PDA

View Full Version : £58 million and 300k per week for Kevin De Bruyne



Hibernia&Alba
28-08-2015, 07:06 PM
What do you think? How much Chelsea sell him for? That wasn't long ago.

I thought £49 million for Sterling was bonkers, but this is upping the ante!

CRAZYHIBBY
28-08-2015, 07:11 PM
Never heard of him

Baldy Foghorn
28-08-2015, 07:12 PM
Chelski paid 7m and sold him for 18m (Jan 2014).

Source - wiki

Hibernia&Alba
28-08-2015, 07:15 PM
Chelski paid 7m and sold him for 18m (Jan 2014).

Source - wiki

And 18 month later he costs £58 million and 300k per week? Seems bizarre, to say the least.

dmc1875
28-08-2015, 07:18 PM
I was at the Koln game at the weekend. Apart from being surprisingly impressed by them the biggest thing was how cr@p de bryne was. Didn't look that quick, didn't really do anything of note apart from
his sitter one on one miss at the end.

£58m for him is absolute bonkers

SteveHFC
28-08-2015, 07:20 PM
What do you think? How much Chelsea sell him for? That wasn't long ago.

I thought £49 million for Sterling was bonkers, but this is upping the ante!

And this is why i ****ing hate english football. The sooner Sky goes bust the better. :aok:

Hibernia&Alba
28-08-2015, 07:21 PM
£107 million for Kevin De Bruyne and Raheem Sterling

ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN MILLION POUNDS. Even in today's crazy English market, that is incredible.

Hibernia&Alba
28-08-2015, 07:23 PM
And this is why i ****ing hate english football. The sooner Sky goes bust the better. :aok:

But the Man City owners don't need Sky money. They are an exceptional case, like Chelsea.

Sir David Gray
28-08-2015, 07:30 PM
Absolutely astonishing money for someone who is no more than a pretty good player - he's certainly not in the world class bracket.

davidw
28-08-2015, 07:32 PM
And this is why i ****ing hate english football. The sooner Sky goes bust the better. :aok:

Well said.

Likewise.

lord bunberry
28-08-2015, 07:45 PM
I've never heard of him either

Glory Lurker
28-08-2015, 07:49 PM
When I saw the thread title, I thought Petrie must have gone mad! Never heard of him, I thought, why are we paying that much? :greengrin

hfc rd
28-08-2015, 07:51 PM
I don't think they need him. They've got enough number 10's. Waste of money.

Hibernia&Alba
28-08-2015, 07:52 PM
When I saw the thread title, I thought Petrie must have gone mad! Never heard of him, I thought, why are we paying that much? :greengrin

The tache would haggle Wolfsburg down to £55 million. We'll no be diddled.

Pete
28-08-2015, 08:03 PM
But the Man City owners don't need Sky money. They are an exceptional case, like Chelsea.

Manchester United certainly don't need the sky money.

NadeAteMyLunch!
28-08-2015, 08:03 PM
I thought Chelsea got rid of him too quickly as he always looked good when coming off the bench. They made a decent profit on him though and the money City are talking is mental. Football has become completely ridiculous

Hibernia&Alba
28-08-2015, 08:08 PM
Manchester United certainly don't need the sky money.

That's true. It's the teams outside the top six or so who are able to spend big due to Sky: Crystal Palace or West Ham spending eight or ten million. That kind of thing.

I meant City's wealth makes them exceptional. Not even Chelsea have as much. Should have been clearer.

Pete
28-08-2015, 08:10 PM
LeBron James, Roger Federer and Alex Rodriguez earn far more than this and they are involved in sports that have a considerably smaller global appeal.

Integral parts of champions league teams can perhaps argue that they are underpaid.

Pretty Boy
28-08-2015, 08:15 PM
Ultimately someone is worth what someone is willing to pay them and pay for them. That's the society we live in.

I'm not going to say I don't think it's obscene but I don't blame players for taking that kind of money or clubs paying it if they feel it's worth it.

Bostonhibby
28-08-2015, 08:18 PM
Chelski paid 7m and sold him for 18m (Jan 2014).

Source - wiki
And not a top player at Chelsea then. Some improvements since maybe? But looks like a signing city don't need, and at that price?

hfc rd
28-08-2015, 08:24 PM
That's true. It's the teams outside the top six or so who are able to spend big due to Sky: Crystal Palace or West Ham spending eight or ten million. That kind of thing.

I meant City's wealth makes them exceptional. Not even Chelsea have as much. Should have been clearer.



Makes me question FFP. Brought in to stop teams from over-spending outwith their means. Doesn't seem to be working now that Sky will continuously pump a barrow load of cash for years to come.

Sir David Gray
28-08-2015, 08:29 PM
LeBron James, Roger Federer and Alex Rodriguez earn far more than this and they are involved in sports that have a considerably smaller global appeal.

Integral parts of champions league teams can perhaps argue that they are underpaid.

Last year, Roger Federer's earnings from tennis were less than half of what Manchester City are rumoured to be offering Kevin De Bruyne as an annual salary.

Even if he did earn far more than De Bruyne as you say, you could argue that by saying that Federer (along with LeBron James and Alex Rodriguez) are amongst the top players in their respective sports. The same cannot be said for Kevin De Bruyne.

In tennis terms, Kevin De Bruyne is probably on a level with the likes of Jo-Wilfried Tsonga or Feliciano Lopez.

Pete
28-08-2015, 08:38 PM
Makes me question FFP. Brought in to stop teams from over-spending outwith their means. Doesn't seem to be working now that Sky will continuously pump a barrow load of cash for years to come.

Nobody is spending outwith their means though. If the cash is there then what's the problem?

You are right to question FFP. All it really does is ensure that teams who have a large percentage of glory hunters remain at the top of the tree.

Slim Shady
28-08-2015, 09:39 PM
They are spending outwith their means though.

If the owners leave they are done. Finito.

FFP was brought it to make sure clubs are self sustaining to make it an even playing field and make sure the league don't implode on financial crisis.

Vault Boy
28-08-2015, 09:50 PM
The money is ludicrous and it's demonstrably wrong that this kind of spending is facilitated. That being said, I personally do think that KDB is world class, absolutely outstanding playmaker IMO and may well end up as one of the best midfielders in the world.

Pete
28-08-2015, 10:04 PM
They are spending outwith their means though.

If the owners leave they are done. Finito.

FFP was brought it to make sure clubs are self sustaining to make it an even playing field and make sure the league don't implode on financial crisis.

They aren't spending outwith their means if the money is there. They have the means.

As for being finito if the owners leave, that's simply not true as they have built an infrastructure and have dramatically reduced their debt. A myth I'm afraid.

FFP was well intended and was indeed all about clubs imploding but City don't fall into that category as they aren't piling up debt to peruse some pipe dream. What does "self-sustaining" mean anyway? That the majority of a clubs income has to be generated by its "supporters"?

What's "fair" about money from glory hunters in India and China keeping the select few European clubs at the top of the game while all the others remain cannon-fodder?

SunshineOnLeith
28-08-2015, 10:13 PM
LeBron James, Roger Federer and Alex Rodriguez earn far more than this

No, they don't.

HFC 0-7
28-08-2015, 10:14 PM
LeBron James, Roger Federer and Alex Rodriguez earn far more than this and they are involved in sports that have a considerably smaller global appeal.

Integral parts of champions league teams can perhaps argue that they are underpaid.


Federer's salary is only about 5 million a year, it's his endorsements that make him the most money. De bruyne will earn far more than 300k per week once all his sponsorship etc etc is taken into account. Another key difference for federer is that he has to win to make his money. De Bruyne can sit on the bench and earn his 300k

SlickShoes
28-08-2015, 10:20 PM
De Bruyne had a cracking season last year, folk saying hes never worth it having seen him play once or twice are as daft as the folk at city paying him 300k a week.

He is far better player than Sterling for me, what is baffling is that no one is trying to sign Bas Dost also from Wolfsburg, he was scoring well last season and was one of the reasons De Bruyne ended up with 20+ assists.

Pete
28-08-2015, 10:23 PM
Last year, Roger Federer's earnings from tennis were less than half of what Manchester City are rumoured to be offering Kevin De Bruyne as an annual salary.

Even if he did earn far more than De Bruyne as you say, you could argue that by saying that Federer (along with LeBron James and Alex Rodriguez) are amongst the top players in their respective sports. The same cannot be said for Kevin De Bruyne.

In tennis terms, Kevin De Bruyne is probably on a level with the likes of Jo-Wilfried Tsonga or Feliciano Lopez.

I think it depends on your opinion of the player, and it's clear that you don't rate him. I haven't seen that much of him but he seems to be very highly regarded on the continent and is considered one of the top prospects. He's 24 but perhaps he is a late developer. :dunno:

I know the figures are slightly inflated because of the circumstances but would you really grudge a top midfielder that type of money? What about one you personally consider to be a top player?

When you compare the income generated by certain sports then football surely is right at the top. I'm talking money from TV subscriptions, merchandising, sponsorship, attendance etc...it totally dwarves most other sports. Even though there are more athletes at the top of the game who are integral parts of teams, it's stands to reason that the boys at the top should be paid a lot of money when you consider the amount of money other sportsmen receive in relation to their sports "worth".

Maybe Federer was a bad example as such a high proportion of his earnings come from endorsements (and he is a sponsors dream) but it's still earnings from a tennis career. Indirect as it is.

Pete
28-08-2015, 10:29 PM
No, they don't.

They most certainly do. I'm taking endorsements into account as well as its still an earning due to a specific career.

SunshineOnLeith
28-08-2015, 10:41 PM
They most certainly do. I'm taking endorsements into account as well as its still an earning due to a specific career.

Ok then you should include De Bruyne's endorsements etc, signing on fee, bonuses etc, details of which you (or I) I have no idea.

Mikey09
28-08-2015, 10:46 PM
Don't know who earns what and don't particularly care... However, guys like Federer, Djokovic and King Murray of Hibernian DESERVE and EARN there dough waaaaaaaaaaaay more than the likes of De Bruyne, Ballotelli etc... :agree:

Pete
28-08-2015, 10:48 PM
Ok then you should include De Bruyne's endorsements etc, signing on fee, bonuses etc, details of which you (or I) I have no idea.

Well I can't include it if I have no idea. :wink:

I'm guessing here but I would bet that the total figure isn't anywhere near his annual salary. They can't all be poster boys.

God Petrie
28-08-2015, 10:52 PM
**** modern football.

God Petrie
28-08-2015, 10:56 PM
Ugh the more I think about it the more sickening it is. Give me a ***** hibs team in the third division over a team of mercenaries any day of the week.

SeanWilson
28-08-2015, 11:03 PM
I couldn't give two hoots.... However, in guessing the powers that be at Citeee have a small clue as to what they are doing.....

Sir David Gray
28-08-2015, 11:18 PM
I think it depends on your opinion of the player, and it's clear that you don't rate him. I haven't seen that much of him but he seems to be very highly regarded on the continent and is considered one of the top prospects. He's 24 but perhaps he is a late developer. :dunno:

I know the figures are slightly inflated because of the circumstances but would you really grudge a top midfielder that type of money? What about one you personally consider to be a top player?

When you compare the income generated by certain sports then football surely is right at the top. I'm talking money from TV subscriptions, merchandising, sponsorship, attendance etc...it totally dwarves most other sports. Even though there are more athletes at the top of the game who are integral parts of teams, it's stands to reason that the boys at the top should be paid a lot of money when you consider the amount of money other sportsmen receive in relation to their sports "worth".

Maybe Federer was a bad example as such a high proportion of his earnings come from endorsements (and he is a sponsors dream) but it's still earnings from a tennis career. Indirect as it is.

I don't believe anyone should be paid £300,000 a week, I think it's disgusting. I don't blame the player concerned for that though, if someone's daft enough to offer you £300,000 every single week just to kick a football around a football pitch for once or twice a week then you would be foolish to turn them down.

I don't not rate De Bruyne, I think he is a good player, I just don't think he's comparable with the people you mentioned, who are all at the very top of their sport.

I think paying Kevin De Bruyne £300,000 a week and offering nearly £60 million for him is absolutely ludicrous.

easty
28-08-2015, 11:27 PM
I don't watch any German football so I really don't know, but I heard on Sky that De Bruyne got player of the year in the bundesliga and had the most assists of any player in the big 5 leagues in Europe.

That plus the fact Wolfsburg paid £18m to get a guy who wasn't getting much of a look in at Cheksea, must mean there must be something pretty special about him.

Pete
28-08-2015, 11:44 PM
I don't believe anyone should be paid £300,000 a week, I think it's disgusting. I don't blame the player concerned for that though, if someone's daft enough to offer you £300,000 every single week just to kick a football around a football pitch for once or twice a week then you would be foolish to turn them down.

I don't not rate De Bruyne, I think he is a good player, I just don't think he's comparable with the people you mentioned, who are all at the very top of their sport.

I think paying Kevin De Bruyne £300,000 a week and offering nearly £60 million for him is absolutely ludicrous.

Someone on that salary would have earned £893 from the time I posted up until your reply.


:dizzy:

Haymaker
28-08-2015, 11:54 PM
Makes me question FFP. Brought in to stop teams from over-spending outwith their means. Doesn't seem to be working now that Sky will continuously pump a barrow load of cash for years to come.

Didn't ffp get relaxed? Total bull**** anyway

Sir David Gray
28-08-2015, 11:56 PM
Someone on that salary would have earned £893 from the time I posted up until your reply.


:dizzy:

Quite incredible really, I would need to work for almost a month to earn that sort of money.

.Sean.
29-08-2015, 01:07 AM
Surely no just me that couldnt care less about this kind of transfer news. It's a different Galaxy to Hibs, I've absolutely zero interest in the goings on in England and at the big European clubs.

No affiliation with any them and it's driven by money. Absolute pish.

The big clubs are all soulless, run by businessman who in turn employ mercenaries. Player just float about from side to side and it leaves the club without an identity. Give me out ***** wee league and the goings on at proper clubs any day of the week.

the EPL is toxic.

heretoday
29-08-2015, 02:50 AM
He didn't feature much for Chelsea when he was on their books. When he did he didn't do much beyond fetch and carry.

He must have improved a hundredfold.

The transfer scene has gone super-mental.

DH1875
29-08-2015, 06:35 AM
Crazy.

MADE IN LEITH
29-08-2015, 10:02 PM
Never worth that kind of money in a million years.