£58 million and 300k per week for Kevin De Bruyne

[Hibernia&Alba]

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]

Never heard of him

[Baldy Foghorn]

Chelski paid 7m and sold him for 18m (Jan 2014).

Source - wiki

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[Hibernia&Alba]

£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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

[Sir David Gray]

Absolutely astonishing money for someone who is no more than a pretty good player - he's certainly not in the world class bracket.

[davidw]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Well said.

Likewise.

[lord bunberry]

I've never heard of him either

[Glory Lurker]

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?

[hfc rd]

I don't think they need him. They've got enough number 10's. Waste of money.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

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

[Pete]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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!]

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

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]

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

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]

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

LeBron James, Roger Federer and Alex Rodriguez earn far more than this

No, they don't.

[HFC 0-7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.