Ronaldinho

[SeanDMan]

Well, I did the math, and according to my calculations three hundred thousand British pounds a week equals out to about $26,874,120 US Dollars a year, which is about twice the highest NHL salary ever, and in range with the current top NBA salaries, while being upper echelon in baseball I believe. So it's certainly fathomable, but given the American's sports owners propensity to massively overpay players I would imagine that number may be slightly overstarted.

But definitiely possible. It'd actually probably be higher then that with endorsements, I'd say.

[fineintent]

If someone is stupid enough to offer you that amount of money, take it. And buy MC Hammer's old house. Players like Ronaldinho will bring you a shitload back in merchandising though, so it's not all one way.

[SeanDMan]

Looking at financials a lot this recent NHL lockout, it's amazing how much teams with a high payroll tend to actually make compared to those with a low payroll. While fielding a team of highly paid players doesn't gaurantee success, it does guarantee a profit, because if you have flashy players with great skill AND name value, you will easily pay off the salaries in gate and merchandise. Considering how large football stadiums are compared to other sports, forget about it.

It reminds me of the funny story about Ak Bars Kazan. I'm not sure whether the company was Ak Bars or Bars Kazan or Ak or whatnot, but anyway, it's an oil company that owns and named the team. The owner went out with the NHL on stirke and spent hundreds of millions of dollars for one years worth of players, even through he knew that with a sellout every game he would make a maximum of $96,000 in ticket revenue. That was what really brought the salary picture home to me, that it's more or less just another cock measuring contest for who can buy the best team. A lot of owners, in all sports, are so disconnected from fiscal realities that it is mind numbing.

On a less ranty note, the original link doesn't seem to work for me. If it has expired, could somebody re-up it?

[Guest muddatrucker]

Well look at Chelsea, they've been taken over by a Russian billionaire and he's plowed so much money into the club, they're not self-sufficient at all, he's just spend 100's of millions on buying the best players, not because they need them, but because they can.

The only good deal they've particularly done other than the prize money from winning the league, is their sponsorship deal with samsung, but other than that, what goes in is never recovered by the actual team.

[fineintent]

I think eventually it might be though, as technically they can write off all they've spent - because it's his money, rather than borrowed money like the Glazer's. Chelsea are on the way to becoming a brand in the same sense Man Utd or Madrid are (I don't want an argument about history or anything) by looking to Asia and, although he's a twat, Peter Kenyon is relevatively savvy. Samsung and Adidas are plowing a bit of money in as well.

[SeanDMan]

You have to spend money to make money, right?

I'd never, keeping in mind I don't follow football at all, heard of Chelsea before EWB had a sports bar, and now, they are getting regular play time on extended sports channels highlight packages and recap shows, where as before, it was pretty much just Man U, Man U, Man U, once in a while Arsenal, and for some reason, Werder Bremen. Chelsea made some friends with their performances recently and sure, they may be losing money now, but once you're in the black you generally stay in the black. Lucrative sponsorship definitely doesn't hurt.

[Guest muddatrucker]

I don't believe they'll ever be self sufficient, the problem is, since it is his own money rather than him putting money directly into the club, if he was to ever pull out, they'd be left with a hell of alot of expenditures and not alot to cover it with.

It doesn't look like he's gonna walk away anytime soon, but I think it'd fill the club with more confidence if he actually put some money directly into the club.

I think all the major big teams will end up spending more to accommodate Chelsea meaning they won't always be a dominating force, meaning that Roman could lose interest landing them in shit. They don't need to spend £100m a season on players they don't need. Top players will stop joining them when they know they'll never get a game.

EDIT: Financially they'll never fall into debt like they before the takeover, but they'll suffer from having to get use to a lifestyle where they can't buy whoever they want, just for the sake of buying them.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

He's right......

That IS a snazzy briefcase

[Guest clarencepool]

Speaking of wages. Seth Johnson went into the Leeds boardroom with his agent. His agent said no matter what happens, you don't accept less than 15k-a-week. He went in there and Peter Ridsdale sat him down and said I've written up a contract for 25k-a-week, we can go 5k higher but it would be pushing it a little. Needless to say, Johnson snapped up that 25k-a-week offer and did fuck all for Leeds during his spell there.