 years ago, there is no doubt two other teams would be in their position.
From a sports entertainment viewpoint, something top-flight football has been for years, it will certainly be interesting to see how much damage the two clubs, and their owners, do to each other during the upcoming few transfer windows. Interesting until it leads to the death of football, of course...
It's an interesting thought. Perhaps, without wanting to put words into somebody's mouth (or should that be without forcing their fingers towards a keyboard?), it may be because the Chelsea takeover was the first mega-money takeover and those that have followed have been caused by the first.
Sure, takeovers are nothing new. But the Chelsea deal marked the first time somebody came along with the attitude of "hey, I'm a billionaire, I don't care about making a profit, let's get some trophies in any way we can". And, of course, Chelsea and Roman achieved their aim..
Those who own Man City clearly have far more cash than Roman - though when it comes to these sorts of sums, does comparing bank balances really make any difference? Probably not, as their modus operandi appear to be similar - ie spend, spend, spend, win, win, win!
Other traditionalists may not even hold anything against Roman and Chelsea. For it is quite possible to point towards the Sky takeover of English top-flight football - for that's what it was, for all intents - and argue the door had already been opened at that point for the mega-money men.
As soon as the Premier League, backed by Sky (or is that "controlled"?), offered a platform for the super-rich to get one over other super-rich people, and on a global scale, it was only a matter of time before it was exploited. They buy bigger and bigger yachts, give more and more money to charity, do whatever they want to win a big-money piddling contest, and football club ownership is just the current fad.
So is it worth hating Man City? Is it worth hating Chelsea? There are probably reasons to do so, but few have anything to do with money. If they remained the same clubs they were 10-15 years ago, there is no doubt two other teams would be in their position.
From a sports entertainment viewpoint, something top-flight football has been for years, it will certainly be interesting to see how much damage the two clubs, and their owners, do to each other during the upcoming few transfer windows. Interesting until it leads to the death of football, of course...
What's best for Newcastle?
What more can be said about Newcastle United? Probably quite a lot! While they are struggling and have become something of a joke, the situation at St James' Park is no laughing matter, as they will not be the last team to suffer.
Newcastle, for too many years, overspent in order to try and compete with the so-called "big boys". They have a massive, rabid fanbase of truly knowledgeable football lovers (which is a good thing, no doubt about) but have seemingly lacked restraint in terms of spending money.
It's understandable, football is in a boom period and has been for some time. So why not throw cash around in order to try and please your fans - they do, after all, deserve some sort of success. Sadly, though, the boom in football appears to be skewed and now the divide between sections of the Premier League is more pronounced than ever.
But what does the future hold for Newcastle? Can they recover and go on to actually achieve something in the modern game (not a dig, it's proven by the trophy cabinet!)? I honestly think they can - but it won't be in a way I could approve of.
When the Middle Eastern billionaires, or trillionaires, took over Manchester City, they did so after reportedly considering a move for Newcastle or Arsenal.The story goes that Arsenal didn't want to sell and the super-rich group opted for Man City. That Newcastle were mentioned is not surprising - and logic suggests there will be other interested parties out there.
Now, a takeover of Newcastle by a group with mega-money would turn the club into a true footballing force far easier than the Man City "project". Newcastle, as mentioned, have the fanbase, the stadium and - crucially - a proven track record in attracting decent players to the club.
Man City have the stadium, decent fans (full credit to the tens fo thousands who turned out to back them in the third-tier not too long ago) but they lack the proven track record in signing top players. Hence having to throw silly money around in the summer, a pattern that will surely increase until enough mercenaries improve their reputation.
Newcastle, may I be so bold as to suggest, would be genuine top-four challengers very soon after such a takeover (a hypothetical one, of course) and could go all the way. When Liverpool are taken over by Sheikh Mohammed, or a consortium, they will be poised to go all the way. Man City, when things settle, will potentially be able to go all the way.
So, as things stand, it's feasibly that within two or three years, Newcastle, Man City, Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea (Arsenal are a puzzler) could all be challenging for the title. It would be wide open, albeit a fake version of football driven by billions and billions.
The only question is whether an owner would want to buy into Newcastle when four other teams are already challenging. For once a group of five mega-money teams start competing, there will be no way back for football. A sporting and spending Cold War will have begun.
So what is really best for Newcastle? Their fans would surely disagree, but I would suggest relegation. Spend a few years in the Championship while the money in the Premier League causes an explosion - then Newcastle will be perfectly placed, with their deserving fanbase - to stroll back and dominate, unaffected by the top-flight fiasco.
Newcastle, for too many years, overspent in order to try and compete with the so-called "big boys". They have a massive, rabid fanbase of truly knowledgeable football lovers (which is a good thing, no doubt about) but have seemingly lacked restraint in terms of spending money.
It's understandable, football is in a boom period and has been for some time. So why not throw cash around in order to try and please your fans - they do, after all, deserve some sort of success. Sadly, though, the boom in football appears to be skewed and now the divide between sections of the Premier League is more pronounced than ever.
But what does the future hold for Newcastle? Can they recover and go on to actually achieve something in the modern game (not a dig, it's proven by the trophy cabinet!)? I honestly think they can - but it won't be in a way I could approve of.
When the Middle Eastern billionaires, or trillionaires, took over Manchester City, they did so after reportedly considering a move for Newcastle or Arsenal.The story goes that Arsenal didn't want to sell and the super-rich group opted for Man City. That Newcastle were mentioned is not surprising - and logic suggests there will be other interested parties out there.
Now, a takeover of Newcastle by a group with mega-money would turn the club into a true footballing force far easier than the Man City "project". Newcastle, as mentioned, have the fanbase, the stadium and - crucially - a proven track record in attracting decent players to the club.
Man City have the stadium, decent fans (full credit to the tens fo thousands who turned out to back them in the third-tier not too long ago) but they lack the proven track record in signing top players. Hence having to throw silly money around in the summer, a pattern that will surely increase until enough mercenaries improve their reputation.
Newcastle, may I be so bold as to suggest, would be genuine top-four challengers very soon after such a takeover (a hypothetical one, of course) and could go all the way. When Liverpool are taken over by Sheikh Mohammed, or a consortium, they will be poised to go all the way. Man City, when things settle, will potentially be able to go all the way.
So, as things stand, it's feasibly that within two or three years, Newcastle, Man City, Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea (Arsenal are a puzzler) could all be challenging for the title. It would be wide open, albeit a fake version of football driven by billions and billions.
The only question is whether an owner would want to buy into Newcastle when four other teams are already challenging. For once a group of five mega-money teams start competing, there will be no way back for football. A sporting and spending Cold War will have begun.
So what is really best for Newcastle? Their fans would surely disagree, but I would suggest relegation. Spend a few years in the Championship while the money in the Premier League causes an explosion - then Newcastle will be perfectly placed, with their deserving fanbase - to stroll back and dominate, unaffected by the top-flight fiasco.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Man City aim to expand and expand
Manchester City's new owners reportedly want to buy the area around City of Manchester Stadium and turn it into a hotel and leisure complex. Oh, and increase the capacity of the stadium to somewhere near that of Old Trafford.
It doesn't come as any surprise - once the initial surprise of litlte Man City becoming the richest club on the planet wore off - but it's clearly not a good thing, if only because it suggests the new Middle Eastern owners are in it for the long run. That may have been a reason to celebrate in the past, but now it means they will probably be around for long enough to help inspire the death of football.
According to the Daily Mail, "It is understood that new City owner, Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al Nayhan, is ready to pay Manchester City Council the £50million it would take to buy the ground that was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and is leased to the club for £2m-a-year. Sheik Mansour wants eventually to expand the 47,000-capacity stadium and take it towards the capacity of 78,000 currently enjoyed by neighbours Manchester United."
Of course, £50million is no money to them at all. The owners earn more than that in interest each day (making some very basic assumptons there, but even if that figure is incorrect, it's close enough). But they clearly are not going to be content with slowly progression. Heck, they don't look like they will be content with progression at the pace of Chelsea - Man City's owners want it all, and they want it now!
But enough with Queen, even if Freddie Mercury remains one of the greatest showmen to ever grace this planet. Man City's apparent attempt to outdo every other club in England, and beyond, is a worry. There is no financial reason for them not to manage it, and there are enough mercenaries in the game who will move anywhere for enough cash to improve their reputation with each transfer window.
In an ideal world - which this clearly isn't - the other clubs would sit back and let City's owners have their moment in the limelight, rather than try and compete. But I can't help but feel there will be a domino effect. Fans want instant success in the modern game, so the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United will be forced to compete, or attempt to, with Man City. That can only end in tears as they haven't got deep enough pockets.
Can anything be done to stop the Man City effect destroying top-flight football across Europe? Perhaps not...
It doesn't come as any surprise - once the initial surprise of litlte Man City becoming the richest club on the planet wore off - but it's clearly not a good thing, if only because it suggests the new Middle Eastern owners are in it for the long run. That may have been a reason to celebrate in the past, but now it means they will probably be around for long enough to help inspire the death of football.
According to the Daily Mail, "It is understood that new City owner, Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al Nayhan, is ready to pay Manchester City Council the £50million it would take to buy the ground that was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games and is leased to the club for £2m-a-year. Sheik Mansour wants eventually to expand the 47,000-capacity stadium and take it towards the capacity of 78,000 currently enjoyed by neighbours Manchester United."
Of course, £50million is no money to them at all. The owners earn more than that in interest each day (making some very basic assumptons there, but even if that figure is incorrect, it's close enough). But they clearly are not going to be content with slowly progression. Heck, they don't look like they will be content with progression at the pace of Chelsea - Man City's owners want it all, and they want it now!
But enough with Queen, even if Freddie Mercury remains one of the greatest showmen to ever grace this planet. Man City's apparent attempt to outdo every other club in England, and beyond, is a worry. There is no financial reason for them not to manage it, and there are enough mercenaries in the game who will move anywhere for enough cash to improve their reputation with each transfer window.
In an ideal world - which this clearly isn't - the other clubs would sit back and let City's owners have their moment in the limelight, rather than try and compete. But I can't help but feel there will be a domino effect. Fans want instant success in the modern game, so the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United will be forced to compete, or attempt to, with Man City. That can only end in tears as they haven't got deep enough pockets.
Can anything be done to stop the Man City effect destroying top-flight football across Europe? Perhaps not...
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Brighton beat the City, Villa are just sh*tty
Nobody really cares about the Carling Cup. I'm not going to blame this on foreign investment, or Sky, or Jimmy Hill as, in my view, it has always been English football's poor relation. So much so that it is the unwanted illegitimate son kept in the cupboard under the stairs and fed just bread a water.
But, even though it has always been a joke, it was still enjoyable to see Manchester City and Aston Villa dumped out of the tournament last night by lower-league opposition. And before anybody asks "Why Aston Villa?" I should explain that even if their owner, Randy Lerner, is a decent man with his heart in the right place, he is still a foreign investor (albeit one worth a piddly £600million or so!).
Of course there is a problem with one part of this equation. While Brighton and Hove Albion are a genuine lower-level club, QPR have more money than Villa - and more money than most of the Premier League clubs. Heck, don't they have a player on-loan from Real Madrid who set up the goal last night?
This is why the death of football is inevitable, in my opinion. Money is now rife throughout the game and there is a growing imbalance. Manchester City - not a true top-tier club (yet!) - can outspend every other club. QPR can outspend most, and if they were in the Premier League they probably would. Yet Villa aren't short of cash - although in relative terms they are in danger of joining other teams who are financially rag-and-bone men!
But, hey, at least he's not Doug Ellis and at least one of their directors posts on Villa fan forums. Hopefully that will make up for midtable existence until football goes "bang". And that's not a Villa thing, but something will happen to many teams; it happened in Scotland years ago. Clubs north of the border don't exist to compete or win, they exist to exist.
Sad, very sad.
But, even though it has always been a joke, it was still enjoyable to see Manchester City and Aston Villa dumped out of the tournament last night by lower-league opposition. And before anybody asks "Why Aston Villa?" I should explain that even if their owner, Randy Lerner, is a decent man with his heart in the right place, he is still a foreign investor (albeit one worth a piddly £600million or so!).
Of course there is a problem with one part of this equation. While Brighton and Hove Albion are a genuine lower-level club, QPR have more money than Villa - and more money than most of the Premier League clubs. Heck, don't they have a player on-loan from Real Madrid who set up the goal last night?
This is why the death of football is inevitable, in my opinion. Money is now rife throughout the game and there is a growing imbalance. Manchester City - not a true top-tier club (yet!) - can outspend every other club. QPR can outspend most, and if they were in the Premier League they probably would. Yet Villa aren't short of cash - although in relative terms they are in danger of joining other teams who are financially rag-and-bone men!
But, hey, at least he's not Doug Ellis and at least one of their directors posts on Villa fan forums. Hopefully that will make up for midtable existence until football goes "bang". And that's not a Villa thing, but something will happen to many teams; it happened in Scotland years ago. Clubs north of the border don't exist to compete or win, they exist to exist.
Sad, very sad.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Cesc Fabregas favourite to join Man City
I've been away for a few days and, following the ups-and-downs of the final week (or should that be day) of the transfer window, that was no bad thing. But some things don't change, and the talk is still of Manchester City and their Middle Eastern owners. Anybody would think there was nothing else going on in the sports entertainment world of football.
According to an article in today's Mirror, Arsenal's Cesc Fabregas is the 9/2 favourite to be the next player to join Man City. Liverpool's Fernando Torres and Barcelona's Lionel Messi are joint second-favourites at just 11/2. Disturbingly - for anyone who cares about football, that is - the odds are short.
So does this mean Man City will actually manage to sign such players? Possibly, but it's unlikely. While they humped Portsmouth 6-0 at the weekend, the did look decidedly ordinary during their loss against Chelsea. Of course, if they beat all but the so-called top-four, they will be doing well and will be in a good position to sign more top-names in January, and then even more in the summer.
But would any self-respecting player on the level of Fabregas, Torres or Messi really leave a top club in favour of a big money move, especially when it's obvious it would be a big money move? The answer, sadly, is probably yes.
According to an article in today's Mirror, Arsenal's Cesc Fabregas is the 9/2 favourite to be the next player to join Man City. Liverpool's Fernando Torres and Barcelona's Lionel Messi are joint second-favourites at just 11/2. Disturbingly - for anyone who cares about football, that is - the odds are short.
So does this mean Man City will actually manage to sign such players? Possibly, but it's unlikely. While they humped Portsmouth 6-0 at the weekend, the did look decidedly ordinary during their loss against Chelsea. Of course, if they beat all but the so-called top-four, they will be doing well and will be in a good position to sign more top-names in January, and then even more in the summer.
But would any self-respecting player on the level of Fabregas, Torres or Messi really leave a top club in favour of a big money move, especially when it's obvious it would be a big money move? The answer, sadly, is probably yes.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Didi Hamann hails foreign investment
Man City midfielder Dietmar Hamann thinks the club's takeover by rich foreign investors is the future of European football. Perhaps if he was a 16-year-old kid starting out and not a 35-year-old veteran, he would think differently!
The former German international, who scored the last goal at the old (read "real") Wembley, told a German website he expects English clubs to dominate the Champions League for the foreseeable future, and warned his countrymen that the gulf between the German league and those in England, Spain and Italy will continue to widen.
Hamman told Sport1: "That (foreign investment) is the model for the future. The fans here are overjoyed, it can only be a good thing for the players and the club. But if things continue, the gap between Germany and England, Spain and Italy will only grow wider. English teams have dominated the Champions League in recent years and will probably continue to do so,"
As an amusing aside, Man City are thought to be weighing-up massive January bids for both Germany international strikers - Mario Gomez and Lukas Podolski. Rumours on deadline day suggested they made an outrageous offer for Gomez just before the window shut, only to be rebuffed.
One interesting note in all of this is that the German league system has dropped behind the "Big Three" by quite some margin in recent years, meaning the chances of there ever being a "Big Four" system again are very slim. The only real question is which league will drop next - Spain or Italy?
Hopefully neither will try and compete with the transfer fees and wages - if they do, they run the risk of falling into the same abyss as the English system. Those in control in Italy and Spain would be far wiser to accept English domination for a few years in exchange for being well placed to return to the fore when the Premier League blows up.
The former German international, who scored the last goal at the old (read "real") Wembley, told a German website he expects English clubs to dominate the Champions League for the foreseeable future, and warned his countrymen that the gulf between the German league and those in England, Spain and Italy will continue to widen.
Hamman told Sport1: "That (foreign investment) is the model for the future. The fans here are overjoyed, it can only be a good thing for the players and the club. But if things continue, the gap between Germany and England, Spain and Italy will only grow wider. English teams have dominated the Champions League in recent years and will probably continue to do so,"
As an amusing aside, Man City are thought to be weighing-up massive January bids for both Germany international strikers - Mario Gomez and Lukas Podolski. Rumours on deadline day suggested they made an outrageous offer for Gomez just before the window shut, only to be rebuffed.
One interesting note in all of this is that the German league system has dropped behind the "Big Three" by quite some margin in recent years, meaning the chances of there ever being a "Big Four" system again are very slim. The only real question is which league will drop next - Spain or Italy?
Hopefully neither will try and compete with the transfer fees and wages - if they do, they run the risk of falling into the same abyss as the English system. Those in control in Italy and Spain would be far wiser to accept English domination for a few years in exchange for being well placed to return to the fore when the Premier League blows up.
Brazil and Man City: The Odd Couple!
I have nothing against Manchester City and Robinho - they just happened to be the first club to be taken over by men with infinite money and their first purchase.
But, even though I am fully aware of the massive pot of gold (or platinum...or oil?!?) now available to the once poor relations of Manchester, I still think I am dreaming when I read reports about a Brazil national team that includes a City player.
The British media must be loving it. A player, based in England, at the peak of their career and playing for Brazil. Given the temperamental nature of South American football, the press must be hoping Robinho acts as a conduit for some juicy stories.
It will get worse in January, of that there is little doubt. Even though many clubs won't want to sell half-way through a season - and surely players will want to finish their Champions League campaigns - Man City will be waving around enough cash to make Fort Knox jealous.
Perhaps there could even be some good in the terminal decline of top-flight football. If the British media decide to start covering foreign leagues and international games more often, fans growing up will realise that the English game is not the be all and end all, and was in fact surpassed decades ago.
Or is that too much to ask...?
But, even though I am fully aware of the massive pot of gold (or platinum...or oil?!?) now available to the once poor relations of Manchester, I still think I am dreaming when I read reports about a Brazil national team that includes a City player.
The British media must be loving it. A player, based in England, at the peak of their career and playing for Brazil. Given the temperamental nature of South American football, the press must be hoping Robinho acts as a conduit for some juicy stories.
It will get worse in January, of that there is little doubt. Even though many clubs won't want to sell half-way through a season - and surely players will want to finish their Champions League campaigns - Man City will be waving around enough cash to make Fort Knox jealous.
Perhaps there could even be some good in the terminal decline of top-flight football. If the British media decide to start covering foreign leagues and international games more often, fans growing up will realise that the English game is not the be all and end all, and was in fact surpassed decades ago.
Or is that too much to ask...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
