Toure, Lescott and Terry to City for £100m?

[Craig_H]

Because they are blatantly over paid compered to other Prem sides. Would you want to see Gerrard or Torres earning that amount of money at Liverpool? I wouldn't.

If it was coming from owners who had more cash than sense, i wouldnt give a monkey's. Why should they?

[Joey Jones]

If it was coming from owners who had more cash than sense, i wouldnt give a monkey's. Why should they?

It's just my personal opinion, I think it would be obscene if a football player were to be paid one million pounds a month to kick a ball - £12m a year, £48m over a 4 year contract - shocking.

Bring in a salary cap I say.

[Craig_H]

It's obscene that Steven Gerrard is paid £130k p/w or whatever it is. The money in football IS obscene, that's just the way it is. City arent really doing anything new.

People thought it was obscene when Trevor Francis was signed for £1m, the levels will continue to rise and people will continue to think it's insane.

[Guest]

It's obscene that Steven Gerrard is paid £130k p/w or whatever it is. The money in football IS obscene, that's just the way it is. City arent really doing anything new.

People thought it was obscene when Trevor Francis was signed for £1m, the levels will continue to rise and people will continue to think it's insane.

A cap should be put into place and people should take a back seat when putting these footballers as high as demi god, on pedestals and literally licking their boots. This frenzy doesn't help.

Go to the stadium, support your team but that should be it. Shankly was so right when he uttered those famous lines years ago.

[Craig_H]

A cap should be put into place and people should take a back seat when putting these footballers as high as demi god, on pedestals and literally licking their boots. This frenzy doesn't help.

Go to the stadium, support your team but that should be it. Shankly was so right when he uttered those famous lines years ago.

Yeah, i agree with all that, but why do you draw the line at Man City and why now?

It's been a frenzy for years, why point the finger at City? It can only be envy.

[dom9]

It's obscene that Steven Gerrard is paid £130k p/w or whatever it is. The money in football IS obscene, that's just the way it is. City arent really doing anything new.

People thought it was obscene when Trevor Francis was signed for £1m, the levels will continue to rise and people will continue to think it's insane.

Trevor Francis' transfer fee was actually £999,999. True story.

[Guest]

Yeah, i agree with all that, but why do you draw the line at Man City and why now?

It's been a frenzy for years, why point the finger at City? It can only be envy.

Because they're pushing this to extremes, Real Madrid are another case in point. They're both a disgrace to the sport, breeding mercenaries and inflating the transfer market to a point where competition would be in danger of being just a dream.

This is killing the smaller clubs and more should I say.

[dom9]

Yeah, i agree with all that, but why do you draw the line at Man City and why now?

It's been a frenzy for years, why point the finger at City? It can only be envy.

It's supply and demand. Basic economics.

If people are prepared to pay Sky their 50 odd quid a month, buy merchandise at 40 quid a pop, and attend games for 35 quid, that money has to go somewhere. The final destination is inevitable.

The money already involved then attracts large-ego's wealthy people such as the Arabs or Abramovich

[Craig_H]

Because they're pushing this to extremes, Real Madrid are another case in point. They're both a disgrace to the sport, breeding mercenaries and inflating the transfer market to a point where competition would be in danger of being just a dream.

This is killing the smaller clubs and more should I say.

Again though fredo, it depends on your interpretation of extreme doesnt it?

Some might argue that £100k p/w is extreme, i know i certainly would.

The only thing i dont get, is how you arrive at the point of deciding that City's situation is the extreme and not, say, ours with Gerrard or United's with paying £30m for Rio Ferdinand all those years ago, or Blackburn's when they paid £3.3m for Alan Shearer in 1992.

It's supply and demand. Basic economics.

If people are prepared to pay Sky their 50 odd quid a month, buy merchandise at 40 quid a pop, and attend games for 35 quid, that money has to go somewhere. The final destination is inevitable.

The money already involved then attracts large-ego's wealthy people such as the Arabs or Abramovich

Apart from the City cash obviously being from an external source than normally generated football funds, i agree with you.

I dont like it, but i dont blame City, the way fredo seems to be doing.

And likewise, if it was us, i'd be happy enough with it. It's not how i'd like to see football work, but if it's a case of either you do the same or you get left behind (which it is), then i'd rather we did the same.

[Guest]

Again though fredo, it depends on your interpretation of extreme doesnt it?

Some might argue that £100k p/w is extreme, i know i certainly would.

The only thing i dont get, is how you arrive at the point of deciding that City's situation is the extreme and not, say, ours with Gerrard or United's with paying £30m for Rio Ferdinand all those years ago, or Blackburn's when they paid £3.3m for Alan Shearer in 1992.



Apart from the City cash obviously being from an external source than normally generated football funds, i agree with you.

I dont like it, but i dont blame City, the way fredo seems to be doing.

And likewise, if it was us, i'd be happy enough with it. It's not how i'd like to see football work, but if it's a case of either you do the same or you get left behind (which it is), then i'd rather we did the same.

This is relative but you have to agree that City are the 'new extremes'. Let's not get into semantics again Craig. Chelsea did the same and were equally criticized by me when Roman came onto the scene, and it was also the same when Fergie splashed United's money on Rooney, Ferdinand and Veron.

Now you're seeing a new level of salaries, with John Terry being reportedly offered £250,000 pounds a week, Adebayor getting £175,000 and he's only a little bit more than an average player. This is getting ridiculous.

Steven Gerrard gets paid a lot of money and it is ludicrously the same craziness. There should be a salary cap. Sure, the best players should be paid the most, but there has to be a system put in place where some of the money generated by TV revenues to be re-invested into grass roots football, for example a particular club's academy, blah blah blah blah blah.

[Craig_H]

I hardly think that the tv money paid to City or Chelsea is going to swell Abramovich or the Arabs' pockets. It wouldnt touch the sides, what is £60m per year to a multi billionaire? Chicken feed mate.

At the end of the day, City isnt a club with a great deal of prestige or glamour, so the only way they're going to get such players, is to pay them insane money. It's their right. Sure, it's making an already lunatic situation even worse, but that's been going on for years. We did it back in the 80s, United and Blackburn in the 90s and now it's Chelsea and City. Madrid have been doing it for decades. It's a new extreme for now, but there's been new extremes set since year dot, as far as the Premier League is concerned.

I think it's a bit late to worry about the grass roots side of things and it's certainly not City's actions that have turned things obscene, it's been obscene for years and years.

You can dismiss the arguments as 'semantics' by all means, but the point is perfectly valid and the fact is, obscenity when it comes to money in football, isnt a remotely new thing.

It should only be the very top players who top the pay league, quite right, but as i said, City wont get those players (as they found with Kaka). If they want to get better players, in most cases, the only thing they can offer of any real value, is cash.

[Guest]

I hardly think that the tv money paid to City or Chelsea is going to swell Abramovich or the Arabs' pockets. It wouldnt touch the sides, what is £60m per year to a multi billionaire? Chicken feed mate.

At the end of the day, City isnt a club with a great deal of prestige or glamour, so the only way they're going to get such players, is to pay them insane money. It's their right. Sure, it's making an already lunatic situation even worse, but that's been going on for years. We did it back in the 80s, United and Blackburn in the 90s and now it's Chelsea and City. Madrid have been doing it for decades. It's a new extreme for now, but there's been new extremes set since year dot, as far as the Premier League is concerned.

I think it's a bit late to worry about the grass roots side of things and it's certainly not City's actions that have turned things obscene, it's been obscene for years and years.

You can dismiss the arguments as 'semantics' by all means, but the point is perfectly valid and the fact is, obscenity when it comes to money in football, isnt a remotely new thing.

It should only be the very top players who top the pay league, quite right, but as i said, City wont get those players (as they found with Kaka). If they want to get better players, in most cases, the only thing they can offer of any real value, is cash.

You're right about City being unable to attract top players because of their lack of glamour or recent success. It still doesn't mean that they'll be a force to be reckoned with because I still feel that they won't be challenging the top four yet, so yes, money alone can't buy a club success.

I will still like a salary cap, because somebody somewhere, is making massive profits. Billionaires such as the ones at Chelsea, City or Portsmouth surely aren't there just for the ride? And this has to be stopped IMO. No need to make the rich richer, it must be the other way round.

[dom9]

You're right about City being unable to attract top players because of their lack of glamour or recent success. It still doesn't mean that they'll be a force to be reckoned with because I still feel that they won't be challenging the top four yet, so yes, money alone can't buy a club success.

I will still like a salary cap, because somebody somewhere, is making massive profits. Billionaires such as the ones at Chelsea, City or Portsmouth surely aren't there just for the ride? And this has to be stopped IMO. No need to make the rich richer, it must be the other way round.

If there was a worldwide salary cap (a cap would have to be worldwide as otherwise the best players would go to a league without one), where would all the money we pay for TV rights, merchandise and tickets go? If it didn't go to players in wages, it would result in even higher transfer fees, and ultimately, in the pockets of shareholders (billionaires or otherwise).

[dom9]

You're right about City being unable to attract top players because of their lack of glamour or recent success. It still doesn't mean that they'll be a force to be reckoned with because I still feel that they won't be challenging the top four yet, so yes, money alone can't buy a club success.

I will still like a salary cap, because somebody somewhere, is making massive profits. Billionaires such as the ones at Chelsea, City or Portsmouth surely aren't there just for the ride? And this has to be stopped IMO. No need to make the rich richer, it must be the other way round.

Yes, they are in it for the ride.

They won't make serious money from this. They will spend serious amounts of their own money. It's all about ego.

[Scratch]

If there was a worldwide salary cap (a cap would have to be worldwide as otherwise the best players would go to a league without one), where would all the money we pay for TV rights, merchandise and tickets go? If it didn't go to players in wages, it would result in even higher transfer fees, and ultimately, in the pockets of shareholders (billionaires or otherwise).

So, if we introduced a European Salary cap, all the players would go to other leagues, purely for money...in which countries exactly? The Arab nations? Australia? South America...North America? No, they will stay in Europe...simples.