The True Cost of Tevez?

[SpurSince57]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_city/article6831582.ece

£47m? mg:

Joorabchian is denying it, of course.

 

[kcmei]

shame for football

 

[yanno]

My emphasis.

It is the inevitable reality of City’s position that they will face a premium on players but the sums paid for Tévez seem all the more mind-boggling given how reluctant United were to meet the £25.5 million asking price originally agreed with Joorabchian on top of the £9 million already paid.
Although the Barclays Premier League champions eventually agreed to do the deal, David Gill, the United chief executive, relented only after Ronaldo had been sold to Real Madrid. In the end, Tévez turned down their offer to stay at Old Trafford and joined City instead.
What Sir Alex Ferguson, the United manager, makes of the true figure paid for Tévez remains to be seen, given that he made a point of saying during the summer that the Argentinian was overpriced.
“In my opinion, I don’t think he was worth £25 million,” Ferguson has said. “He was popular with the supporters. The fans rightly have their heroes and I was happy to go along with the deal as it was the right one but, quite simply, he is not worth £25 million.”

The whole Tevez affair, back to the ownership of his registration by a "consortium", is outrageous.

If City are paying £47m + £7.5m wages pa for Tevez, then that is insane.

However, the passage above suggests that manure blew £9m + wages on a two-year loan for Tevez. Which is terrible business as well.

 

[Bromavinci]

That Joorabchin would be an interesting guy to meet I reckon, he has been milking his cow nicely

 

[SpurSince57]

My emphasis.



The whole Tevez affair, back to the ownership of his registration by a "consortium", is outrageous.

If City are paying £47m + £7.5m wages pa for Tevez, then that is insane.

However, the passage above suggests that manure blew £9m + wages on a two-year loan for Tevez. Which is terrible business as well.

Unless they'd been led to believe it was a down payment, which isn't out of the question.

 

[yanno]

Unless they'd been led to believe it was a down payment, which isn't out of the question.

The wording in The Times is as follows:

the £25.5 million asking price originally agreed with Joorabchian on top of the £9 million already paid.

Which suggests manure would have had to pay another £25.5m in addition to the £9m loan fee. So the real asking price to sign Tevez permanently was £34.5m.

Of course the passage may be clumsily written.

Whichever, I'm sure manure would have had to pay a substantial fee to The Consortium when they orginally signed Tevez on loan with an option to buy. Once Ferguson decided not to exercise that option to buy, the loan fee, which would have been a down payment against the asking price, became purely a fee to borrow Tevez from The Consortium for 2 seasons.

 

[DogsOfWar]

The issue with City is that as price is irrelevant Hughes has just made sure he has picked up the best players who are available to him.

He had an easy job hoovering up the 'best of the rest' outside the top four in Lescott, Barry and Santa Cruz. But in picking up genuine top four players in Adebayor, Toure and Tevez I think he has a created a team with a genuine chance of breaking into the top four.

If Tevez's work rate, ability and goals, despite his record, help get them fourth place then his fee is even more irrelevant as CL money will cover it.

 

[AngerManagement]

What ever it is hard to look at City and not wish we were in their shoes (to me anyway)

I don't really grudge them in the same way I did Chelsea when they won the lotto though, their fans have been through alot and recently watch the team go all the way down to the 3rd tier and back again so fair play they are getting the success they crave now.

But like when Chelsea got the Russian take over I can;t help but think what could have been if the money had been coming our way!