If I may, the BBC cleared it up regarding Ade. You're paying him a large fee to fack off basically and Spurs will only be paying his wages now. I think you gave him a 4m fee. Hope it helps.
Just don't understand why he wasn't given more of a chance at city. If he could cut it at Real Madrid then he's obviously over qualified for both City and Spurs. Good buy for us
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
sorry guys but that is a joke, 16 million quid in wages for 2 years for him is a joke.
When you look at bridge, adabayor, santa cruz, they must of been p i 5 5 ing themselves at city and how stupid they were to pay them those wages in the first place.
And you wonder why Mark Hughes was sacked ..... could be worse we could be heavily in debt paying millions a month in interest rates!!
How much did united pay Hargreaves?
How much have the glazers taken out of united?
Not to service the clubs debts but into their own bank?
Lmfao at that.
How much did united pay Hargreaves?
-------------
hargreaves was different, as hargreaves was injured - the fact is regardless of whether you like to admit it or not, city have been seriously mugged off over the last few years due to signing average players.
i mean you could also add Kolo toure into the mix aswell.
whats this article have to do with the glazers??
can you not actually hold a discussion without getting all defensive??
city have been seriously mugged off over the last few years due to signing average players.
---------------
Agree with that. Of course, only hindsight can dictate which transfers/wages have been a waste or not, but in the case of Adebayor, Bridge, RSC especially, there is no doubt that these 3 have been a huge waste of money.
Bridge and RSC, although earning much less than Adebayor, are average players who should not be commanding the kind of figures that they do in wages. Why Hughes went for these two I'll never know. Adebayor is slightly different - he is actually a pretty good player, but still not worth a reported £170k per week.
It was a necessary "evil" to an extent at the start of our progression. We had to pay more to entice such players to the club, in no small part given that we couldn't offer CL football at that time.
We are are being accused of being mugged off yes, I simply put a counter point across showing it doesn't just happen to us so it was relevant.
Now who was getting defensive.
My point in case you missed it is when it comes to taking money out of club who's taken more?
How much have the glazers taken out of man u?
Simple question please provide an answer.
cheers ripley, finally someone who can hold a conversation!
While adeybayor is better than RSC and Bridge, as you say, he is still not worth 170k per week.
i think the problem with you guys in the early days of the takeover is you were going to struggle to sign top foreign players (other than Robinho).
that left trying to buy some of the PL's better players, which automatically means bumping up the wages.
i guess to compete, you had to purchase these types of players to take you to the next level before you could really appeal to europes best.
Now who was getting defensive.
My point in case you missed it is when it comes to taking money out of club who's taken more?
How much have the glazers taken out of man u?
Simple question please provide an answer.
---------
the difference is, whether we like it or not, the glazers own the club, they can do what they want.
Adeybayor, RSC, Bridge do not own city.
It's ironic that what QPR is doing now was what City did in the early days of Mansour, and guess who was the manager? Sparky!
If these reports of us subsidising his wages are indeed true then i would expect at least for something written into his contract that he cannot play against us.
Now that really would just take the biscuit were he to score a winner against us or even worse.
Man utd is owned by money grabbing nasty capitalists..
But making your money from selling out your country and earths greatest resource is no better.. Even worse !
Then buying a football club as a hobby/ status symbol - throwing round a few billion and changing the face of a sport.
Let's not compare smuck owners...!
But I will give you this.. At least your dudes are putting money in manc which I like... But Man U have been doing that for years !
Back to stupid money talk...
Who you after next ?
Of will the royalty tell their staff to shut up, start getting on together and put in a UNITED front again !
Hargreaves pay per minutes on the pitch must've been astromomical
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
duncan
they do...shame for him really
duncan
they do...shame for him really
---
it was, he seemed like a decent lad who enjoyed his football, hate to see anyone have their careers cut short by injury.
Can't see it being legal that we pay some of his wages if we have transferred him..
It can't be legal and I can't see the Fa allowing this to happen.
"city have been seriously mugged off over the last few years due to signing average players."
Too true. Some of Hughes' signings have been good ones (Kompany, De Jong, Barry, Lescott), but we did get a fair few duffers and those are the ones we're struggling to offload.
Unfortunately it seems the Arsenal fans were totally right about Adebayor. And I expect he'll do the same at Spurs as well.
And as for Crocky, that was just a joke. When United signed Owen, they knew he had injury problems and signed him on a pay to play contract. When we signed RSC, he somehow got through a medical, we chucked millions at Blackburn and paid him a small fortune a week. At least we got some playing time out of Adebayor, but the RSC deal really was just Sparky doing his old club a favour.
Sign in if you want to comment
The cost of Adebayor
Page 1 of 2
posted on 22/8/12
If I may, the BBC cleared it up regarding Ade. You're paying him a large fee to fack off basically and Spurs will only be paying his wages now. I think you gave him a 4m fee. Hope it helps.
posted on 22/8/12
Just don't understand why he wasn't given more of a chance at city. If he could cut it at Real Madrid then he's obviously over qualified for both City and Spurs. Good buy for us
posted on 22/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 22/8/12
*greediest
posted on 22/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 22/8/12
sorry guys but that is a joke, 16 million quid in wages for 2 years for him is a joke.
When you look at bridge, adabayor, santa cruz, they must of been p i 5 5 ing themselves at city and how stupid they were to pay them those wages in the first place.
posted on 22/8/12
And you wonder why Mark Hughes was sacked ..... could be worse we could be heavily in debt paying millions a month in interest rates!!
posted on 22/8/12
How much did united pay Hargreaves?
posted on 22/8/12
How much have the glazers taken out of united?
Not to service the clubs debts but into their own bank?
Lmfao at that.
posted on 22/8/12
How much did united pay Hargreaves?
-------------
hargreaves was different, as hargreaves was injured - the fact is regardless of whether you like to admit it or not, city have been seriously mugged off over the last few years due to signing average players.
i mean you could also add Kolo toure into the mix aswell.
posted on 22/8/12
whats this article have to do with the glazers??
can you not actually hold a discussion without getting all defensive??
posted on 22/8/12
city have been seriously mugged off over the last few years due to signing average players.
---------------
Agree with that. Of course, only hindsight can dictate which transfers/wages have been a waste or not, but in the case of Adebayor, Bridge, RSC especially, there is no doubt that these 3 have been a huge waste of money.
Bridge and RSC, although earning much less than Adebayor, are average players who should not be commanding the kind of figures that they do in wages. Why Hughes went for these two I'll never know. Adebayor is slightly different - he is actually a pretty good player, but still not worth a reported £170k per week.
It was a necessary "evil" to an extent at the start of our progression. We had to pay more to entice such players to the club, in no small part given that we couldn't offer CL football at that time.
posted on 22/8/12
We are are being accused of being mugged off yes, I simply put a counter point across showing it doesn't just happen to us so it was relevant.
Now who was getting defensive.
My point in case you missed it is when it comes to taking money out of club who's taken more?
How much have the glazers taken out of man u?
Simple question please provide an answer.
posted on 22/8/12
cheers ripley, finally someone who can hold a conversation!
While adeybayor is better than RSC and Bridge, as you say, he is still not worth 170k per week.
i think the problem with you guys in the early days of the takeover is you were going to struggle to sign top foreign players (other than Robinho).
that left trying to buy some of the PL's better players, which automatically means bumping up the wages.
i guess to compete, you had to purchase these types of players to take you to the next level before you could really appeal to europes best.
posted on 22/8/12
Now who was getting defensive.
My point in case you missed it is when it comes to taking money out of club who's taken more?
How much have the glazers taken out of man u?
Simple question please provide an answer.
---------
the difference is, whether we like it or not, the glazers own the club, they can do what they want.
Adeybayor, RSC, Bridge do not own city.
posted on 22/8/12
It's ironic that what QPR is doing now was what City did in the early days of Mansour, and guess who was the manager? Sparky!
posted on 22/8/12
If these reports of us subsidising his wages are indeed true then i would expect at least for something written into his contract that he cannot play against us.
Now that really would just take the biscuit were he to score a winner against us or even worse.
posted on 22/8/12
Man utd is owned by money grabbing nasty capitalists..
But making your money from selling out your country and earths greatest resource is no better.. Even worse !
Then buying a football club as a hobby/ status symbol - throwing round a few billion and changing the face of a sport.
Let's not compare smuck owners...!
But I will give you this.. At least your dudes are putting money in manc which I like... But Man U have been doing that for years !
Back to stupid money talk...
Who you after next ?
Of will the royalty tell their staff to shut up, start getting on together and put in a UNITED front again !
posted on 22/8/12
Hargreaves pay per minutes on the pitch must've been astromomical
posted on 22/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 22/8/12
duncan
they do...shame for him really
posted on 22/8/12
duncan
they do...shame for him really
---
it was, he seemed like a decent lad who enjoyed his football, hate to see anyone have their careers cut short by injury.
posted on 22/8/12
Can't see it being legal that we pay some of his wages if we have transferred him..
posted on 22/8/12
It can't be legal and I can't see the Fa allowing this to happen.
posted on 22/8/12
"city have been seriously mugged off over the last few years due to signing average players."
Too true. Some of Hughes' signings have been good ones (Kompany, De Jong, Barry, Lescott), but we did get a fair few duffers and those are the ones we're struggling to offload.
Unfortunately it seems the Arsenal fans were totally right about Adebayor. And I expect he'll do the same at Spurs as well.
And as for Crocky, that was just a joke. When United signed Owen, they knew he had injury problems and signed him on a pay to play contract. When we signed RSC, he somehow got through a medical, we chucked millions at Blackburn and paid him a small fortune a week. At least we got some playing time out of Adebayor, but the RSC deal really was just Sparky doing his old club a favour.
Page 1 of 2