Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Kaka's sale
AC Milan - Milanfan.com > AC Milan > Polls
dst
I don't think he would have left Milan or that he asked for more money in order to stay. If the latter had happened though I think Milan would be right to refuse a pay rise, he was already earning more than enough.
Bluesummers
My answer is 1. He def would not have left. He's come out many times himself and said that he was forced to leave because the club was in debt. Was it a mistake selling him? I thinkso. I would rather be in debt and pay it off over time like 99% of all clubs out there, than lose our future captain and legend only to fix the debt. Thats how I feel but not in regards to just kaka. I would feel the same for any of our loyal players even pirlo/gattuso etc.


If inter/juve can be in debt and pay it over a period of time, then why can't we? Berlu is just stupid imo and would rather have a healthy balance account than a competitive team that can challenge on all fronts.
m1ke
QUOTE (Bluesummers @ Aug 19 2009, 10:07 AM) *
Berlu is just stupid imo and would rather have a healthy balance account than a competitive team that can challenge on all fronts.

Whilst I pretty much agree, I don't think we're in a position to call him stupid. It's a lot of money (and it's his, not ours) - plus, it's a sensible thing to do from a financial point of view.

It's a shame though, because he's irreplaceable in my opinion. I guess time will tell if Milan have made the right move.
Bluesummers
QUOTE (m1ke @ Aug 19 2009, 04:13 AM) *
Whilst I pretty much agree, I don't think we're in a position to call him stupid. It's a lot of money (and it's his, not ours) - plus, it's a sensible thing to do from a financial point of view.

It's a shame though, because he's irreplaceable in my opinion. I guess time will tell if Milan have made the right move.

It doesn't have to be his money though, thats the beauty of it. Juve don't have a rich owner, yet they have money to spend??? Barca/madrid they are in the same boat yet nothing is stopping them. We can borrow a small 50 million from the bank and pay it off over 3-5 years like all clubs do. I'm not talking about hundreds of millions in debt; i'm talking about a small amount in order to rejuvunate the squad and make it competitive. If we are able to do well and perhaps win a trophy or at least get close to it, our profits will raise from where they are and we can pay back a portion of this.


But berlu does not want to do that at all. He wants to spend what we earn, which imo cannot work in football today. If clubs like mancity have unlimited accounts how can we compete? Either we stop them and put a cap or make new rules or we have to borrow to cope and pay it off over time like everyone else. What we cannot do is ignore the problem and allow ourselves to stoop lower and lower and cause our team's name further damage than already has been done.

Jmo.
Jack Sparrow
@Bluey: You have also to realise that loans come up with interest. 5 years ago, 50 million would give you one worldclass player and enough money left to tie him to a 4 year contract at the club.

Now 50 million might just give you the player.

Don't forget bank loans will come with high interest.

So essentially if you buy a player for 50 million...assuming a bank interest of 5%(very very generous indeed) and player's wages of 7 million a year(still cheap)

After four years you have to pay: Loan Principal (50mill)+Interest(10 million) + Wages (28 million)

Please note this is simple interest I've used. Banks everywhere use compounded interest now!

So a grand total of 88 million. And this is just for one player and for a small amount as loan.

Now Manchester has loans of 700 + million.

Real has 220 MM in loan just for two players. What about the other players who they've purchased before and now need to sell at a loss (KJH for instance)? Those loans don't stop having to be paid, just coz the player left the club. Real also has an additional 300 (or was it 400) MM from before in debt.

So now do the math yourself, and calculate how much time do you mean when you say 'pay over time'.


See Bluey, unlike a stadium which makes sense. 700 million at one go true, but Arsenal have a regular source of income as well as an appreciating asset thanks to real estate, players are nothing like that. Borrowing money to buy a player is always going to be a loss. You'd really need to win big, to earn the kind of money to pay off that kind of debt (hell..considering the mortgaged assets, I'd say staying in existence) forget making profit.


This is where Man U, Liverpool, Madrid etc. have shot themselves in the foot. This is also where Arsenal are safe. They're in debt, but they don't HAVE to win big to survive (unlike Leeds). This is where Man City and Chelsea are safe(1 billion in debt...but interest free...and the owner will remain).



From Silvio's point he's done right. The club would continue to bleed money if they loans are not closed immediately. Could he instead have gone the Abramovich route and given us the money direct. Sure! But he'd argue he'd done that back in 1986 and it's about time he stopped.

AC Milan is registered as a subsidiary company of Finninvest. As long as it remains a commercial enterprise it will need to maintain balance books. Regardless of the cost. That unfortunately is a sad reality, I'm starting to realise.
Danny
Either I've messed up or you can't vote anything other than option 3 because you're supposed to vote in both sections.
Tennie
Blue, just for the record, Juve's owners are probably richer than Milan's. The Agnelli family (now the Elkan family) own Fiat (and also Alfa Romeo, Ferrarri, etc).

While I'm not sure if Kaka really wanted to go or not, I do think the club was right not to offer him yet another raise in order to stay (so yes, good as he is, I don't think anyone's irreplacable). I also think there's a bit of a money whore about him whether he actually asked for the raises or not. He coudl also have taken a massive salary cut to stay if it were truly a money issue.
han2503
QUOTE (Tennie @ Aug 19 2009, 11:02 AM) *
Blue, just for the record, Juve's owners are probably richer than Milan's. The Agnelli family (now the Elkan family) own Fiat (and also Alfa Romeo, Ferrarri, etc).

While I'm not sure if Kaka really wanted to go or not, I do think the club was right not to offer him yet another raise in order to stay (so yes, good as he is, I don't think anyone's irreplacable). I also think there's a bit of a money whore about him whether he actually asked for the raises or not. He coudl also have taken a massive salary cut to stay if it were truly a money issue.

A salary cut still wouldn't have made any difference, Milan needed the instant money and their answer for that was to sell Kaka.

And how come people want Kaka to get the massive salary cut when you've got Dida, Kaladze, Seedorf making 4m a season??? So Kaka gets a massive cut and gets put in the Favalli league of salaries, our most deserved earner by far since he's practically carried the entire team after Sheva left but Dida, Kaladze, etc still get their 4m a season while they're either using up our medical resources or just plain screwing everything up and costing us matches, how is this in any way fair I do not understand...

And money whore??? Concidering that he has been one of the top 3 players in the world for quite sometime I think he wasn't paid enough when comparing what Messi, C.Ronaldo and even Ibrahimovic got and the latter wasn't even in contention for any of the personal prises and failed his team on a yearly bases in the CL.
Tennie
Seems there's a bit of disagreement. smile.gif I'm not going to argue with anyone about it, however. I've got my opinion and am welcome to have it; others are equally welcome to their opinions.
kurtsimonw
QUOTE (Danny @ Aug 19 2009, 12:00 PM) *
Either I've messed up or you can't vote anything other than option 3 because you're supposed to vote in both sections.

That threw me as well. I just voted for what I wanted (Option 1) then boted for which one in Option 3 I would have gone for, had I gone for ption 3 (Option 3a).

I think he would have stayed, had he not been forced out the club.
Danny
QUOTE (kurtsimonw @ Aug 19 2009, 12:55 PM) *
That threw me as well. I just voted for what I wanted (Option 1) then boted for which one in Option 3 I would have gone for, had I gone for ption 3 (Option 3a).

I think he would have stayed, had he not been forced out the club.


So, option 2 is potentially redundant but essential to make the poll work tongue.gif

Ok, I'll do that.
dst
^^Yeah like if it was a salary issue (not matter if you think otherwise) you think Milan should have given in?

QUOTE (Bluesummers @ Aug 19 2009, 01:25 PM) *
Juve don't have a rich owner, yet they have money to spend???

What?

QUOTE (Danny @ Aug 19 2009, 02:00 PM) *
Either I've messed up or you can't vote anything other than option 3 because you're supposed to vote in both sections.

Yeah it does not work the way I thought so you have to answer the second question anyway... just answer like you would had you voted for number 3 in the first one.

QUOTE (Tennie @ Aug 19 2009, 02:02 PM) *
He coudl also have taken a massive salary cut to stay if it were truly a money issue.

That's just unfair. Surely 65m + ending of the highest contract cannot be compared to 10m over 3 or 4 years...
il_diavolo_mtl
think hoq much more we would have made if we waited for other signings and played hard to get like inter with ibr and munich with frank. we would have gotten 100M with players maybe
Dzeko
Im not glad we sold Kaka but i don't think it's bad too if they manage to get young prospect players for that moneys.
Kaka was forced to leave the club i know but that's the way the life goes, it's was not up to him to decide but the time will show was to our managment was it right or no... Look at the Shevchenko sample and look what hapend to him? May be there is somthings that we can't see coes we are onlly watching 90 minuts of the game and making opinions of the players...



Protagonist
I think it is pretty clear that it was all down to us needing that cash. I don't think Ricky ever wanted to leave, but this is our fate.

Bluesummers
QUOTE (Jack Sparrow @ Aug 19 2009, 04:45 AM) *
AC Milan is registered as a subsidiary company of Finninvest. As long as it remains a commercial enterprise it will need to maintain balance books. Regardless of the cost. That unfortunately is a sad reality, I'm starting to realise.

I understand all your points and it makes sense but explain to me a few things. Why is the majority of clubs on loan deals etc and we can't be? Second why do you think silvio doesn't sell the club.
TriniKing_CE
I haven't gotten to vote yet sad.gif

QUOTE
> Board MessageSorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

The error returned was:
You did not choose a poll choice to vote against. Please go back and ensure you click on one of the radio buttons next to the choice you wish to vote for


...
mad.gif
han2503
QUOTE (TriniKing_CE @ Aug 19 2009, 11:07 PM) *
I haven't gotten to vote yet sad.gif



...
mad.gif

Just vote for both questions.

I voted for option 1a as I think he was forced out and also for 2a as I think that if it had come down to his salary Milan should have given it to him no questions asked. If you want to be a big club and have the star players then you have to pay them what they earn, and concidering Kaka had been carrying this team for 3 years he should have been paid better.
Jack Sparrow
I voted 1a and 2b.

If he'd wanted out, he could have placed a transfer request. I don't consider having opted for Madrid over City an act of betrayal. He did the right thing for himself without screwing us. If the club wanted to keep him, they coulda given Perez the same treatment as they did Calderon. In fact they stopped short of wrapping Kaka up in gift paper, once Kaka said he'd go.

That's the only decent thing Milan did. They didn't sell him off to City, despite the higher money. They had some interest of the player in heart.

2b. You cannot raise Kaka's wage without raising the wage of others. He carried the team? He carried the attack. Maldini carried the defence for nearly 2 years . What if Maldini demanded a raise on par with Kaka? In that I agree with the club saying a rise in Kaka's wage automatically translated to a rise in all player's wages to make it proportionate.

Kaka was earning 9 million. The next highest was Berlusca's boytoy R80 @7. While Pirlo was earning around 5-6 million. I think that's a fair reflection of each one's importance to the team.

Bluesummers
QUOTE (Jack Sparrow @ Aug 20 2009, 09:10 AM) *
I voted 1a and 2b.

If he'd wanted out, he could have placed a transfer request. I don't consider having opted for Madrid over City an act of betrayal. He did the right thing for himself without screwing us. If the club wanted to keep him, they coulda given Perez the same treatment as they did Calderon. In fact they stopped short of wrapping Kaka up in gift paper, once Kaka said he'd go.

That's the only decent thing Milan did. They didn't sell him off to City, despite the higher money. They had some interest of the player in heart.

2b. You cannot raise Kaka's wage without raising the wage of others. He carried the team? He carried the attack. Maldini carried the defence for nearly 2 years . What if Maldini demanded a raise on par with Kaka? In that I agree with the club saying a rise in Kaka's wage automatically translated to a rise in all player's wages to make it proportionate.

Kaka was earning 9 million. The next highest was Berlusca's boytoy R80 @7. While Pirlo was earning around 5-6 million. I think that's a fair reflection of each one's importance to the team.

I agree with both you and han. Am I going crazy? unsure.gif
ganney
QUOTE (Jack Sparrow @ Aug 20 2009, 04:10 PM) *
I voted 1a and 2b.

If he'd wanted out, he could have placed a transfer request. I don't consider having opted for Madrid over City an act of betrayal. He did the right thing for himself without screwing us. If the club wanted to keep him, they coulda given Perez the same treatment as they did Calderon. In fact they stopped short of wrapping Kaka up in gift paper, once Kaka said he'd go.

That's the only decent thing Milan did. They didn't sell him off to City, despite the higher money. They had some interest of the player in heart.

2b. You cannot raise Kaka's wage without raising the wage of others. He carried the team? He carried the attack. Maldini carried the defence for nearly 2 years . What if Maldini demanded a raise on par with Kaka? In that I agree with the club saying a rise in Kaka's wage automatically translated to a rise in all player's wages to make it proportionate.

Kaka was earning 9 million. The next highest was Berlusca's boytoy R80 @7. While Pirlo was earning around 5-6 million. I think that's a fair reflection of each one's importance to the team.


every player's got a price, i think we got a good deal too
han2503
QUOTE (ganney @ Aug 20 2009, 10:13 PM) *
every player's got a price, i think we got a good deal too

Looking at what Inter got for Ibra we were flat out robbed on the Kaka deal. Had the management not been so money hungry that they could barely wait for the season to end before selling him we would have gotten a much better deal. And the fact that we didn't involve any Real players in the deal is even more ridiculous, expecially concidering the fact that we bought Huntelaar off them a couple of months later rolleyes.gif

Our management have gone from the best around when it comes to transfer dealings to the ones that get played by everyone.
Maestro10
And so what else is new ? laugh.gif Our management is a joke and our team is the laughing stock of the world!
Bluesummers
QUOTE (Maestro10 @ Aug 20 2009, 04:43 PM) *
And so what else is new ? laugh.gif Our management is a joke and our team is the laughing stock of the world!

laugh.gif
Jack Sparrow
QUOTE (han2503 @ Aug 21 2009, 04:07 AM) *
Looking at what Inter got for Ibra we were flat out robbed on the Kaka deal. Had the management not been so money hungry that they could barely wait for the season to end before selling him we would have gotten a much better deal. And the fact that we didn't involve any Real players in the deal is even more ridiculous, expecially concidering the fact that we bought Huntelaar off them a couple of months later rolleyes.gif

Our management have gone from the best around when it comes to transfer dealings to the ones that get played by everyone.



I think our deal came with strings attached.

For one, both CR and Kaka went for straight cash. While Ibra's for all you know might be instalments. Secondly the first preference for their players also played into our hands.

We did get Huntelaar for really cheap. Considering that just a year back he was worth 26 million. I don't think it was an all bad deal.
dst
We should have gotten a player in that deal, then you'd be able to say we did the best we could. What we got is surely not peanuts in any sense but then you look at CR and Ibra and you think we could have pushed for some more. The deal was finalized very quickly...
Jack Sparrow
Considering the seasons off which CR and Kaka were coming off, I don't think we can argue about the different pricings.

It's the difference in price between the world player of the year and former world player of the year. Our emotions might tell us otherwise, but that's not something transfer market pays any attention to.

Ibra was something, I still feel Barca did to keep up with the Madrids. Was Eto'o really worth the remaining amount which would make up for the Kaka sale amount? Considering he had one season left and wouldn't get his contract renewed, realistically he was worth maybe 15-18 million for Barca if they put him up for sale this season. A player exchange was the only thing they could do. So they cleaned up the house and got a good player in the bargain. While Inter's pre-season doesn't seem to suggest Eto'o will become the player Ibra was to them.

We might have pushed for more, but I think the plan on Galliani's part was to do this early as possible. To do it late in the transfer campaign (assuming extensive negotiations) would have destabilised the team. Kind of what happened with Berbatov and Spurs.
Zed.D
I feel Kaka wanted to stay but I can't imagine leaving for Madrid was the end of the world for him by any means. if he had been given the freedom of choice when Madrid's offer arrived, I think he would've stayed just like he did about their previous offers. but he was asked (not forced) to leave, so he just accepted it.
I also think the club didn't really bother to sell him to Man City for that crazy money, but they had enough dignity left to not force him join a club which he obviously didn't want to join. bottom line, I think money wasn't an issue for Kaka as he was already one of the the 2 top earners in the world IINM so I definitely disagree that he's a money whore.

So my votes are 1a and 2b.
dst
QUOTE (Jack Sparrow @ Aug 21 2009, 02:24 PM) *
Considering the seasons off which CR and Kaka were coming off, I don't think we can argue about the different pricings.

It's the difference in price between the world player of the year and former world player of the year. Our emotions might tell us otherwise, but that's not something transfer market pays any attention to.

Ibra was something, I still feel Barca did to keep up with the Madrids. Was Eto'o really worth the remaining amount which would make up for the Kaka sale amount? Considering he had one season left and wouldn't get his contract renewed, realistically he was worth maybe 15-18 million for Barca if they put him up for sale this season. A player exchange was the only thing they could do. So they cleaned up the house and got a good player in the bargain. While Inter's pre-season doesn't seem to suggest Eto'o will become the player Ibra was to them.

We might have pushed for more, but I think the plan on Galliani's part was to do this early as possible. To do it late in the transfer campaign (assuming extensive negotiations) would have destabilised the team. Kind of what happened with Berbatov and Spurs.

None of the two deserve that money, we're talking Madrid here, you really think that they'd say no if we had asked for 80m or as much as we asked + a player? I'm sure they'd just splash the money. I did not talk about doing it late, this was on the other side, one day we hear Galliani is in Madrid to talk about Kaka the next he is officially gone...
il_diavolo_mtl
Yeah we could have milked this alot more then we did, Kaka' is 10x times the player Ribery is yet madrid were ready to plash out 80M plus Robben and Sneijder. Look at the ibra deal, you're telling me we couln't of gotten Klaas as part of that deal?!
Bluesummers
If we were smart we should have went 50 million + sneijder and huntelaar. But ofcourse our stupid management thinks that getting our balance to zero as fast as possible is the correct way to do things. So instead we got 53m plus huntelaar rolleyes.gif by first getting the money 68 million to clear our accounts and then realising oh noes we need to buy players, back to madrid.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.