John Terry [Merged]

[djelanomcfc]

The comments from Lampard and Essien make it seem as though they are accepting that he will soon leave.

 

[Dyed Petya]

sorry David I am not a lawyer but it strikes me as incorrect when you say it made three claims and then list four? Mind you I am a bloody accountant so I know these things. Impressed by what you say though, very interesting

Oops! (I'm not David, but Dyed - Grandad in Russian!). I thought it was three, then checked the piece again and there were four. Added the fourth and comment but forgot to change my opening! D'oh! :)

Still, I'm nearly forty and have had several glasses of red by this point (three hours ahead of UK) so maybe it's a sign I should give up for tonight and hit the sack!

 

[Tez Tosterone]

lets get the 40 m bid in before (the terry reveals all) press conference
and then see what happens

It's pretty evident that Chelsea won't sell whatever we offer ... unless Terry asks for a transfer. My gut feeling is that the whole saga will fizzle out next week. Terry will squeeze another £30k a week out of Abramovich and have his press conference declaring his love for Chelsea and direct some 'I was flattered' bullshit towards City. Hope I'm wrong though.

I think that is likely the consensus on this forum.

We need to be more active in forcing the issue with a highly publicized increased bid - NOW!

This could drag on at least a week. Plan B needs to be wheeled out asap. Otherwise we may be in the unenviable position of trying to prise players away from clubs reluctant to do deals so close to the start of the new season, irrespective of the fact that the window doesn't shut till 31/8, due to the difficulty in finding an adequate replacement.

 

[Dirty Harry]

No need to take it out on the Mrs Dyed (JK mate)
Good post btw, makes a lot of sense.

 

[BringBackSwales]

sorry David I am not a lawyer but it strikes me as incorrect when you say it made three claims and then list four? Mind you I am a bloody accountant so I know these things. Impressed by what you say though, very interesting

Oops! (I'm not David, but Dyed - Grandad in Russian!). I thought it was three, then checked the piece again and there were four. Added the fourth and comment but forgot to change my opening! D'oh! :)

Still, I'm nearly forty and have had several glasses of red by this point (three hours ahead of UK) so maybe it's a sign I should give up for tonight and hit the sack!

no worries mate, I was being flippant rather than rude, top post

 

[bobrivers]

Dyed Petya you do bring up a few intersting points but:

What your argument is basically boils down to is that City can offer Terry much more money and Chelsea can't/won't be able to match that offer or even come near it. I don't think anyone debates the fact that City can offer more money in wages than any club in the world right now.

Nothing against Cook but you make him look like he invented business and everybody else was living in dark ages until MCFC chief executive arrived on the scene and enlightened the savages about the use of wages and image rights in modern football.

City are in a position to offer Terry or any other player the kind of terms that blow away any competition for one reason only: your new owners are able and willing to pay way more than any other club would. Your pulling power has little to do with Cook,Umbro or especially City finances and standing as a club since even with your "real' budget you were losing money.

I speak from the personal experience as a Chelsea fan since we've been doing similar thing only several years ago but it never occured to me to suggest that it was Peter Kenyon's expertise rather than Roman's big pocket that allowed us to assemble one of the best squads in Europe.

I'd respond with two points:

1. I'm not saying that football was in the dark ages before Cook. What I'm saying is that the commercial exploitation of image rights (and other commercial issues) in football is and has always been a long, long way behind American sports in terms of sophistication. Garry Cook has basically made his career in this area in America, and he's the only person (at least as far as I know, and I follow these things because it's my job to follow them) who has. That makes City much bolder in terms of what they'll offer through image rights.

2. In offering the wages that blow everyone else out of the water, City (in contrast with Chelsea when Abramovich arrived) do have a strategy to make at least a decent chunk on it back. And it's not a muddle-headed, aspirational and pie-in-the-sky idea either: it revolves round using demonstrable and fairly rare expertise we have in house. Now, it may work out that we recoup smoe or all of the money or it may not: all kinds of strategies that seem fairly sensible fail for all kinds of reasons, in football and in life. But it remains that City are trying to implement a more aggressive approach in this area that, so far at least, has been tried in football maybe only by advisers to Brand Beckham.

1. That very well may be but top clubs and Chelsea among them have their own experts in that area, I can assure you, and with the money we've got, we could afford the best and so could other big boys. If anything, those clubs dealt with it much longer than City since before sheik decided to buy your club you weren't exactly associated with top quality players.

2.How are you planning to make that chunk back, as you put it? Your wage bill alone is skyrocketing already, you don't have any income from the CL, you haven't won anything in a very long time and you'll have to spend a whole lot more both in fees and wages before you even reach the level of today's Chelsea to say nothing of the likes of ManUnited, Real or Barca. You keep insisting with that 'image rights' issue as if it's an answer to all City problems while you seem to ignore the fact that until you start delivering on the pitch your players' value as a marketing tool will also mean very little.

Of course,if your owners continue to pump hundreds of millions into the squad year after year while writing them off as gifts the law of averages says you're bound to get there eventually, probably would still take a few years to do that and it will be even harder and more costly to remain there. By that time your debt will make Abramovich's spending look like a kid's visit to the toy store. But that will have absolutely nothing to do with Gary Cook's innovative business policies.

 

[Dyed Petya]

no worries mate, I was being flippant rather than rude, top post

Thanks and no problem - didn't take offence at anything! :)

Quite mellow and happy. I'd like us to get Terry and think we may, but won't be unduly worried if we don't get him as we'll be overpaying significantly. I think if I were at Chelsea and in a position of influence, I'd be quite happy to sell, actually.

 

[flb]

I'd respond with two points:

1. I'm not saying that football was in the dark ages before Cook. What I'm saying is that the commercial exploitation of image rights (and other commercial issues) in football is and has always been a long, long way behind American sports in terms of sophistication. Garry Cook has basically made his career in this area in America, and he's the only person (at least as far as I know, and I follow these things because it's my job to follow them) who has. That makes City much bolder in terms of what they'll offer through image rights.

2. In offering the wages that blow everyone else out of the water, City (in contrast with Chelsea when Abramovich arrived) do have a strategy to make at least a decent chunk on it back. And it's not a muddle-headed, aspirational and pie-in-the-sky idea either: it revolves round using demonstrable and fairly rare expertise we have in house. Now, it may work out that we recoup smoe or all of the money or it may not: all kinds of strategies that seem fairly sensible fail for all kinds of reasons, in football and in life. But it remains that City are trying to implement a more aggressive approach in this area that, so far at least, has been tried in football maybe only by advisers to Brand Beckham.

1. That very well may be but top clubs and Chelsea among them have their own experts in that area, I can assure you, and with the money we've got, we could afford the best and so could other big boys. If anything, those clubs dealt with it much longer than City since before sheik decided to buy your club you weren't exactly associated with top quality players.

2.How are you planning to make that chunk back, as you put it? Your wage bill alone is skyrocketing already, you don't have any income from the CL, you haven't won anything in a very long time and you'll have to spend a whole lot more both in fees and wages before you even reach the level of today's Chelsea to say nothing of the likes of ManUnited, Real or Barca. You keep insisting with that 'image rights' issue as if it's an answer to all City problems while you seem to ignore the fact that until you start delivering on the pitch your players' value as a marketing tool will also mean very little.

Of course,if your owners continue to pump hundreds of millions into the squad year after year while writing them off as gifts the law of averages says you're bound to get there eventually, probably would still take a few years to do that and it will be even harder and more costly to remain there. By that time your debt will make Abramovich's spending look like a kid's visit to the toy store. But that will have absolutely nothing to do with Gary Cook's innovative business policies.

Money made Chelsea like it will make MCFC-im not wearing you were a top 4 club before the Russian arrived either-you won a few cups but would never have won the league without Abromovich's money.

MCFC have always been historically a bigger club than Chelsea-and it will be proved again.

Money goes to clubs heads and that includes Chelsea FC

 

[BLUEMOONBAZ]

It's pretty evident that Chelsea won't sell whatever we offer ... unless Terry asks for a transfer. My gut feeling is that the whole saga will fizzle out next week. Terry will squeeze another £30k a week out of Abramovich and have his press conference declaring his love for Chelsea and direct some 'I was flattered' bullshit towards City. Hope I'm wrong though.

Agreed m8 ..probably true but maybe chelski may get the wobbles @40 m mmm. in fact i still believe they want to sell him and get rid of the agitator in the camp whilst blaming terry for it all.Why would they have said anything about the first bid ?? unless they wtd it in the open

 

[reddishblue]

Is not Abu Dhabi a tax free state? Just a thought....