Great Article In The Independent ( A must read) The truth!

[zeusbheld]

I hope the rewards one day come more from playing football than they do from wearing a nike boot

nostalgia has its charms, i'm sure.

but those days ended over a decade ago when the Prem formed around TV rights. if you want that sort of 'noble poor' approach to football there are some charming blue square teams in your area i'd imagine.

the image rights thing is interesting, because if an agreement was reached, that would enable the club to pay 100MM+ for a footballer and still make their money back. what this means in the long run is that if City do business intelligently, the club could build a very expensive squad that sustains itself financially instead of owing sugar daddy heaps of money like Chelski.

 

[Soulboy]

I'm not saying, and haven't said that we should agree a deal before looking into all aspects.

But if we need to give a ballpark figure to keep the deal going then it makes sense to me that we do so. And if we think that his representatives should instead be focusing on his image or our vision instead of that ballpark figure then thats too bad. It's their decision to take.

I'm not saying that the deal fell over because of Cook, but for all the undoubted work he would have done on the foundation, and image and vision the player didn't see a second of it.

That to me suggests a strategy that wasn't effective on this occasion.

And the idea that you need a marketing degree to question the public statements of an official of the club is frankly, quite stupid.

I have got a Marketing degree... that's why I can question him!!!

 

[Dubai Blue]

And the idea that you need a marketing degree to question the public statements of an official of the club is frankly, quite stupid.

I didn't say that, but don't worry, I won't take any offence.

I know what you're saying about the ballpark figure, but I imagine that that figure would have been so dependent on the finer details of his existing sponsorship deals as to make it meaningless.

It appears that City had already come to the conclusion before this phone call that Kaka's people weren't remotely interested in structuring the deal in the way they had hoped. That's fair enough on both sides and with neither willing to budge, the deal fell through.

 

[Soulboy]

And the idea that you need a marketing degree to question the public statements of an official of the club is frankly, quite stupid.

I didn't say that, but don't worry, I won't take any offence.

I know what you're saying about the ballpark figure, but I imagine that that figure would have been so dependent on the finer details of his existing sponsorship deals as to make it meaningless.

It appears that City had already come to the conclusion before this phone call that Kaka's people weren't remotely interested in structuring the deal in the way they had hoped. That's fair enough on both sides and with neither willing to budge, the deal fell through.

I think you've got your quotes mixed up mate!

It was Moomba that said that, not me!

Attention to detail... it makes all the difference!

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Surely this has been leaked from Cook himself

 

[Dubai Blue]

I think you've got your quotes mixed up mate!

It was Moomba that said that, not me!

Attention to detail... it makes all the difference!

Ha ha. Yep, sorry. Forgot to take your name out.

 

[Blue2112]

I can fully understand Cook's/City's vision of brand Kaka in the same way as brand Beckham which undoubtedly spread riches globally for both the player and associated clubs. However Beckham totally embraced this idea where as we don't know for sure that Kaka did. Lets for arguements sake pretend he didn't, does that therfore mean the deal was never going to happen from our point of view, are we more interested in marketing ourselves through an iconic figure than success on the pitch, admittedly one will probably bring the other to a fair degree. I think its wrong for Cook or City to presume Kaka would have gone for this, maybe he values privacy in his personal life a little more than say Beckham does. To be fair I'm only basing this on the above being the major overriding factor with our interest in Kaka.

On a side note I fear we're heading down the same road ultimately as the Rags global machine.

 

[Soulboy]

I can fully understand Cook's/City's vision of brand Kaka in the same way as brand Beckham which undoubtedly spread riches globally for both the player and associated clubs. However Beckham totally embraced this idea where as we don't know for sure that Kaka did. Lets for arguements sake pretend he didn't, does that therfore mean the deal was never going to happen from our point of view, are we more interested in marketing ourselves through an iconic figure than success on the pitch, admittedly one will probably bring the other to a fair degree. I think its wrong for Cook or City to presume Kaka would have gone for this, maybe he values privacy in his personal life a little more than say Beckham does. To be fair I'm only basing this on the above being the major overriding factor with our interest in Kaka.

On a side note I fear we're heading down the same road ultimately as the Rags global machine.

Spot on JL. I referred to this in previous posts, that we're all thinking this is about making City a player at the highest levels... yet this deal sounds exactly like the sort of thing Beckham gets involved in.

I've no problem if the owners have decided this is the route they're taking, but I think Cook needs to make that clearer to the fans that his vision for the "project" is somewhat different to that of many supporters.

Too many mistakes (in my opinion!) were made with the negotiations and I fear that our Executive Chairman is purely and simply a "marketing" man. Having been professionally qualified in that very profession, I can well understand Bill Hicks' view that all "marketing" people should be killed!

How come Hughes wasn't dragged along? Surely the player wanted to know the manager's vision of where the football team was heading? The fact he wasn't there means they either think he's irrelevant to the "project" or that the negotiations were purely and simply a "marketing" (there's that word again!) exercise.

Like I say, I don't give a shit how we get there, but recent events have left me less than convinced about our managerial structure.

 

[bizzbo]

it was reported as early as friday that kaka would want to retain his image rights, alarm bells were ringing from then on. a deal could never have gone ahead on that basis. if kaka's camp had been taking the move seriously, they had time to at least come up with a summary of the key points. bosco is not an idiot, even if he couldnt have managed it himself there are lawyers who can do this kind of thing. my impression is that the kaka camp viewed our offer as leverage to get money out of milan. this is exactly what happened with thierry henry in his penultimate season at Arsenal. he wangled a massive increase in wages and a one off 5m payment just for agreeing to fulfill a contract he was already bound by.