Everyone wants Spain this transfer season

Warper

With the transfer season kicking off it seems Barca and Real are the 2 teams that most players want to move to this year. It is easy to see why - tradition, wages, fame, success, climate and gorgeous chicks. Is there a changing of the guard from England to spain this year?

I mean if you had a choice - Barca or Utd? or Real or Chelsea? Where would you pick?

Barca are the European Champions and Madrid are building a superstar team again.

Mitch Connor

I'll be interested to hear Platini come out with his "Spanish teams are ruining football with their dominance of the transfer market" speach.

Barcelona are going to be formidable, but i'd be more worried about Madrid if they started buying some good defensive players, which they currently show no signs of doing.

mike65

Only so many spots up for grabs though.

Xavi6

Warper wrote: »

I mean if you had a choice - Barca or Utd? or Real or Chelsea? Where would you pick?

City :pac:

Mitch Connor

Xavi6 wrote: »

City :pac:

Kaka clearly disagrees.:p

Warper

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'll be interested to hear Platini come out with his "Spanish teams are ruining football with their dominance of the transfer market" speach.

Barcelona are going to be formidable, but i'd be more worried about Madrid if they started buying some good defensive players, which they currently show no signs of doing.

Madrid are crazy - they are after a host of top-class players but no mention whatsoever of any defensive players. Perez just wants another team of "galacticos". Thats said their forward line will be awesome next year. Should be a fascinating La Liga and CL.

gimmick

The almighty dollar will almost always prevail. English dominance will continue.

I mean if you had a choice - Barca or Utd? or Real or Chelsea? Where would you pick?

Presumably a player will look at both money, and his chances of starting. Would a centre midfielder choose Man U or Barca? Prob Man U. Would a centre half choose Man U or Barca? Probably Barca.

With regard to Madrid, they are paying too much money for players. €56 already for Kaka and Perez has every intention of spending more again on Ronaldo. The only defender mentioned is Albiol, and while he is a decent player, he certainly is not the answer for their defensive problems. They need the likes of Mascherano to play in front of their back 4. Plus, Cannavaro is gone, who will be a huge loss, in a way that "you don't know what you got til its gone".

Warper

Ya but Kaka is a brilliant player who is still young. £56m is a lot but if he stays injury-free he could be worth it. With shirt-sales, increased exposure to Madrid, better performances etc.

They are buying a truly world-class player and he cost just a bit more than Nani and Berbatov combined so when you look at it that way......

slingerz

Abidol is a good defender though and would be a smart move for Madrid

Eire-Dearg

Everyone as in some of England's top players, and Italy's player?

An Citeog

gimmick wrote: »

The almighty dollar will almost always prevail. English dominance will continue.



Presumably a player will look at both money, and his chances of starting. Would a centre midfielder choose Man U or Barca? Prob Man U. Would a centre half choose Man U or Barca? Probably Barca.

With regard to Madrid, they are paying too much money for players. €56 already for Kaka and Perez has every intention of spending more again on Ronaldo. The only defender mentioned is Albiol, and while he is a decent player, he certainly is not the answer for their defensive problems. They need the likes of Mascherano to play in front of their back 4. Plus, Cannavaro is gone, who will be a huge loss, in a way that "you don't know what you got til its gone".

I'd agree with all of that apart from the Mascherano point. Diarra (Lass) has been very good since he came in January and I reckon he'll be a key player for Madrid next season. What they really need are defenders. Ramos will definitely start and unless Perez decides that Pepe is too loose a cannon, he'll probably be a definite starter aswell. Marcelo, Torres and Heinze just aren't good enough to be starting imo, so Real badly need a new left back and new centre half.

The other area where they need strengthening is on the wings. The lack of a replacement for Robinho really hurt them. I thought Robben had a very good season and if they can keep him fit again this year, I'd expect him to top it. They just desperately need a right winger. They tried Sneijder on the wing and it just didn't work out, mainly because of his attitude. Marcelo isn't good enough there for a top team and Drenthe has been treated disgracefully and I'd be very surprised if he doesn't leave this summer. They've got way too many AMC players aswell in Sneijder, Van der Vaart, Guti, De la Red and now Kaka. Gago's another who I'd high hopes for but he's been dissappointing. So, in summary, what they really need to do is trim the fat here and get in a decent right winger (I don't think they could afford another world record transfer fee for Ronaldo, especially with the state the Spanish economy's in).

Up front, they've got Higuain who's just had a very good season and the ageing Raul and Van Nistelrooy (if he manages to recover). I think this is the area where they really need a new galactico and David Villa seems like the answer to me.

In summary, Madrid need a new centre half, left back, right winger and David Villa. It'll all depend on how the team gels if they're to realistically challenge Barça for the title though.

joe123

What did they do to Drenthe? I remember seeing him in the u21 tournament last year I think it was and he was amazing.

Headshot

joe123 wrote: »

What did they do to Drenthe? I remember seeing him in the u21 tournament last year I think it was and he was amazing.

sub bench

Quint

How can Madrid afford this? Another dodgy land deal with the Spanish government? Funny that everyone hates Chelsea and Man City for having righ owners, but Madrid have being doing the same for years.

gustavo

Quint wrote: »

How can Madrid afford this? Another dodgy land deal with the Spanish government? Funny that everyone hates Chelsea and Man City for having righ owners, but Madrid have being doing the same for years.

Presumably because players have wanted to join Real for the prestige and history and they've always been one of the biggest teams in the world whereas the other 2 haven't .

The Hustler

Nonsense - League One is where it's at this summer

Everyone wants to come to Super Leeds!

Quint

gustavo wrote: »

Presumably because players have wanted to join Real for the prestige and history and they've always been one of the biggest teams in the world whereas the other 2 haven't .

I'm talking about fans. Madrid are a club with a rotten history of tapping up players, goverment handouts, dodgy dealings with General Franco, feck "prestige". After a bad year and a fantastic one from Barca all of a sudden they find the money to buy a €65m player, possibly another for the same price and throw in a couple of cheap €30m.

JPA

How Real Madrid can afford to buy Kaká

Mitch Connor

Quint wrote: »

How can Madrid afford this? Another dodgy land deal with the Spanish government? Funny that everyone hates Chelsea and Man City for having righ owners, but Madrid have being doing the same for years.

Yeah, you are right, nobody hates on Madrid. United fans only have lovely things to say about them.

In reality, plenty of people despise Madrid and having been saying so for years and years.

kinaldo

Where are Madrid getting the money? They always have money. Even when they're in debt, they can service the debt without much hassle. And as a businessman, Florentino Perez is fantastic. He completely overhauled their £200m+ debt back in 2001 and made them the most marketable club in the world. Apparantly he dipped into his own pocket to lure Figo. As Spain's biggest employer, he knows how to pay the biils.

sweetie

An Citeog wrote: »

I
Up front, they've got Higuain who's just had a very good season and the ageing Raul and Van Nistelrooy (if he manages to recover). I think this is the area where they really need a new galactico and David Villa seems like the answer to me.

In summary, Madrid need a new centre half, left back, right winger and David Villa. It'll all depend on how the team gels if they're to realistically challenge Barça for the title though.

what about van huntelaar

Mitch Connor

kinaldo wrote: »

Where are Madrid getting the money? They always have money. Even when they're in debt, they can service the debt without much hassle. And as a businessman, Florentino Perez is fantastic. He completely overhauled their £200m+ debt back in 2001 and made them the most marketable club in the world. Apparantly he dipped into his own pocket to lure Figo. As Spain's biggest employer, he knows how to pay the biils.

They overhauled that 200million debt thanks to a disguised handout from the government (they bought madrids training ground for far, FAR above what it was worth AND built them a new, better training ground). It was not great business that got them out of that debt, it was a handout from the government, which is quite common in their history.

An Citeog

joe123 wrote: »

What did they do to Drenthe? I remember seeing him in the u21 tournament last year I think it was and he was amazing.

Basically, his confidence has been completely destroyed and he asked not to be picked because of the amount of the way he was treated by the Madrid fans. It's bad enough when your own fans boo you but when they collectively laugh at and jeer every mistake that a 21 year old makes, it's nothing short of disgraceful.

sweetie wrote: »

what about van huntelaar

Yeah, I've no idea how I forgot about Huntelaar but it'll be extremely difficult to keep 5 high profile strikers happy if Villa does come. Saviola's definitely gone and I reckon Madrid will probably need to offload another striker. It definitely wont be Raul or Higuain, so you're left with Van Nistelrooy and Huntelaar. I could be wrong though.

ArmaniJeanss

JPA wrote: »

How Real Madrid can afford to buy Kaká

The income tax thing is interesting, 23% in Spain, 50% in the UK, so an EPL team has to pay a gross wage ~50% more to pay the same net wage.

Also EPL-based Euroland-origin players have seen their wages (when converted to Euros) fall by about 30% in the last 2 years.

Suddenly the EPL (with its extra games, no Xmas break, lousy weather, bad food etc) doesn't seem quite so attractive anymore for the average megastar?

Quint

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Yeah, you are right, nobody hates on Madrid. United fans only have lovely things to say about them.

In reality, plenty of people despise Madrid and having been saying so for years and years.

Obviously a lot of fans don't like them, but they're not despised like Chelsea and city.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The income tax thing is interesting, 23% in Spain, 50% in the UK, so an EPL team has to pay a gross wage ~50% more to pay the same net wage.

Also EPL-based Euroland-origin players have seen their wages (when converted to Euros) fall by about 30% in the last 2 years.

Suddenly the EPL (with its extra games, no Xmas break, lousy weather, bad food etc) doesn't seem quite so attractive anymore for the average megastar?

The EPL has extra games? It's 38, same as Spain. As for food, a quick check on google says that UK has 230 Michelin star restaurants compared with 123 in Spain:D

gimmick

Quint wrote: »

Obviously a lot of fans don't like them, but they're not despised like Chelsea and city.

In England and Ireland perhaps, but can you say that is the truth in Spain?

Quint

gimmick wrote: »

In England and Ireland perhaps, but can you say that is the truth in Spain?

They're loved in Barcelona:pac:

Warper

I say Europeans know hardly anything about City - sure how could they. Sure Robinho knew nothing about them and that was after the he signed for them.

Sure most of the top English clubs are owned by wealthy businessmen - Utd are owned by the Glaziers yet it amazes me that they dont seem to be held in the same capacity as Chelsea. Utd have spent more than Chelsea over the last couple of years on players. Liverpool are the exact same - owned by wealthy American business - Hicks, and again spending millions every year on players. Yet Chelsea and City are the only 2 that come under fire?????????

Utd and Liverpool are big business owned by businessmen - something Barcelona and Real are not. It is quite clear which of these clubs have sold their soul.

Mitch Connor

Warper wrote: »

I say Europeans know hardly anything about City - sure how could they. Sure Robinho knew nothing about them and that was after the he signed for them.

Sure most of the top English clubs are owned by wealthy businessmen - Utd are owned by the Glaziers yet it amazes me that they dont seem to be held in the same capacity as Chelsea. Utd have spent more than Chelsea over the last couple of years on players. Liverpool are the exact same - owned by wealthy American business - Hicks, and again spending millions every year on players. Yet Chelsea and City are the only 2 that come under fire?????????

Utd and Liverpool are big business owned by businessmen - something Barcelona and Real are not. It is quite clear which of these clubs have sold their soul.

Massive difference between United and Liverpool in comparison to Chelsea and City.

The simple fact is that neither the Glazers nor Hicks and Gillette have funded the United or Liverpool. The clubs have to service the debts put on them by the owners, the clubs have to find the revenue streams to fund player purchases and wage costs. United and Liverpool buy their player and pay them, and are succesfull in spite of their ownership. As one united staffer was heard to say at OT not so long ago - "If it wasn't for the Glazers, we'd have more money than we knew what to do with".

In the case of City and Chelsea, their owners are bank rolling them. They make operating losses, yet spend big (City not so much yet). Neither club could afford the players they have bought, or the wages they are or will soon be paying without their owners paying for it.

United and Liverpool earn the money they spend through their own business practices, be it merchandising or sponsorship or whatever. City and Chelsea could simply not afford to act and spend the way they do based on their business practices.

That is the difference, and it is a pretty big one imo.

Looking at Madrid - they are massively in debt through the way they have conducted business - they are not in debt because of building a stadium, or because someone bought them and lumped the payment back on to the club, they are in debt, massively, because they are poorly run. Again, with them, they could not afford their Galactico's without being bankrolled by the Spanish government and Perez and his backers.

One Cold Hand

gimmick wrote: »

€56 already for Kaka

Not bad imo. Could almost get 4 Kaka's for my dole pay.

MementoMori

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The income tax thing is interesting, 23% in Spain, 50% in the UK, so an EPL team has to pay a gross wage ~50% more to pay the same net wage.

Also EPL-based Euroland-origin players have seen their wages (when converted to Euros) fall by about 30% in the last 2 years.

Suddenly the EPL (with its extra games, no Xmas break, lousy weather, bad food etc) doesn't seem quite so attractive anymore for the average megastar?

I think the tax rate thing is definately one of the factors. Players are only interested in what they earn net, so if teams in England want to match the wages on offer in Spain they will have to effectively pay more. It might take them a while for the penny to drop but after Arshavin's comments I'd be surprised if any of the players (or more probably their agents) coming from foreign leagues to the premiership aren't aware of this.

The other thing to consider is the sterling-euro exchange rate. This makes all players from the Eurozone that bit more expensive and at the top end of the market that can make quite a difference. See the issue with Kaka and his price in Euro compared to Sterling

Kaka €68m = £56m at the time
Zidane €73.5m = £45.6m at the time

If an English club had to play a club €73.5m for a player now that would cost them £60.5m, compared to paying £45.6m back in 2001. That's a difference of £15m just down to the change in the exchange rate. Clearly this has to have an impact on matters. On the other side of matters it makes buying players from England that much cheaper for Euro clubs. Given that there has been about a 10% change in the last year. One big example is that if Real Madrid were to buy Ronaldo he has gotten a good couple of million cheaper in the last year soley due to the change in the exchange rate.

There's also the factor that Perez is rembarking on his Galactico policy and has a shedful of cash to spend. Throw in the fact that Barcelona are the hot club after the Champions League combined with the fact that Spain won the Euros it's not that hard to see why Spain is fashionable this summer.

Warper

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Massive difference between United and Liverpool in comparison to Chelsea and City.

The simple fact is that neither the Glazers nor Hicks and Gillette have funded the United or Liverpool. The clubs have to service the debts put on them by the owners, the clubs have to find the revenue streams to fund player purchases and wage costs. United and Liverpool buy their player and pay them, and are succesfull in spite of their ownership. As one united staffer was heard to say at OT not so long ago - "If it wasn't for the Glazers, we'd have more money than we knew what to do with".

In the case of City and Chelsea, their owners are bank rolling them. They make operating losses, yet spend big (City not so much yet). Neither club could afford the players they have bought, or the wages they are or will soon be paying without their owners paying for it.

United and Liverpool earn the money they spend through their own business practices, be it merchandising or sponsorship or whatever. City and Chelsea could simply not afford to act and spend the way they do based on their business practices.

That is the difference, and it is a pretty big one imo.

Looking at Madrid - they are massively in debt through the way they have conducted business - they are not in debt because of building a stadium, or because someone bought them and lumped the payment back on to the club, they are in debt, massively, because they are poorly run. Again, with them, they could not afford their Galactico's without being bankrolled by the Spanish government and Perez and his backers.

Thats all well and good but Utd are in massive debt irregardless of what way you look at it. The Glazers own Utd and the club was almost £700m in debt at the time of the last published accounts. It doesnt matter who funded them originally - once the club went on the SE it was open for takeover. Likewise Liverpool.

Mitch Connor

Warper wrote: »

Thats all well and good but Utd are in massive debt irregardless of what way you look at it. The Glazers own Utd and the club was almost £700m in debt at the time of the last published accounts. It doesnt matter who funded them originally - once the club went on the SE it was open for takeover. Likewise Liverpool.

But that didn't appear to be your original point. You spoke of how United and Liverpool were funded by millionaire owners, just like Chelsea and City - when that simply is not the case. If you want to change the point you are arguing, fire ahead. My girlfriend does that when too when she is wrong.:D

Bubs101

I think if anyone were moving for lifestyle, they'd go for Italy above Spain. Top quality football would probably be England (one Barca does not make the league). Money would probably be England too althought the tax thing makes it difficult to tell. Spain just has the best average because the quality of life is so **** in England and Ireland if you can't get hammered twice a week. That's all their is to do in the British Isles whereas in Europe socializing doesn't revolve around drinking as much so it's probably easier for athletes

mayordenis

Bubs101 wrote: »

I think if anyone were moving for lifestyle, they'd go for Italy above Spain.

What?

Bubs101 wrote: »

Top quality football would probably be England (one Barca does not make the league).

What?

Bubs101 wrote: »

the quality of life is so **** in England and Ireland if you can't get hammered twice a week. That's all their is to do in the British Isles whereas in Europe socializing doesn't revolve around drinking as much so it's probably easier for athletes

What?

Bubs101

mayordenis wrote: »

What?



What?



What?

Stone cold wants his gimmick back

kinaldo

Bubs101 wrote: »

I think if anyone were moving for lifestyle, they'd go for Italy above Spain.

Care to elaborate as to why ''anyone'', or more specifically a footballer, would find the lifestyle in Italy more attractive than Spain..?

Bubs101

kinaldo wrote: »

Care to elaborate as to why ''anyone'', or more specifically a footballer, would find the lifestyle in Italy more attractive than Spain..?

Food is better, women are better and the cities are more interesting.

kinaldo

Bubs101 wrote: »

Food is better, women are better and the cities are more interesting.

In your opinion perhaps. I and millions of others would disagree, on at least two counts.

mayordenis

Bubs101 wrote: »

Food is better, women are better and the cities are more interesting.

Meh I would take the Spanish Food and Cities as first choice, and there are hotties everywhere, but I would reckon the spanish edge it.

Quint

Personally I'd go with Italy. Fantastic cities. Spanish cities seem to be full of scumbags, and the women actually aren't great. Italian food is far better too.

But if you're a footballer it makes no difference, you're going to go to fancy nightclubs where the beautiful people go, eat in Michelin star restaurants and stay in the posher areas.

Royale with Cheese

Italy is a dump, Spain isn't.

mayordenis

Paella ftw

Eire-Dearg

Italy certainly for the food, and maybe the site-seeing, but after Rome there isn't much.

Spain for the women.

JPA

What a weird discussion.
If you have millions and millions you'd have a brilliant lifestyle anywhere on earth.

JP Liz

Well Ronaldo follow Kaka to Real this summer :rolleyes:

Eire-Dearg

JPA wrote: »

What a weird discussion.
If you have millions and millions you'd have a brilliant lifestyle anywhere on earth.

True that, but there's only so much you can do in the English rain.

JPA

Eire-Dearg wrote: »

True that, but there's only so much you can do in the English rain.

Some players like to play and live in an environment that they have been used to all their lives. If weather was a factor then there'd be noone left in England.

Eire-Dearg

JPA wrote: »

Some players like to play and live in an environment that they have been used to all their lives. If weather was a factor then there'd be noone left in England.

Yeah, you're right. Like you said, strange debate. Obviously, there will be certain factors influencing a players movement, but an the end of the day it should be down to the club interested in them. I doubt players are attracted to Barcelona and Real for the local talent.

Bubs101

Eire-Dearg wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. Like you said, strange debate. Obviously, there will be certain factors influencing a players movement, but an the end of the day it should be down to the club interested in them. I doubt players are attracted to Barcelona and Real for the local talent.

Certainly not Newcastle anyway

Quint

Eire-Dearg wrote: »

Italy certainly for the food, and maybe the site-seeing, but after Rome there isn't much.

:eek:

JPA wrote: »

What a weird discussion.
If you have millions and millions you'd have a brilliant lifestyle anywhere on earth.

Exactly