The Official Tottenham Hotspur Thread [Vol 5]
Discussion
Mick!blindswelledrat said:
Terminator X said:
Apols if repost, Daily Wail back page says you'll need 200 grand a week to keep Bale next year 
TX.
Daily wail is full of sTX.
te!Cheib said:
It sounds more realistic than the Evening Standard's "Bale's going to sign a new £130k a week deal". He's apparently already on £110k a week.....given the year he's had is he really going to sign a new contract for an extra £20k ? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle....I am sure he's already been offered £200k a week by Real/PSG/Man U and whilst he might be loyal to Spurs £90k a week is a lot of money to miss out on.
Pure guess, I suspect it would be more like £130k plus add ons and image rights and more or less agree with what you said other than Man U offering £200k per week. Manchester United cannot afford Gareth Bale.My main take away from all of the stories is:
The amount on offer varies but doesn't really matter...he is going nowhere this season! The choice he has is either improve what he makes now (but transfer more power back to the club by adding more years) or stay on what he's on now and have 3 more years to run.
The amount on offer varies but doesn't really matter...he is going nowhere this season! The choice he has is either improve what he makes now (but transfer more power back to the club by adding more years) or stay on what he's on now and have 3 more years to run.
blindswelledrat said:
Cheib said:
It sounds more realistic than the Evening Standard's "Bale's going to sign a new £130k a week deal". He's apparently already on £110k a week.....given the year he's had is he really going to sign a new contract for an extra £20k ? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle....I am sure he's already been offered £200k a week by Real/PSG/Man U and whilst he might be loyal to Spurs £90k a week is a lot of money to miss out on.
Pure guess, I suspect it would be more like £130k plus add ons and image rights and more or less agree with what you said other than Man U offering £200k per week. Manchester United cannot afford Gareth Bale.
Any of United, Chelsea or City (and probably Arsenal) can afford him, easily.
All can spend £50M on a transfer (and all will spend that and more this summer on transfers - well, maybe not the Gooners, but they could.)
All can fund a £200K wage packet.
One sponsorship deal with a sportswear manufacturer at £5M a year would fund half his wages. Its precisely the kind of deal that's been talked about with Nike funding some of the cost of Ronaldo coming back to Utd. Allegedly they arn't terribly happy about one of their marquee athletes pulling on an Adidas logo'd Real Madrid short every week! £5M a year is peanuts to those kind of firms. If Levy has any sense he'll be trying to to tap up "Spud-u-like" or similar to help him out!
Wombat3 said:
Any of United, Chelsea or City (and probably Arsenal) can afford him, easily.
All can spend £50M on a transfer (and all will spend that and more this summer on transfers - well, maybe not the Gooners, but they could.)
All can fund a £200K wage packet.
One sponsorship deal with a sportswear manufacturer at £5M a year would fund half his wages. Its precisely the kind of deal that's been talked about with Nike funding some of the cost of Ronaldo coming back to Utd. Allegedly they arn't terribly happy about one of their marquee athletes pulling on an Adidas logo'd Real Madrid short every week! £5M a year is peanuts to those kind of firms. If Levy has any sense he'll be trying to to tap up "Spud-u-like" or similar to help him out!
Man U record signing is £27m which was before the Glazers saddled them with £400m in debt. Of course they can suddenly double that despite their finances being many times worse than at the time.
Chelsea and Man City could for the exact opposite of the reason you suggest. Not because they can balance it with shirt sales but for the very reason that they don't need to balance their books because the owners fund it without profit and losses needing to be considered
Bale next season, I imagine, will be raking in money from endorsements and sponsorships like CR and Messi do (albeit a bit less). He's already the face of that new sport channel starting up next season (which is to show PL games - perhaps more evidence for him not leaving the UK which is half the battle).
blindswelledrat said:
Wombat3 said:
Any of United, Chelsea or City (and probably Arsenal) can afford him, easily.
All can spend £50M on a transfer (and all will spend that and more this summer on transfers - well, maybe not the Gooners, but they could.)
All can fund a £200K wage packet.
One sponsorship deal with a sportswear manufacturer at £5M a year would fund half his wages. Its precisely the kind of deal that's been talked about with Nike funding some of the cost of Ronaldo coming back to Utd. Allegedly they arn't terribly happy about one of their marquee athletes pulling on an Adidas logo'd Real Madrid short every week! £5M a year is peanuts to those kind of firms. If Levy has any sense he'll be trying to to tap up "Spud-u-like" or similar to help him out!
Man U record signing is £27m which was before the Glazers saddled them with £400m in debt. Of course they can suddenly double that despite their finances being many times worse than at the time.
Chelsea and Man City could for the exact opposite of the reason you suggest. Not because they can balance it with shirt sales but for the very reason that they don't need to balance their books because the owners fund it without profit and losses needing to be considered
Utd spent about £50M in each of the last two transfer windows. They could do it again, easily. There is more money than ever floating around at Old Trafford.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transf...
United's debt is less than £400M now & entirely manageable in the context of the size of the business and the profits it makes. Its an irrelevance and wouldn't even be worthy of comment in any similar sized business in any other field.
Its also well known that Arsenal have that kind of cash to spend now as well. Chelse are also profitable now I think.
All these clubs also have significant squads of players , one or two of whom could even be sold to (part) fund a marquee transfer if they wanted too. FFP won't stop any of them bidding £50M for Bale if they want him badly enough.
...and then there is the undoubted value of weakening your competitor by having a player like that wearing your shirt and not the other guy's (See RVP
)Wombat3 said:
Talking out your hat mate.
Utd spent about £50M in each of the last two transfer windows. They could do it again, easily. There is more money than ever floating around at Old Trafford.
)
Because you don't see the difference between buying one player for £50 million and buying a several players to maintain a team capable of competing in the premier league it doesn't mean that I am talking out of my hat.Utd spent about £50M in each of the last two transfer windows. They could do it again, easily. There is more money than ever floating around at Old Trafford.
)
It simply means that you have no comprehension of basic finances. Excitedly bashing out the words "No, no because..because they can get a shirt sponsor" doesn't really negate this I am afraid.
blindswelledrat said:
Wombat3 said:
Talking out your hat mate.
Utd spent about £50M in each of the last two transfer windows. They could do it again, easily. There is more money than ever floating around at Old Trafford.
)
Because you don't see the difference between buying one player for £50 million and buying a several players to maintain a team capable of competing in the premier league it doesn't mean that I am talking out of my hat.Utd spent about £50M in each of the last two transfer windows. They could do it again, easily. There is more money than ever floating around at Old Trafford.
)
It simply means that you have no comprehension of basic finances. Excitedly bashing out the words "No, no because..because they can get a shirt sponsor" doesn't really negate this I am afraid.
As such its entirely feasible to spend the entire budget on one player if they wanted to.
The claim was that Utd couldn't afford him. Plainly they can if they want to make a bid.
(Oh and your mention of the United debt says its not me that doesn't understand the basics of corporate finance
)Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 21st May 13:56
Wombat3 said:
The claim was that Utd couldn't afford him. Plainly they can if they want to make a bid.
As can Wycombe Wanderers if we are going to be pedantic about exact wording. Never in Uniteds history have they blown their entire transfer budget on one player and if you are trying to argue they have the strongest squad they have had and hence can suddenly do that, then its not really worth continuing this conversationWomat3 said:
(Oh and your mention of the United debt says its not me that doesn't understand the basics of corporate finance )
What, my understanding that paying £50m or so in interest payments will affect a clubs finances? What don't I understand there? Oh, I forgot- they can...erm..sell some shirts or something. )Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff