1k or 100k ?

[Burtonblue]

Obviously 2
Real question would be 10k to play for City or 100k for anybody else
10k a week still enough to be v comfortable for life after 10 yrs but how greedy would you be?

 

[balotelli's back pocket]

City. 52k a year plus sponsorships, and i would fancy myself to make money as a manager after. So, number 1

 

[AkanjisAfro]

2

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

The reality is everyone takes option 2. The only exception would be someone already so wealthy that £m’s would mean nothing to them.

I’d jump at option 2.

That said I wouldn’t milk my way through my carrer. I think longer term players who build a name and reputation for themselves at 1 or 2 clubs do better, financially and in terms of their football. It’s only the agents that do well out of players that move around all over the place.

 

[prof-taf]

Easy, option 2 for five years, then shag managers daughter and move to city having made my firtune

 

[Jacob Smith]

2, but imagine scoring for City at the swamp...

 

[@BluePhil8]

100k a week no brainer.

I'm so shit I would make us a much shitter team.

Perfect scenario is I would play for United for 10 years as a goal keeper, letting in ever shot until they are relegated to the conference.

 

[almir]

City is City but 100k is 100k :D

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

100k a week play for United and have the highest og on record I will also have the record for most red cards for assaulting my own team mates

This is the only acceptable answer :)

 

[Blue Mist]

This is the only acceptable answer :)

No there is one other answer, option 2 but if/when you play against City you score 2 own goals and when you play the Rags you nail at least two of them before being sent off ................. and on the way to the dressing room you drop deGea spark out. The 4 match ban would be well worth it.