New City owner confirms C. Ronaldo interest

Karmafaerie

eagle eye wrote: »

Any club that wants to get into the running has to buy players to catch up. But to say they are buying success is just ridiculous. Look at the amount of money Liverpool shelled out for Torres. Is that not buying success?
Similarly with United they paid huge money at the time for Ferdinand, similarly for Van Nistlerooy, Rooney and now Berbatov. Is that not buying success?
I don't understand this salary cap trash talk. It will never happen, the big clubs would not have it, look back at the days when money was not such a big factor and you had the Nottingham Forests and Ipswich Towns and Derby Countys up there challenging for the League because they had a couple of good youths come through and a top manager who brought in the right players.
You'll notice I have not mentioned Wenger yet but he too has been able to spend big sums of money on players but at least there are a lot of young players developing and playing first team football there.
But thats the way its gone now, all the big clubs are trying to buy the Leagues and cups, and all thats wrong with a couple of you is that some new clubs come along with money so you spout off this petty 'buying the league' rubbish.
Get real, thats what soccer is all about now, money, money, money. Otherwise you'd have the likes of Wigan up there challenging for League titles.

You also need a good manager to win anything by the way, you cannot just go out and buy the League.

So Chelsea didn't win anything for 50 years, abramovich appeared spent hundreds of millions, and they won back to back titles within three years!
Yeah, the money had no bearing on that.
I'm sure Chelsea were gonna get the success anyway.

Guy:Incognito

Where did the £134m figure come from? Did he juist rummage round in his pockets and thats how much he found?

Karmafaerie

Stekelly wrote: »

Where did the £134m figure come from? Did he juist rummage round in his pockets and thats how much he found?

It's in the article.

"Real Madrid were estimating his value at $160 million but for a player like that, to actually get him, will cost a lot more, I would think $240 million.

I guess that $240 USD is £134 STG.

Poor Americans!

Charlie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2FhFi0FZ9Y

Jazzy

its all getting a bit silly now

flyswatter

Won't happen but you've got to admire the Al Fahim guy.

Gangsta

eagle eye wrote: »

Any club that wants to get into the running has to buy players to catch up. But to say they are buying success is just ridiculous. Look at the amount of money Liverpool shelled out for Torres. Is that not buying success?
Similarly with United they paid huge money at the time for Ferdinand, similarly for Van Nistlerooy, Rooney and now Berbatov. Is that not buying success?
I don't understand this salary cap trash talk. It will never happen, the big clubs would not have it, look back at the days when money was not such a big factor and you had the Nottingham Forests and Ipswich Towns and Derby Countys up there challenging for the League because they had a couple of good youths come through and a top manager who brought in the right players.
You'll notice I have not mentioned Wenger yet but he too has been able to spend big sums of money on players but at least there are a lot of young players developing and playing first team football there.
But thats the way its gone now, all the big clubs are trying to buy the Leagues and cups, and all thats wrong with a couple of you is that some new clubs come along with money so you spout off this petty 'buying the league' rubbish.
Get real, thats what soccer is all about now, money, money, money. Otherwise you'd have the likes of Wigan up there challenging for League titles.

You also need a good manager to win anything by the way, you cannot just go out and buy the League.

If the money you're spending comes from football, then fair enough. It's when some outside source starts pumping money into the club is when it isn't so fair anymore.

_blank_

Gangsta wrote: »

If the money you're spending comes from football, then fair enough. It's when some outside source starts pumping money into the club is when it isn't so fair anymore.

Then United's money in the 90s wasn't fair. It came from selling shares on the stock exchange.

That is "outside football".

An Citeog

Des wrote: »

Then United's money in the 90s wasn't fair. It came from selling shares on the stock exchange.

That is "outside football".

There's a difference between being quoted on the stock exchange and being some billionaire's plaything. United's money came from what the market deemed the club to be worth and its subsequent commercial activities. On the contrary, I'd argue that United's money is/was fairer than those clubs who are/were held by private investors who pumped their own personal fotunes into the club.

_blank_

An Citeog. Are you a Manchester United Fan?

An Citeog

Des wrote: »

An Citeog. Are you a Manchester United Fan?

Yes, I am. It doesn't make any difference to the point that I made though. How exactly was United's money not fair?

Sizzler

Hilarious story tbh. I think the fact the new City owner has said he wants Torres / Kaka & Fabregas in the side as well as Ronaldo says it all, pure fantasy football. I'd say the only team that would buckle under a major bid would be Milan.

Fair play though, he'll be great for the league

Guy:Incognito

An Citeog wrote: »

Yes, I am. It doesn't make any difference to the point that I made though. How exactly was United's money not fair?

How many club owners made their money from building a club fromt he ground up?

All the money starts out outside football in some way.

eagle eye

Karmafaerie wrote: »

So Chelsea didn't win anything for 50 years, abramovich appeared spent hundreds of millions, and they won back to back titles within three years!
Yeah, the money had no bearing on that.
I'm sure Chelsea were gonna get the success anyway.

I said football is all about money, and that all the big clubs are trying to buy success. But to different extents due to the wealth of some clubs in comparison to others.
Thats the reason we have had the same top four teams for so long, its to do with money. Utd had a good few young players who came through in the mid nineties and allied with some very expensive signings they won the Champions League, but the fact that they are still around at the top has nothing to do with those youths who came through since then. Look at United's current squad, Ferdinand cost over 30m sterling, so did Rooney and Berbatov and there are a lot of others there who have cost upwards of 15m. If thats not buying success well what do you call it?
Liverpool don't have the same spending power as United it seems but when you consider that they spent 20+ on Torres and Keane, Mascherano cost 19, Babel cost 14 and there are a heap of undisclosed fees most notable would be Dirk Kuyt. So how much are we talking there well 80m or over it anyways, I suppose that is not trying to buy success either.

All that is wrong with some of you is the fact that you have had is so easy the last couple of years, guaranteed Champions League football every season and now suddenly over the course of a couple of years we have Chelsea with money and now Man City and we all know that one team is going to fail to make a Champions League, and its most likely to be Liverpool closely followed by Arsenal.

Well if you don't like it, tough, thats football nowadays and the G14 were what started it, they monopolised the Premier Leagues across Europe.

You mention Chelsea's success and how it would not have happened without money.
We can also say that Liverpool would not be in the Champions League without money.
Lets go back a few years, small clubs like Nottingham Forest, Ipswich Town, Derby County and more recently Norwich were all able to challenge for League titles, they are now Championship sides and why, because money is the important factor now, if you don't have it tough luck.

Complaining about new clubs getting rich and taking over is just snobbery on the part of fans from the 'established clubs'.

shane86

Man Utd fans complaining that Abramovich and the Arabs and other sugar daddys are turning football into big money multinational computer game teams is like the Burmese government criticising human rights abuses in North Korea. Man U built their 90s squads on money that was more fairly obtained than the billionaires clubs.....oh jesus :pac:

m@cc@

shane86 wrote: »

Man Utd fans complaining that Abramovich and the Arabs and other sugar daddys are turning football into big money multinational computer game teams is like the Burmese government criticising human rights abuses in North Korea. Man U built their 90s squads on money that was more fairly obtained than the billionaires clubs.....oh jesus :pac:

That analogy just went on and on didn't it.

MIN2511

Money does buy you everything!

Including Ronaldo

Jivin Turkey

Personally I think this will make for a very interesting season. It will certainly ruffle the feathers of the big four, particularly Arsenal and Liverpool.

If something like this didn't happen, it would be a long time before we saw anyone else in with a shot of winning the league.

grahamo

Ronaldo at City? Torres at City? Kaka at City? The City owners are having a laugh! City simply don't have the prestige to attract top players!
Sure they got Robinho, but only cos Calderon didn't want him going to Chelsea as he believed Chelsea f**ked them over!
It seems to me the new owners don't know very much about football. They can pump some money in, buy a few good players and win a league or two but what happens when they discover they don't have and never will have the fanbase of a Man Utd or Liverpool and they aren't making the big bucks they thought they would? The big teams in World football have earned their reputations and prestige through years of sustained success and built up their fanbases over generations. Maybe you can buy a premier league but I don't believe you can buy a fanbase. Once they realise this
The Arabs,yanks, Russians etc. will be off!

Xavi6

grahamo wrote: »

Ronaldo at City? Torres at City? Kaka at City? The City owners are having a laugh! City simply don't have the prestige to attract top players!

You're right, we don't but we have the money. Bit like Chelsea 5 years ago.

It seems to me the new owners don't know very much about football. They can pump some money in, buy a few good players and win a league or two but what happens when they discover they don't have and never will have the fanbase of a Man Utd or Liverpool and they aren't making the big bucks they thought they would?

Cause Chelsea's fan base was soooooo big.........

Our's is bigger than there's even now before all this kicks in. We're gonna have kids walking around in City gear everywhere. Sure Lifestyle Sports even sell our training gear now. 5 years ago you'd be lucky to get the home shirt.

The big teams in World football have earned their reputations and prestige through years of sustained success and built up their fanbases over generations.
Maybe you can buy a premier league but I don't believe you can buy a fanbase. Once they realise this
The Arabs,yanks, Russians etc. will be off!

So if success doesn't get you a fan base the what does?

You hardly think United are so big in Asia because of all the ex-pat Mancs living over there?!

Mitch Connor

Xavi6 wrote: »

You hardly think United are so big in Asia because of all the ex-pat Mancs living over there?!

No, we're big cause Beckham was so cute

Mr Alan

yea but City have Richard Dunne who is something of a hunk

Quazzie

grahamo wrote: »

Ronaldo at City? Torres at City? Kaka at City? The City owners are having a laugh! City simply don't have the prestige to attract top players!
Sure they got Robinho, but only cos Calderon didn't want him going to Chelsea as he believed Chelsea f**ked them over!
It seems to me the new owners don't know very much about football. They can pump some money in, buy a few good players and win a league or two but what happens when they discover they don't have and never will have the fanbase of a Man Utd or Liverpool and they aren't making the big bucks they thought they would? The big teams in World football have earned their reputations and prestige through years of sustained success and built up their fanbases over generations. Maybe you can buy a premier league but I don't believe you can buy a fanbase. Once they realise this
The Arabs,yanks, Russians etc. will be off!

How many new Chelsea jerseys have ya seen on kids. Children and fickle and any team is only a generation away from being "prestigious"

jaykay74

grahamo wrote: »

It seems to me the new owners don't know very much about football. They can pump some money in, buy a few good players and win a league or two but what happens when they discover they don't have and never will have the fanbase of a Man Utd or Liverpool and they aren't making the big bucks they thought they would? The big teams in World football have earned their reputations and prestige through years of sustained success and built up their fanbases over generations. Maybe you can buy a premier league but I don't believe you can buy a fanbase. Once they realise this
The Arabs,yanks, Russians etc. will be off!

Have you seen what these guys are worth ? Its being reported at 500 Billion. I think they'll leave the making money bit to oil. Football will very much be a hobby for them.

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

yea but City have Richard Dunne who is something of a hunk

L, not N

Easy mistake to make I suppose...

Mr Alan

did it cross anyone elses mind that the new owners may be acting a little foolishly and jeopardising the take over?

my understanding is they havent got PL clearance for the takeover or anything yet, now.....coming out and conceivably tapping up 4-5 top players from clubs who carry a lot of sway in the PL may not be the wisest idea in the world, and they are hardly painting themselves out to be reasonable and proper owners just yet.

just a thought.

_blank_

Mr Alan is correct.

If the Real/Ronaldo United/Berbatov Liverpool/Keane/Barry stuff was called tapping up, then this stuff that these owners are doing is tapping up.

They really need to shut the hell up at this stage. They are acting like Veruca Salt at this stage.

The Rooster

11 great individuals doesnt always equal a great team!

It will be interesting to see how Abu Dhabi fund Man City. Early indications would seem it'll be done through interest free loans like Abramovich. He didnt pay off all Chelsea's bank debts straight away, but did it over a period of about 4 years so they now pay no interest, which of course is a far better situation to be in than the likes of ManU and Liverpool who had interest expenses of £80m and £30m respectively last year. But Chelsea FC currently owes Abramovich £600m, so a big question mark still hangs over what is going to happen when he decides to go.

I think it should be noted that while Abu Dhabi look like they're treating Man City as a plaything/pastime, at no time was it suggested by Dubai that they were going to treat Liverpool similarly - I thought it had been mentioned that they would run LFC as a business, out of which they intended to make a profit in the long term. They have never said they'd use personal loans rather than bank loans to fund the acqusition and running costs (I'm not saying they won't, but you'd think they make it public if they were to garner additional fan support).

Daemonic

The Rooster wrote: »

I think it should be noted that while Abu Dhabi look like they're treating Man City as a plaything/pastime, at no time was it suggested by Dubai that they were going to treat Liverpool similarly - I thought it had been mentioned that they would run LFC as a business, out of which they intended to make a profit in the long term. They have never said they'd use personal loans rather than bank loans to fund the acqusition and running costs (I'm not saying they won't, but you'd think they make it public if they were to garner additional fan support).

If DIC take over I hope they do run it as a business venture with a view to making a profit. If they're in it for profit then they will try to make good use of the Liverpool brand and will hopefully fund the new stadium which is the key to long term success. All this is better for Liverpool than being the plaything of someone who may see something shinier that they want to play with instead and suddenly finding themsleves f$$$ed.

Killme00

I think its great and exactly what the PL needed.

gixerfixer

grahamo wrote: »

Ronaldo at City? Torres at City? Kaka at City? The City owners are having a laugh! City simply don't have the prestige to attract top players!
Sure they got Robinho, but only cos Calderon didn't want him going to Chelsea as he believed Chelsea f**ked them over!
It seems to me the new owners don't know very much about football. They can pump some money in, buy a few good players and win a league or two but what happens when they discover they don't have and never will have the fanbase of a Man Utd or Liverpool and they aren't making the big bucks they thought they would? The big teams in World football have earned their reputations and prestige through years of sustained success and built up their fanbases over generations. Maybe you can buy a premier league but I don't believe you can buy a fanbase. Once they realise this
The Arabs,yanks, Russians etc. will be off!

Fail. Chelsea shirts where more in evidence in my kids classroom on their first day back at school on Monday. What does that tell you.

The Rooster

gixerfixer wrote: »

Fail. Chelsea shirts where more in evidence in my kids classroom on their first day back at school on Monday. What does that tell you.

..that most of their Dads have either no interest in football ?:D

_blank_

The Rooster wrote: »

..that most of their Dads have either no interest in football ?

...er...or what?

grahamo

gixerfixer wrote: »

Fail. Chelsea shirts where more in evidence in my kids classroom on their first day back at school on Monday. What does that tell you.

As said above..that tells me their Da's don't follow football. If these kids are still wearing Chelsea jerseys in 5-10 years time then fair play to them but I doubt they will. Most Football fans end up following the team their Da supports, These kids will more than likely follow that team loyally throughout their lives.

gixerfixer

grahamo wrote: »

As said above..that tells me their Da's don't follow football. If these kids are still wearing Chelsea jerseys in 5-10 years time then fair play to them but I doubt they will. Most Football fans end up following the team their Da supports, These kids will more than likely follow that team loyally throughout their lives.

Well that's an opinion fair enough,but i'd say it means that kids will follow teams that win things and Chelsea do win things. Lets face it the reason most of us follow the club we support is because they won leagues/European cups etc.. I mean i love Liverpool but my dad supported (leeds :pac:) but because when i was a kid Liverpool dominated everything and i watched them all the time.Same thing will happen to City if they win titles and European cups. That's how you build a fan base

MIN2511

Mr Alan wrote: »

did it cross anyone elses mind that the new owners may be acting a little foolishly and jeopardising the take over?

my understanding is they havent got PL clearance for the takeover or anything yet, now.....coming out and conceivably tapping up 4-5 top players from clubs who carry a lot of sway in the PL may not be the wisest idea in the world, and they are hardly painting themselves out to be reasonable and proper owners just yet.

just a thought.

I thought about this as well, especially at the rate they are going. Funny thing is i don't think they would have any problem.. As usual money talks in football, i reckon they've been trying to acquire a football club as a pet project. Citeh at this stage seems like a pet project, i hope they have good advisers!

grahamo

I don't think anyone would buy a football club to run as a hobby. Its been bought to make money.
I'd imagine the long term view of oil rich arabs is that oil is drying up and its time to invest elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see if they can turn City into a major force. I doubt it.
Worth a try though. After paying up to buy out City they could still put a couple of hundred million into the transfer coffers and it would still end up costing less overall than they would have had to pay to buy out United or Liverpool etc.

Xavi6

Xavi6 wrote: »

You're right, we don't but we have the money. Bit like Chelsea 5 years ago.

Chelsea didnt manage to sign anyone of the caliber of Ronaldo, Torres, Fabregas, Messi etc 5 years ago.

They put in silly bids for Raul and a few others and got turned down.


Until u guys get in the CL ur gonna have to wait until the City rent boy syndrome takes full effect.


As long as your fans don't start waving money at the opposition the way Chawseas fans did, Id cringe for u!

Mr Alan

SSN reporting they made a bid of 50m for Torres on the last day of the window.

keep dreaming City.

RasTa

SSN has turned into the Daily Mail of reporting.

Mr Alan

it has gone a little bit overboard this summer alright. standards are slipping somewhat

MIN2511

They sound like tatler or one of them cheap rags...

I expected a lot more from them! This rumour mongering is way OTT

_blank_

Mr Alan wrote: »

standards are slipping somewhat

lol

delija_sever029

10 pages on this thread???

It was just enough to say,dream on City

hussey

He is like those millionaire's that I never meet, the ones, which go into a club lay down their wad of money just to piss everyone else off .... and what happens at the end of the night?

Lots of Coke and hundreds of girls ... but in the end are they happy?

aidan24326

grahamo wrote: »

Ronaldo at City? Torres at City? Kaka at City? The City owners are having a laugh! City simply don't have the prestige to attract top players!

That could all change though. If they got into the champions league that would raise their profile immediately. And they do have a sizeable fanbase as it is, the average Joe Public in Manchester is more likely to be a City fan than a United fan.

Remember 12 or 13 years ago Chelsea didn't have anything like the prestige that they have now. But Glenn Hoddle managed to get Ruud Gullit to the club and people took notice. Then they got the likes of Zola and Vialli in and it all took off for them. No reason why something similiar couldn't happen with City, though Chelsea did have the advantage of being in London but other than that the situation is no different.

jaykay74 wrote: »

Have you seen what these guys are worth ? Its being reported at 500 Billion. I think they'll leave the making money bit to oil. Football will very much be a hobby for them.

Hardly 500 billion, that would mean they're about 10 times wealthier than Bill Gates which is surely impossible as he's still ranked richest man in the world. But we can assume they're very wealthy all the same!

One thing's for sure the January transfer window just got interesting! Reports in the papers suggest they're going to target not just Ronaldo but all the best players, Torres, Fabregas etc, and will test the resolve of the clubs in question with the sort of big money offers that have to be considered no matter who the player.

jaykay74

aidan24326 wrote: »

Hardly 500 billion, that would mean they're about 10 times wealthier than Bill Gates which is surely impossible as he's still ranked richest man in the world. But we can assume they're very wealthy all the same!

One thing's for sure the January transfer window just got interesting! Reports in the papers suggest they're going to target not just Ronaldo but all the best players, Torres, Fabregas etc, and will test the resolve of the clubs in question with the sort of big money offers that have to be considered no matter who the player.

500 billion Sterling is what is being reported anyway as the potential worth of the group (don't think it refers to individual person).

...the Abu Dhabi United Group, is, by most outside estimates, worth a trillion dollars, and rising....

http://emirateseconomist.blogspot.com/2008/09/abu-dhabis-purchase-of-manchester-city.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/chelsea/2670891/Chelseas-world-shaken-up-by-Manchester-Citys-super-rich-sheikh---Football.html

aidan24326

jaykay74 wrote: »

500 billion Sterling is what is being reported anyway as the potential worth of the group (don't think it refers to individual person).

Ah I see what you mean, it's the estimated wealth of the group rather than one man. That's some money alright. They've supposedly told Mark Hughes that he will be given 200 million sterling to spend over the next couple of years, so if that's true they will be a serious player in the transfer market. Whether they'll be able to attract the kind of players they want is hard to know, but getting Robinho is a good start (even though I think they paid over the odds for him).

MIN2511

aidan24326 wrote: »

Ah I see what you mean, it's the estimated wealth of the group rather than one man. That's some money alright. They've supposedly told Mark Hughes that he will be given 200 million sterling to spend over the next couple of years, so if that's true they will be a serious player in the transfer market. Whether they'll be able to attract the kind of players they want is hard to know, but getting Robinho is a good start (even though I think they paid over the odds for him).

Mark Hughes must be one happy manager...

Dave!

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/08/09/06/manual_143944.html

Arsenal midfielder Cesc Fabregas feels it would be "suicidal" for his career if he were to sign for Manchester City.

Backed by the financial muscle of Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment (ADUG), new City owner Dr Sulaiman Al-Fahim recently revealed his ambition to add a number of world-class players to the squad.

Fabregas and Liverpool striker Fernando Torres are reportedly among the list of targets, while Al-Fahim went as far as to hint at a £135million bid for Manchester United winger Cristiano Ronaldo.

Gunners star Fabregas, though, has no intention of leaving the Emirates Stadium should City bid for services in the next transfer window as he feels a move to Eastlands would prove detrimental to his career.

The Spain international said in the Telegraph: "It would be suicidal for my career at 21 years of age to move to City. It would make no sense."



I suspect we'll see alot more quotes of that ilk than "golly gosh, I'd just love to join Manchester city!!!"