Project said:I read that Kaka had something in the region of 20 sponsorship deals. I'm sorry but you really need to know at least the basic structure & clauses of each of these agreements and how it might affect you before you can come up with a figure that you'd like to pay the player each week.
The whole point of being able to offer him 500,000 and still make "business sense" as Cook/Hughes have implied, is that you can go to town with IP rights. What if the Adidas agreement stipulated that Kaka cannot be seen endorsing any other sporting apparel brand? There could have been a million other clauses which would have constrained our ability to market him.
I think we could have offered a ballpark figure on salary (after sleeping on it the night before the next meeting), but it sounds like they got cold feet in a hurry so we never got to that stage.
For once, i'm firmly on Cooks side on this. This is one part of football where he knows his shit. I cant really blame him for Milan/Bosco not coming through on a similarly professional level.
jrb said:From the Independent.(just appeared on News Now)
Where the deal went wrong: A sky-blue project that failed to convince shooting star to fly
By Ian Herbert and Frank Dunne in Bologna
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
The atmosphere among Milan's fans had a boiling intensity when Manchester City touched down in Milan on Monday but the atmosphere at the downtown solicitors' office where they sat down to talk business was chilly to say the least.
The discussions began at 4pm and ran for seven hours but refreshments did not stretch beyond a cup of coffee and there was a clue, from the fans audibly chanting Kaka's name on the street outside, as to why Bosco Leite, Kaka's father and agent, was less welcoming than City had hoped he would be. "They gave us a cup of coffee so it would be unfair to say there was no welcome," City's executive chairman, Garry Cook, reflected yesterday. "But it was evident the hospitality wasn't the finest. We heard the noise [of the fans] and that's obviously somewhat distracting. The dynamics of it were strange, very unnerving. It wasn't a place we would want to be in."
City were only there because of the encouraging noises they had been getting from Milan for over a month. Cook still has the fax, sent by Milan's vice-president Adriano Galliani on 15 December, demanding €200m (£180m) for Kaka, which prompted Cook to ask wryly at the time were Milan "talking in lira?" But last week Milan went public on the City talks, with the club's president, Silvio Berlusconi, apparently intent on gauging from the fans' response whether public opinion would allow him to take the Arab millions he badly needed or, failing that, to present himself as the man who rode to the rescue.
The levels of opposition spoke volumes. Cook said yesterday that Galliani had revealed to him during a private discussion preliminary to the full negotiations on Monday afternoon how that resistance, which rose to a groundswell at Milan's 1-0 win over Fiorentina on Saturday, was affecting him. "He told me his life had changed," Cook said. "He had had to move his office, being at the game at the weekend was threatening to him and he wanted to get this thing closed as quickly as possible. There was clearly political pressure and supporter pressure. You could feel it." This was the same Galliani who, a week ago, had been prepared to let City – with their big ideas of selling Kaka's image rights across the globe to recoup the £91m they were planning to pay Milan, probably over five years – take their best player.
Cook's six-man delegation, including lawyers with expertise in intellectual property rights, had headed to Italy with high hopes. They knew they needed to sell their image rights ideas to Leite before they would manage to meet and convince Kaka himself. But that seemed unlikely from the moment they sat down. Attempting to establish whether Kaka's current deal with Adidas left any room for City to tie up image rights deals of their own and earn a return on their £91m investment, the club met a wall of resistance from Leite.
City told Leite of their ideas for a Kaka Foundation, through which his image would make money for a "humanitarian" cause. There was talk of lucrative digital TV and internet image rights deals. Privately, City were astonished that Kaka's current entire image rights income is believed to be €8m (£7.4m). In Cook's previous role with Nike, he was responsible for the international image rights of the basketball player Michael Jordan. They earn him $12m (£8.6m) a year for his signature alone. Football clubs have not touched the surface of such commercial opportunities.
But Leite would only talk about the player's personal terms. "They didn't want to get to the complexities and the sophistication," Cook said. "They just wanted an offer in cash terms." A brooding presence as the talks foundered was Galliani, in a side room nearby.
Getting nowhere as Monday night drew on, City suggested a period of reflection and shook on a plan to meet again in Milan today. Leite's desperation for a quick deal then led City to agree to bring that date forward 24 hours. A new day, they seem to have figured, offered hope of a change of heart. But after Cook and his delegation had left, the Italians decided they could not wait – and run the risk of City embarrassing them by unilaterally calling talks off. Cook was in the departure lounge of Milan's Linate Airport At 11.03pm, Italian time, when he received a phone call from Alberto Zilani, Leite's translator. "We want a cash offer now," Zilani said. Resigned to the fact that the deal was going nowhere, Cook called it off and both clubs formally announced the fact.
Cue Berlusconi. It was at 11.11pm, by City's reckoning, that the Italian Prime Minister telephoned the first of two football programmes – Il Processo di Biscardi – on the regional channel, to announce that the deal was dead. Once again, his genius for using the media to seize the initiative, set the agenda, suggest the editorial line for newsrooms around the peninsular and, in doing so, to emerge from unfavourable situations as a hero, had come to the fore.
While admitting that the decision to reject City's world record bid was the player's, the Italian Prime Minister knew that by being the bearer of the good news, he was likely – subliminally, at least – to be perceived as the man responsible for it.
It worked. The front-page headline in yesterday's Gazzetta dello Sport said: "Silvio: Kaka is staying. Berlusconi's announcement." Corriere della Sera also chose to present the news as an announcement of Milan's owner: "Berlusconi: Kaka is staying at Milan. For him money isn't everything." Another daily, La Repubblica, usually a fierce critic of Berlusconi on political matters, weighed in with: "Berlusconi guards Kaka."
City's delegation awoke to rather different headlines in Britain. Theirs might have been a ground-breaking proposition, ahead of its time, but Milan politics and the might of Berlusconi have prevailed and their big football project is back to square one.
Brazil nuts: How Manchester City's move for Kaka was KO'd
September 2008 New Manchester City owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group, express interest in signing Kaka. City fans chant the midfielder's name. Kaka dispels rumours, pledging his loyalty to Milan.
November Amid rumours of a £100m joint bid for Gianluigi Buffon and Kaka, Robinho urges Kaka to join him at Eastlands. Kaka admits to being flattered by the interest.
13 January 2009 Executive chairman Garry Cook travels to Milan to discuss a world record £100m bid.
14 January Milan confirm discussions with Manchester City are 'ongoing'.
16 January Milan coach Carlo Ancelotti speaks of his desire to hold on to the Brazilian.
17 January Kaka plays in win over Fiorentina, with emotional scenes of celebration at the end of the match. Fans demonstrate during the game.
18 January La Liga champions Real Madrid express an interest in the midfielder, casting doubt over Manchester City's chances.
19 January Fans protest outside Kaka's house. Milan owner Silvio Berlusconi announces on Italian TV that Kaka has turned down the move. Cook accuses Milan of 'bottling it'.
I can understand that due diligence and thorough research had to be done on the players existing contracts to understand how a change of club could impact him and us. However, I dont see why we couldnt give them a cash amount and just add a caveat that this may change based upon existing contracts. Say Cook gets the call at 11.03pm. Kaka's dad wants a figure. Why not just say "200k a week after tax is our wages but that will be affected by further investigation into existing imaging and contractual rights." If Kakas dad decides to hang up, then hey-ho fuck him.
Dubai Blue said:No. I'm suggesting that when it comes to complex agreements centred around intellectual property rights, Mr. Cook probably knows a little more than you.moomba said:Are you suggesting that we should never question Cook because he used to market a basketball player?
Have you thrown your seasoncard away yet?
Project said:I read that Kaka had something in the region of 20 sponsorship deals. I'm sorry but you really need to know at least the basic structure & clauses of each of these agreements and how it might affect you before you can come up with a figure that you'd like to pay the player each week.
The whole point of being able to offer him 500,000 and still make "business sense" as Cook/Hughes have implied, is that you can go to town with IP rights. What if the Adidas agreement stipulated that Kaka cannot be seen endorsing any other sporting apparel brand? There could have been a million other clauses which would have constrained our ability to market him.
I think we could have offered a ballpark figure on salary (after sleeping on it the night before the next meeting), but it sounds like they got cold feet in a hurry so we never got to that stage.
For once, i'm firmly on Cooks side on this. This is one part of football where he knows his shit. I cant really blame him for Milan/Bosco not coming through on a similarly professional level.
Thank you, I thought so too.Soulboy said:Dubai Blue... that's a brilliant argument.
Dubai Blue said:Thank you, I thought so too.Soulboy said:Dubai Blue... that's a brilliant argument.
Some people will always know more about certain fields than other people do. That's why they are called experts. Garry Cook happens to be an expert in the marketing of sportsmens' intellectual property rights. Of course you can discuss things, but I will always side with the expert when it comes to his area of expertise.
Moomba is slagging Cook off and saying he has approached this side of the deal completely wrong. How would he know? Does he have extensive experience in this area of sports marketing?
Kaka's sponsorship deals are central to the earnings potential at Manchester City, so of course they should be looked at in detail before agreeing on a salary.
Right, look at the bold bit in my post. I have not said you cannot disagree with him. Of course you can. But if I have to back someone on this issue, I will back Garry Cook over Moomba. No offence intended.Soulboy said:Dubai Blue said:Thank you, I thought so too.
Some people will always know more about certain fields than other people do. That's why they are called experts. Garry Cook happens to be an expert in the marketing of sportsmens' intellectual property rights. Of course you can discuss things, but I will always side with the expert when it comes to his area of expertise.
Moomba is slagging Cook off and saying he has approached this side of the deal completely wrong. How would he know? Does he have extensive experience in this area of sports marketing?
Kaka's sponsorship deals are central to the earnings potential at Manchester City, so of course they should be looked at in detail before agreeing on a salary.
That's all fine and dandy. But having the viewpoint that we can't disagree with the "experts" somewhat limits the use of this messagenboard, does it not?
It's fine for people like you who accept their limits of knowledge compared to the experts and so agree with their every action, but others, I presume Moomba is one, like to challenge the accepted norms.
If you believe everything Cook, Hughes et al do at the club, then you must be a very contented person.
Unfortunately after many, many years of following City I am less inclined to believe the "experts". I have seen too many of them cock-up to trust them without question.
It takes all sort to make a world. Some follow, some question.
stumpy_mcfc said:Project said:I read that Kaka had something in the region of 20 sponsorship deals. I'm sorry but you really need to know at least the basic structure & clauses of each of these agreements and how it might affect you before you can come up with a figure that you'd like to pay the player each week.
The whole point of being able to offer him 500,000 and still make "business sense" as Cook/Hughes have implied, is that you can go to town with IP rights. What if the Adidas agreement stipulated that Kaka cannot be seen endorsing any other sporting apparel brand? There could have been a million other clauses which would have constrained our ability to market him.
I think we could have offered a ballpark figure on salary (after sleeping on it the night before the next meeting), but it sounds like they got cold feet in a hurry so we never got to that stage.
For once, i'm firmly on Cooks side on this. This is one part of football where he knows his shit. I cant really blame him for Milan/Bosco not coming through on a similarly professional level.
Very good post here .... I will be a little over the top here but if they did not check the clauses in the various contracts we could have been in the state where he would be wearing his own shirt sponser or we would have to have his. I know would not have happened, just trying to point out the extreme.
Soulboy said:Dubai Blue said:No. I'm suggesting that when it comes to complex agreements centred around intellectual property rights, Mr. Cook probably knows a little more than you.
Have you thrown your seasoncard away yet?
Dubai Blue... that's a brilliant argument.
Cook knows more about business than we do. So we can stop that line of argument straight away. Whatever he does as Executive Chairman is above criticism, 'cos he knows far more about businesss than any one on this board.
Hughes knows far more about football than we do. So we can stop that line of argument straight away. Whatever he does as Manager is above criticism, 'cos he knows far more about managing a football team than any one on this board.
Any player knows far more about football than we do. So we can stop that line of argument straight away. Whatever he does as a player is above criticism, 'cos they know far more about football than any one on this board.
Right. So just remind me again... what's the point of having a discussion board?