r.soleofsalford
Well-Known Member
Pam said:
imbecile again, pamela really thats twice tonight that i know of
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tevez [Merged]
- Thread starter CTID_Blue Moon
- Start date
imbecile again, pamela really thats twice tonight that i know of
trickyred said:dom said:Taylor said:Also I'm pretty sure that the staggered payments can only be done when buying abroad, sure I remember something that transfers domestically have to be paid in full straight away.
Correct.
Guess the dippers assume that everything is done on HP !!!!
You are very naive if you think that Liverpool are in any more financial trouble than any other club mate . . .
Prove that Im wrong about the payments !!!
All clubs do it , even you.
Get agrip pal
Your club is up shit creek financially....it's all over the press.
Your not in more finacial trouble than the rags ....except for the fact the the waves are lapping closer to your feet because of the losses made by your club's holding company....so no new shiny stadium...no big transfer purchases...
Do you not read the press?
Was that an imaginary protest organised by 'The Spirit of Shankley' or whatever they're called ??
Taylor said:Also I'm pretty sure that the staggered payments can only be done when buying abroad, sure I remember something that transfers domestically have to be paid in full straight away.
Don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be (I think) that payments from England had to be made over 1 year (2 installments), payments from the rest of Europe could be made over 6 years though (we still hadn't paid fully for Anelka when we sold him from memory).
Anyone who thinks that a club or 3rd party owner wouldn't prefer to be paid upfront though is quite frankly deluded.
Other clubs prefer money up front so they can spend it quicker. For example if we bid £45 million to Valencia for David Villa up front they would rather sell to us than say to Real if they were only prepared to pay 10 up front and then the rest later. I must emphasise that this is an example-I don't want the burden of being ITK. I don't want to start any arguments on here I'm just saying that one of our advantages is that clubs will want to to business with us to get their cash in one lump sum.
The Fixer
Well-Known Member
Manchester City secured Robinho transfer with £32.5 million cash up front
Any doubt over the financial clout backing Manchester City since the club was taken over by the Abu Dhabi United Group will be dispelled by the news that they not only broke the British transfer record to sign Robinho from Real Madrid but also paid the £32.5 million fee up front.
By Telegraph staff and agencies
Published: 10:04AM BST 26 Sep 2008
Record breaker: Manchester City broke the British transfer record when they paid Real Madrid £32.5 million for his services Photo: Reuters
A report in The Independent also states that the player's agents received payments totalling £4.2m to ensure that the deal went through before the summer transfer window closed.
The extraordinary approach paid off in stealing the 24-year-old Brazilian forward from under the noses of Chelsea, the Premier League's erstwhile richest club.
Related Articles
Manchester City deny making an approach for Barcelona forward Lionel Messi
Manchester City on alert as Kaka eyes Premier League move
Premier League Transfer Talk
Transfer window A to Z: who could be on the move this summer?
Paper View: Becks is back as England mind the gapRobinho was due to join Chelsea on Aug 31, and had already agreed personal terms with the club. Real Madrid had reluctantly come to terms with the pending loss of the forward, despite Chelsea's refusal to meet the Spanish side's asking price, with Roman Abramovich refusing to budge from his final offer of £29.2m (35 million Euros).
"If they [Abu Dhabi] had not come on the scene, then Robinho would have gone to Chelsea," a source said. "But they did and Chelsea decided not to pay. It was totally Roman Abramovich's decision."
While Real Madrid would have been pleasantly surprised by the late arrival on the scene of Manchester City and their access to a seemingly bottomless pit of cash, Robinho would have been left bewildered.
The player was certain that he would end up at Stamford Bridge and went as far as to hold a press conference pleading to be allowed to leave Madrid and pursue his "dream" at Chelsea.
Nevertheless, the player can console himself with the fact that his new wages could peak as high as £160,000 a week.
Over the length of his four-year contract, along with all other fees, he will end up costing Manchester City's new owners something in the region of £70m.
The payment of a full transfer fee in a one-off lump sum is highly unusual with clubs normally agreeing to pay fees in instalments over two to four years. However, the practice is not unprecedented and is reminiscent of the approach adopted by Roman Abramovich and Chelsea when the Russian first took over the Stamford Bridge club in 2003.
Both sides were faced with the challenge of announcing their arrival among Europe's top teams and proceeded to do so by signing high-quality players, who in turn attract equally talented colleagues.
In Manchester City's case, late bids for players around Europe – including the likes of Dimitar Berbatov, Fernando Torres and David Villa – were lodged but it was Robinho whose services were finally secured.
Abramovich is reported to believe that after five years in charge at Chelsea, he has learned a great deal about football and particularly the value of players as illustrated by his refusal to budge on Robinho.
The insinuation is that Abu Dhabi, meanwhile, have a lot to learn.
Any doubt over the financial clout backing Manchester City since the club was taken over by the Abu Dhabi United Group will be dispelled by the news that they not only broke the British transfer record to sign Robinho from Real Madrid but also paid the £32.5 million fee up front.
By Telegraph staff and agencies
Published: 10:04AM BST 26 Sep 2008
Record breaker: Manchester City broke the British transfer record when they paid Real Madrid £32.5 million for his services Photo: Reuters
A report in The Independent also states that the player's agents received payments totalling £4.2m to ensure that the deal went through before the summer transfer window closed.
The extraordinary approach paid off in stealing the 24-year-old Brazilian forward from under the noses of Chelsea, the Premier League's erstwhile richest club.
Related Articles
Manchester City deny making an approach for Barcelona forward Lionel Messi
Manchester City on alert as Kaka eyes Premier League move
Premier League Transfer Talk
Transfer window A to Z: who could be on the move this summer?
Paper View: Becks is back as England mind the gapRobinho was due to join Chelsea on Aug 31, and had already agreed personal terms with the club. Real Madrid had reluctantly come to terms with the pending loss of the forward, despite Chelsea's refusal to meet the Spanish side's asking price, with Roman Abramovich refusing to budge from his final offer of £29.2m (35 million Euros).
"If they [Abu Dhabi] had not come on the scene, then Robinho would have gone to Chelsea," a source said. "But they did and Chelsea decided not to pay. It was totally Roman Abramovich's decision."
While Real Madrid would have been pleasantly surprised by the late arrival on the scene of Manchester City and their access to a seemingly bottomless pit of cash, Robinho would have been left bewildered.
The player was certain that he would end up at Stamford Bridge and went as far as to hold a press conference pleading to be allowed to leave Madrid and pursue his "dream" at Chelsea.
Nevertheless, the player can console himself with the fact that his new wages could peak as high as £160,000 a week.
Over the length of his four-year contract, along with all other fees, he will end up costing Manchester City's new owners something in the region of £70m.
The payment of a full transfer fee in a one-off lump sum is highly unusual with clubs normally agreeing to pay fees in instalments over two to four years. However, the practice is not unprecedented and is reminiscent of the approach adopted by Roman Abramovich and Chelsea when the Russian first took over the Stamford Bridge club in 2003.
Both sides were faced with the challenge of announcing their arrival among Europe's top teams and proceeded to do so by signing high-quality players, who in turn attract equally talented colleagues.
In Manchester City's case, late bids for players around Europe – including the likes of Dimitar Berbatov, Fernando Torres and David Villa – were lodged but it was Robinho whose services were finally secured.
Abramovich is reported to believe that after five years in charge at Chelsea, he has learned a great deal about football and particularly the value of players as illustrated by his refusal to budge on Robinho.
The insinuation is that Abu Dhabi, meanwhile, have a lot to learn.
BibbyBlue85
Well-Known Member
trickyred said:dom said:Taylor said:Also I'm pretty sure that the staggered payments can only be done when buying abroad, sure I remember something that transfers domestically have to be paid in full straight away.
Correct.
Guess the dippers assume that everything is done on HP !!!!
You are very naive if you think that Liverpool are in any more financial trouble than any other club mate . . .
Prove that Im wrong about the payments !!!
All clubs do it , even you.
We did it prior to ADUG taking over but it is a completely different story now mate.
If your not in so much trouble why has Rafa come out and said he will only buy 1 or 2 players. BECAUSE YOU ARE SKINT
trickyred said:Im sorry but even if that WAS true does it make any difference ?
Of course it would.
£30m stuck in your bank account for the 6 years that Liverpool would take to pay the lot could be worth millions.
If you enter a contract to pay for a player you stick to it . And most transfer fees include the players wages for the term of the contract, Did you know that ? No didnt think so , do players get all their wages in a lump sum ? Exactly!!
Wrong.
Paulmcfc2703
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,933
for tevez the total deal is rumour at £55million, the initial £30 million is the transfer fee and the other £25million are the wages whichmis spread over a believed 5 years. On your assumption the Barry deal of £12 million on a 5 year contract which you say includes the transfer fee and wages over the set period does not mathematically make sense.trickyred said:Solihull Samba Boys said:Our owners do pay up front. They did it for Robbie (despite what Alan Brazil said), were prepared to do it for Kaka, and now are prepared to do it for Tevez. We have £550 billion available, it makes no sense to pay in installments, that's one of our advantages in the market
Im sorry but even if that WAS true does it make any difference ?
If you enter a contract to pay for a player you stick to it . And most transfer fees include the players wages for the term of the contract, Did you know that ? No didnt think so , do players get all their wages in a lump sum ? Exactly!!
The Fixer
Well-Known Member
here's another 1 hehe, now eat your words dippers!!
Barclays windfall swells Manchester City's transfer coffers• Club's owner makes £500m profit in seven months
• Liquidity gives City further advantage in market
Buzz up!
Digg it
Matt Scott The Guardian, Thursday 4 June 2009 Article historyAbu Dhabi's decision this week to sell its 11% stake in Barclays, a bank it bailed out only seven months ago, has provided Manchester City's owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, with a £500m cash profit to play with.
Although the Eastlands club clearly has no money worries, it now has immediate access to vast cash fundsjust as the transfer window opens. That sort of financial agility will provide it with a priceless advantage over competitors in the market this summer and will also benefit selling clubs, who can request up-front payment in fullfor their players, as opposed to the normal practice of receiving fees in yearly stages.
Evidence of this was seen on Tuesday when Manchester City moved fast to secure Gareth Barry, the Aston Villa and England midfielder previously coveted by Liverpool and Arsenal. On the downside the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's previous claims that it was a long-term investor in Barclays sound remarkably similar to its stated intentions towards Manchester City.
Fans might feel they now have cause to fear Sheikh Mansour's treatment of their club but Abu Dhabi insiders point out that, unlike Barclays stock, Manchester City is hardly likely to attract a queue of institutional investors with pockets as deep as Sheikh Mansour's.
Barclays windfall swells Manchester City's transfer coffers• Club's owner makes £500m profit in seven months
• Liquidity gives City further advantage in market
Buzz up!
Digg it
Matt Scott The Guardian, Thursday 4 June 2009 Article historyAbu Dhabi's decision this week to sell its 11% stake in Barclays, a bank it bailed out only seven months ago, has provided Manchester City's owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, with a £500m cash profit to play with.
Although the Eastlands club clearly has no money worries, it now has immediate access to vast cash fundsjust as the transfer window opens. That sort of financial agility will provide it with a priceless advantage over competitors in the market this summer and will also benefit selling clubs, who can request up-front payment in fullfor their players, as opposed to the normal practice of receiving fees in yearly stages.
Evidence of this was seen on Tuesday when Manchester City moved fast to secure Gareth Barry, the Aston Villa and England midfielder previously coveted by Liverpool and Arsenal. On the downside the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's previous claims that it was a long-term investor in Barclays sound remarkably similar to its stated intentions towards Manchester City.
Fans might feel they now have cause to fear Sheikh Mansour's treatment of their club but Abu Dhabi insiders point out that, unlike Barclays stock, Manchester City is hardly likely to attract a queue of institutional investors with pockets as deep as Sheikh Mansour's.