Text Size

The Back Of The Net

Money in baseball is ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous

Talk Cleveland City Stars, World Cup, MLS, and all other forms of pro soccer here in TheClevelandFan's newest forum.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Spin

Money in baseball is ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous

Unread postby British_Pharaoh » Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:41 am

as this.
LONDON (AP)—Manchester United accepted a world-record transfer offer for Cristiano Ronaldo from Real Madrid on Thursday, clearing the World Player of the Year to negotiate terms with the Spanish club.

The Premier League champions said it received an unconditional offer of $131 million for Ronaldo, and unlike last offseason is willing to see its 24-year-old star join a major European rival.

United said: “At Cristiano’s request—who has again expressed his desire to leave—and after discussion with the player’s representatives, United have agreed to give Real Madrid permission to talk to the player. Matters are expected to be concluded by 30 June.”

Madrid confirmed the offer for Ronaldo in a statement, saying: “The club hopes to reach an agreement with the player in the coming days.”

The Portugal winger, who joined United from Sporting Lisbon in 2003, spent last June pushing for what he called at the time a “dream move” to Madrid.
ADVERTISEMENT

An unsuccessful complaint about Madrid’s pursuit was made to soccer’s world governing body FIFA and an offseason move was blocked by Ferguson, who traveled to Lisbon to persuade his player to stay at Old Trafford.

That didn’t stop Ronaldo being linked with Madrid, and Ferguson’s irritation boiled over in December when he said he “wouldn’t sell Madrid a virus,” describing the club as a “mob.”

But a world-record bid appears too hard to resist for a club whose debts have spiraled to nearly $1 billion.

Ronaldo, who was under contract until 2012, plunged his future into doubt after United lost the Champions League final to Barcelona last month, saying he wasn’t sure if would stay. This came despite having vowed to remain with United in the buildup to the match and in a broadcast interview.

The return of Florentino Perez as Madrid’s president has changed things as the billionaire looks to spend lavishly to return the Spanish side to the glory days.

Brazilian star Kaka was signed away from AC Milan earlier this week for a reported fee of around $92 million.

But the offer for Ronaldo would eclipse that, as well as the $65 million Madrid paid to lure former France striker Zinedine Zidane away from Juventus in 2001.

Ronaldo’s arrival could strengthen Madrid’s position as world soccer’s richest club based on revenue. According to accountancy firm Deloitte, Madrid earned over $512 million compared to second-place United’s $455 million.

On the field, though, Ronaldo would be joining a club that just had its first trophy-less season in three years, while United won a third straight Premier League title, the Club World Cup, and the League Cup.

Ronaldo finished as United’s top scorer again, despite not matching the 42-goal haul in the 2007-08 campaign when Ferguson’s side won the Champions League and the English title.

However, Ronaldo was viewed by some as a divisive influence at United, openly challenging Ferguson’s authority.

In the last weeks of the season he angrily swiped at some TV equipment while shaking his head in clear annoyance when substituted against Manchester City. When he missed a shot against Wigan, he answered Ferguson back from the pitch while shrugging his shoulders.

Former United manager Tommy Docherty said Thursday that relations were clearly strained with Ferguson, as they had been with David Beckham before he was allowed to join Madrid in 2003.


$131m and that's before a contract is even negotiated with Ronaldo who will probably get $600,000 a week


and considering Madrid have just paid over $100m on Kaka
"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

-Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
British_Pharaoh
Tony Sipp IS HERE!
 
Posts: 9129
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:31 pm
Location: University of Bristol, UK
Favorite Player: Michael Brantley
Least Favorite Player: Chris Perez

Re: Money in baseball is ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous

Unread postby steviedifranco » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:52 pm

Its sickening, isn't it? But soccer is a business, and they don't hide that. This, in the end, is a major investment which will probably pay off in a number of titles next year. No reason why Real can't win the league, the cup, and the Champions League. Think of all the publicity Manchester United received this year for the potential they had to win multiple titles?

Its ridiculous, but they know what they are doing and they'll make every penny of that back with the exposure they will receive. I know I can't wait to watch them play, and I'm not a huge fan of them.
User avatar
steviedifranco
Site Admin
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:00 am

Re: Money in baseball is ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous

Unread postby steviedifranco » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:53 pm

Just realized I need to change my avatar, crap!
User avatar
steviedifranco
Site Admin
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:00 am

Re: Money in baseball is ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous

Unread postby Cease » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:37 pm

From what I understand, Transfer Fees made by the acquiring club are split between the player (and agent), the club giving up the player, and a small % goes to the junior clubs that "raised" the player from ages 12-23.

What I am trying to understand is the split. Anyone know what % of the transfer fee generally goes to the player and former club?

Thanks.
User avatar
Cease
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: The View
Favorite Player: Gamers
Least Favorite Player: Chuckers

Re: Money in baseball is ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous

Unread postby dazindiansfanuk » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:08 pm

Cesa wrote:From what I understand, Transfer Fees made by the acquiring club are split between the player (and agent), the club giving up the player, and a small % goes to the junior clubs that "raised" the player from ages 12-23.

What I am trying to understand is the split. Anyone know what % of the transfer fee generally goes to the player and former club?

Thanks.


The whole transfer fee goes to the club selling the player.

However, there are occasional exceptions. Sometimes "sell-on" clauses are included in tranfers i.e. if for example when Man Utd signed Ronaldo from Sporting they were required by Sporting to include a "sell-on" clause in order to complete the deal, then they would receive a percentage of the "sell-on" price.

It is my understanding that there was no "sell-on" clause for Ronaldo.

In terms of the player (and agent) getting anything, well that's not the case. It used to be the case that the player would receive a small percentage (I believe 5%) of the transfer fee if they were transferred without their request, but that is no longer the case - the player gets nothing anymore.

Essentially, the transfer fee is a fee to buy the player out of their contract with their current club in order to sign with the club paying the fee.
User avatar
dazindiansfanuk
Tyner Is God
 
Posts: 8751
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:21 am
Location: Cardiff, UK
Favorite Player: Jhonny Peralta
Least Favorite Player: Curt Schilling

Re: Money in baseball is ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous

Unread postby British_Pharaoh » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:27 am

dazindiansfanuk wrote:
Cesa wrote:From what I understand, Transfer Fees made by the acquiring club are split between the player (and agent), the club giving up the player, and a small % goes to the junior clubs that "raised" the player from ages 12-23.

What I am trying to understand is the split. Anyone know what % of the transfer fee generally goes to the player and former club?

Thanks.


The whole transfer fee goes to the club selling the player.

However, there are occasional exceptions. Sometimes "sell-on" clauses are included in tranfers i.e. if for example when Man Utd signed Ronaldo from Sporting they were required by Sporting to include a "sell-on" clause in order to complete the deal, then they would receive a percentage of the "sell-on" price.

It is my understanding that there was no "sell-on" clause for Ronaldo.

In terms of the player (and agent) getting anything, well that's not the case. It used to be the case that the player would receive a small percentage (I believe 5%) of the transfer fee if they were transferred without their request, but that is no longer the case - the player gets nothing anymore.

Essentially, the transfer fee is a fee to buy the player out of their contract with their current club in order to sign with the club paying the fee.



Is there anything you DON'T know?? lol
"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

-Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
British_Pharaoh
Tony Sipp IS HERE!
 
Posts: 9129
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:31 pm
Location: University of Bristol, UK
Favorite Player: Michael Brantley
Least Favorite Player: Chris Perez

Re: Money in baseball is ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous

Unread postby Cease » Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:02 am

dazindiansfanuk wrote:
Cesa wrote:From what I understand, Transfer Fees made by the acquiring club are split between the player (and agent), the club giving up the player, and a small % goes to the junior clubs that "raised" the player from ages 12-23.

What I am trying to understand is the split. Anyone know what % of the transfer fee generally goes to the player and former club?

Thanks.


The whole transfer fee goes to the club selling the player.

However, there are occasional exceptions. Sometimes "sell-on" clauses are included in tranfers i.e. if for example when Man Utd signed Ronaldo from Sporting they were required by Sporting to include a "sell-on" clause in order to complete the deal, then they would receive a percentage of the "sell-on" price.

It is my understanding that there was no "sell-on" clause for Ronaldo.

In terms of the player (and agent) getting anything, well that's not the case. It used to be the case that the player would receive a small percentage (I believe 5%) of the transfer fee if they were transferred without their request, but that is no longer the case - the player gets nothing anymore.

Essentially, the transfer fee is a fee to buy the player out of their contract with their current club in order to sign with the club paying the fee.


Many thanks. ESPN TV and .com report on transfer fees all the time, I just never really understood where the $$ goes. Makes me wonder if the ESPN anchors know the process. They typically frame the story as "the player is getting paid," IMO.
User avatar
Cease
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: The View
Favorite Player: Gamers
Least Favorite Player: Chuckers


Return to The Back Of The Net

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests