sorry but F off... the fee will be set purely by demand. if there is a demand now that contract length is irrelevant. nobody will wait a year if they are rich enough to pay it. only arsenal would and they are frankly not at the races. 60mil i said in the summer and its still 60mil. if tottenham can get 100mil for a one trick pony like bale? good world cup and the sky is the limit. please for the love of god tell me where bale has commerical value.. a welsh international... who looks like a gorilla who got punched in the face??? does messi fit this models... strong... quick.. etc etc... sorry but no. this is all TV money. simply put there are 2 clubs right now who can pay it Real and city... end of. Talk of utd "stepping in" to the bale deal or the ozil deal was utter tripe.
Arsenal didn't sell RVP, Fabregas or Clichy because they needed the money(they were already the 2nd/3rd richest club in England), they left Arsenal because they wanted to and so will Ramsey if he doesn't get a massive payrise based on his new found worth to the club.
First sentence: It happens all the time in football, just because clubs have cash does not mean they are happy to waste it. Lewandowski to Bayern being a good curretn example of a large club with large funds waiting for a world class player on a free instead of paying over the odds now (which is the only way they could prize him away from dortmund). Second sentence: I agree around £60m is a realistic target But Bale went for £85m not £100m afaik. Third sentence: There were quotes at the time from Madrid president Perez about how Bales commercial value to Madrid matched his football value. It was also documented that a large chunk of the huge wages he is on are down to the negotiations about his image rights etc that Madrid expect to make huge money off of. I might not personally see the attraction but he obviously is worth a lot commercially. Final sentence: Madrid have never signed Messi. And the only two players they have paid that sort of cash for are VERY similar in style (not in ability imo though!), quick strong etc. Not saying Messi wouldn't command a massive fee (being the hands down best player in the world will do that), but that the two mega deals that have happened in the entire history of football that are anywhere near the amount your talking about getting for Suarez, where for a certain type of player by 1 certain club. Also Madrid funded the purchase by selling one of there stars for a large fee (Ozil) so they can't just ouright afford to blow £80m on one player every transfer window, as i say it has only happened twice ever. And City's main need isn't a striker so i can't see them forking that sort of cash out. I do however agree with you that there really are not many clubs in the world who could offer anywhere near that sort of money for one player.
Completely and utterly wrong. We sold RVP because with a year left on his contract he wouldn't renew his deal (understandable considering his worry about being in the twilight of his career and not having a leaue title). Wenger wanted to keep him and let him go on a free a year later if we couldn't convince him to stay (RVP actually said he wanted to stay another year and run down his contract), the board overruled him. Fabregas was always going back to Barca, but again that was a year we would have posted a loss without player sales (the same as a couple of other years). Clichy was a good thing, he was not nearly good enough for us in his last year with us. There are numerous quotes from Wenger over the last 6 months to a year where he explains that we had to sell players due to our financial situation. It was about maintaining our position until we where able to renegotiate our sponsorship deals, making FAR more money actually available to spend, note us signing Ozil instead of a Gervinho. Oh and Ramsey has literally just signed a 5-6 year contractand so won't be asking for a payrise lol Edit: quick note, i do get the point you arre making and i understand there is was an element of certain stars wanting to m ove on, it waso nly due to our financial position that we could not do what you did with Suarez, despite that being WEengers stance.
Why type all those words and basically agree with me that they(for their own reasons)wanted out of Arsenal?
Because you had totally dismissed the financial side of it and i wanted to clarify that despite certain players wanting to leave for various reasons it was only due to our financial position that we where forced to sell them. Thought all those words made that fairly clear Oh and you actually said we sold them because they wanted to leave, not just that they had reasons to want to leave
I don't know mate, you'd have to ask the little spanish dude who runs Real Madrid and banged on about it so much prior to paying £85m for him and giving him astronomical wages
Well, that's my point. Do we know it to be true? Isn't it just as likely to be a PR stunt to offset the general disbelief created by the fact that anyone will pay such an obscene amount of money for, and to, some bloke that kicks a ball about?
As I pointed out Arsenal are and have been the 2nd or 3rd richest club in England for the last 5 years or more, you could have given them improved contracts but as I said they wanted out of Arsenal whichever way you try and dress it up, and the 8 trophyless years played a massive part in their desision to leave.
Possibly, but in general for transfers of that size i think the club expect to make a lot back on the purchase through the commercial side of the player not just there footballing ability. That is usually the case when a big transfer gets knocked up to the silly level. In my opinion it was the same thing with Torres, if he couldn't sell so many shirts and wasn't so damn pretty you lot never would have got £50m for him (even if you still would have got a good fee due to him being ****ing epic when you had him).
We got 50m because the Russian gangster wanted him and made an almost last minute offer for a sulking, none trying little twat. If you think looks play a part we'll get **** all for Suarez.
Again your showing a lack of understanding of Arsenals financial position. Despite being one of the richest clubs in the world (not just the country) with a valuation of about $1.5 Billion (puts us 4th if i remember rightly behind Madrid, Utd and Barca), our previous sponsorship deals (linked with our move to the Emirates 8 years ago) and wage structure hamstrung us completely. It was only THIS SUMMER that the new deals came into effect making 10's of millions more available each year and actually opening up our financial power so that we can compete with the top teams. Previously we haven't had the ability to spend and haven't had the cash to overturn our wage structure (which we now have). Like i said there is more than one year that Arsenal would have posted losses rather than profit without player sales. I think fans of other clubs sometimes don't quite get the financial position Arsenal have been in. I suppose it doesn't help that Arsenal fans argue so much amongst themselves about the nitty gritty of our financial situation!!
I understand this, but is any one player going to sell so many more shirts than any other high-profile player that it justifies the difference in price and wages? Back to my original question, why is Bale such a commercial asset? Is he as good as Messi, or as "pretty" as Ronnie? Hardly, so what is this magic ingredient that will make him worth so much more in shirt sales than, for instance, Suarez?
I don't think it's just a case of shirt sales, i think image rights in regards to all form of memorabilia (Sp???), computer games etc... all comes into it. Maybe there is more interest in him in europe than we realise? Maybe he has a very good marketing team etc who have already laid out some sort of master plan to rake it in? Who knows! But Perez was very clear thathe thought Bale would make the club a lot of cash as well as being a good player on the pitch and the media seemed to run with it. Also Suarez being seen as a bit of a **** may lower his commercial value? Maybe, maybe not. I don't have an answer for you im afriad, just going off what was reported at the time.
I think afc is looking at the situation from a female point of view saint, different priorities as to what's important in a transfer deal than us.
