The only plus of this Kaka deal is that we will get the chance to see him playing in the Premiership. Everything else doesn't add up.
Let's be honest, there are three players who currently stand on a pedastol, regardless of your opinion of what order they come in, Ronaldo, Kaka and Messi are currently the worlds top three players and recognisably so. I know that United wouldn't sell Ronaldo for less that £70 million, it would probably take about that much to get Messi. Is Kaka a better player that thoes two, he's with them, but better, that's very debatable so even if he is we're talking small differences in quality here.
If City had offered £70 million and then maybe negotiated upto £80 million, I'd think that as rediculous as that ammount of money is for one player, it's about what the market would dictate he's worth. But £108 million is stupid, and to offer £100 million right off the bat is not business sense regardless of what Hughes says. Hughes also says he's the man in the driving seat at city. I don't think so Mark.
I laughed when he said the deal made good football and business sesne, because it doesn't make either. Business wise it's obvious, Manchester City are enver going to make this kind of money back in profitts, very few clubs can. What's more stupid that the transfer cost is the wages reportedly offered, £500 a week. Five Hundered Thousand Pounds A Week. Isn't Frank Lampard the highest (or one of the highest) earners in the PL with £145k a week, which in itself is ridiculous considering he'll still be earning that when he's 35. These new City owners don't seem to understand the long term inplications of what they are doing, if they pull it off. City are giving every big name player they want from now on an open license to ask for weekly wages that in in the multiple hundereds of thousand pounds. They are giving Robinho a license to ask for a rather vast pay rise since the poor fella is only on £90k per week after tax. They are shooting themselves in the foot, actually they are blowing thier feet clean off.
They have the money to pay these wages, but at some point it will stop, at some point the money will go. Either the owners will pull out, or they will be hit with a serious situation that requires them to lose focus of City and concentrate on other more important things. The money won't be there for long. Poor old Abramovitch has stopped funding Chelsea for their bi annual £100 million team upgrades.
The only teams that will still be there or thereabouts when the City mayhem dies down and the money river starts to ebb away will be the clubs that earn more than they spend, the Arsenals, the Manchester uniteds and the Liverpools, sure they may be in debt but none of them are in debt because they pay money they don't earn on players and all three of them pay off thier debts and annual running costs and fund transfers etc and still come out with a profit. If Abramovich pulled out of Chelsea tomorrow, we'd all be seeing at a firesale of Chelsea players in the summer, unless another billionaire bought them, and even then there's no guarentee he'd keep players like Lampard on £145k a week contracts.
Chelsea cannot afford to be where they are without some one at the top putting money in that he will not get back. Manchester City are exactley the same, they will never be as big as United, AC Milan, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Barcelona. They may become successfull for a period of time, but it takes decades to become a genuinely big club. Chelsea are perfect proof, everyone knows they're a good team, but they still arn't a truely big club, they still don't have that fan base the really big clubs have. And you need that fan base to sustain you. Having a rich owner is great, as long as he's there, but if you arn't self sustaining, as soon as he goes the club effectively dissapears too.