PDA

View Full Version : Star/Elite players moving from big club to another big club on FREE transfer


Pages : [1] 2 3

pc4th
16 Mar 2006, 06:19 AM
how much of a raise per year can that player get? (PART II)

This raise also include any signing-on fees. If the signing-on fees is $12 mil for 4 years, then the raise is $3 mil a year + any increase in the player contract compares to the previous contract.

If you want to see the old thread, it's here http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275224

EVIDENCE #1

Take Chelsea, Real Madrid and Man U for example in a SWITCH to the FREE AGENCY MODEL. These three teams would get every players on their current rosters on a Free and every players that left those three teams also went on a Free (same as all MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL teams)

Chelsea would be $84 million richer each year.
Real would be $42 million richer each year.
Man U would be $36 million richer each year.

Who ultimately benefit if these three teams have A LOT MORE MONEY TO SPEND? The elite/stars players.

Another way to look at it is that IF Yankees and Red Sox are in the 'transfer fees market' and incur around $30 million a year in transfer fees expense instead of $0, can they still afford the high wages for player like Arod or Ramirez?


EVIDENCE #2:

Ballack (a free agent by the way) is offered a contract that would make him the highest paid soccer player in the world--Reported by The Guardian (http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1719777,00.html)

EVIDENCE #3:

Sol Campbell: Worth around $20 million in the transfer market, went on a free and according to this article receive "massive signing-on fees" and became the highest paid player at Arsenal.

http://www.le.ac.uk/so/css/resources/factsheets/fs16.html

Because McManaman could be bought for no fee, he was able to negotiate his own package with his new club Real Madrid. This meant a wage rise from £12,000 with Liverpool to a reported £60,000 with Real. Sol Campbell moved in 2001 from Spurs to Arsenal, smashing the Highbury wage structure, again because no transfer fee was payable. Top players undoubtedly now have a great deal of power and benefit greatly from this new ruling. Those players playing at the highest levels can receive massive signing-on fees and much higher wages because of the absence of transfer fees.


EVIDENCE #4:

"If Cristiano Ronaldo didn't sign that 4 years contract extension and become a free agent instead, can he make $5 million a year instead of $2.236 million a year?."

Before the contract extension
Cristiano Ronaldo: $1,252,160 a year (calculated from the £14,000 a week from this article)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1612589,00.html


After the contract extension:
Cristiano Ronaldo £1.3m-a-year or $2.236 mil a year

Valencia are launching a £17 million bid for Manchester United winger Cristiano Ronaldo.

Los Che president Juan Soler said: "I want Valencia to do big things in the Champions League and Cristiano would fit perfectly with these plans. We will now speak with Manchester United."

The Spaniards have not been put off by Ronaldo signing a contract extension in the summer to keep him at Old Trafford until 2010 and are prepared to match his £1.3m-a-year pay.


The question is that is there any clubs out there that is willing to pay him $5 million a year if they get him on a free? In other word, would Valencia pay him $5 million a year if they don't have to pay the £17 million ($29 million) in transfer fees?

EVIDENCE #5: (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268786)


The theory here is that in a free agency market like in American sports Chelsea would have $84 mil, Real would have $42 mil and Man U would have $36 million EXTRA in income. Opposite of that, would Red Sox be able to afford a $20-22 million a year for Ramirez if they suddenly discover an expense of $30 million each and every year?

EVIDENCE #6:

Annual Salary for some famous soccer players that you might have heard of: (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=258968&page=2)

Kaka: $2 million a year
David Trezeguet: $2.6 million a year
Samuel Eto'o : $6.0 -$6.1 mil a year
Rooney: £50,000 a week = $4.5 mil a year
Theo Walcott (Arsenal wonderkid): £9000 a week = $804,960 a year

EVIDENCE #7

FORBES list in revenue


1 Manchester United England $315 mil

2 Real Madrid Spain $287 mil

3 AC Milan Italy $270 mil

4 Chelsea England $264 mil

5 Juventus Italy 262 mil

6 Arsenal England 211 mil

7 Barcelona Spain 206 mil

8 Internazionale Milan Italy 203 mil



Top baseball Revenue reported by Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=33&passYear=2005&passListType=Misc&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=30&resultsSortProperties=-numberfield5%2C%2Bnumberfield1&resultsSortCategoryName=Revenues&category1=category&category2=category&passKeyword=

1 New York Yankees 264 --$315 for soccer

2 Boston Red Sox 201 ---$287 mil for soccer

3 New York Mets 180 ----$270 mil for soccer

4 Seattle Mariners 173 ---$264 mil for soccer

5 Chicago Cubs 170 ----$262 mil for soccer

6 Philadelphia Phillies 167 ---$211 mil for soccer

7 Los Angeles Dodgers 166 ---$206 mil for soccer

8 Atlanta Braves 162 ----$203 mil for soccer

9 San Francisco Giants 159

EVIDENCE #8

Even though the top soccer teams has a lot more revenue, baseball are paying a lot more to their top players.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/top25.aspx?year=2005


Rank Player Salary Team
1 Rodriguez, Alex $ 26,000,000 New York Yankees
2 Bonds, Barry $ 22,000,000 San Francisco Giants
3 Ramirez, Manny $ 22,000,000 Boston Red Sox
4 Jeter, Derek $ 19,600,000 New York Yankees
5 Mussina, Mike $ 19,000,000 New York Yankees
6 Bagwell, Jeff $ 18,000,000 Houston Astros
7 Clemens, Roger $ 18,000,000 Houston Astros
8 Sosa, Sammy $ 17,000,000 Baltimore Orioles
9 Piazza, Mike $ 16,071,429 New York Mets
10 Jones, Chipper $ 16,061,802 Atlanta Braves
11 Johnson, Randy $ 16,000,000 New York Yankees
12 Brown, Kevin $ 15,714,286 New York Yankees
13 Hampton, Mike $ 15,125,000 Atlanta Braves
14 Park, Chan Ho $ 15,000,000 Texas Rangers
15 Schilling, Curt $ 14,500,000 Boston Red Sox
16 Giambi, Jason $ 13,428,571 New York Yankees
17 Dreifort, Darren $ 13,400,000 Los Angeles Dodgers
18 Thome, Jim $ 13,166,667 Philadelphia Phillies
19 Abreu, Bobby $ 13,100,000 Philadelphia Phillies
20 Jones, Andruw $ 13,000,000 Atlanta Braves
21 Sheffield, Gary $ 13,000,000 New York Yankees
22 Walker, Larry $ 12,666,667 St. Louis Cardinals
23 Helton, Todd $ 12,600,000 Colorado Rockies
24 Griffey Jr, Ken $ 12,500,000 Cincinnati Reds
25 Guerrero, Vladimir $ 12,500,000 Los Angeles Angels

Top Soccer Revenue reported by Deloite and Touche (the latest)


1) Real: $328 mil
2) Man U: $293 mil
3) AC Milan: $279 mil
4) Juventus: $273 mil (will increase by around 30-40 million thanks to a $120 mil a year TV deal starting in 2007)
5) Chelsea: $263 mil

Average transfer expense per year (from 2001 to 2005).

Chelsea: $83.7 million a year
Real Madrid: $41.67 million a year
Manchester United: $36 million a year
Barcelona: $25 million a year
AC Milan: $22 million a year

EVIDENCE #9

Free agency world: Assuming that teams will transfer 75% of transfer fees above to wages and pocket the 25%. Assuming that each team has a $120 million wages bill.

Chelsea: From $120 mil in wages will now become $120 mil + (75% x $84 mil)= $183 mil
Real Madrid: From $120 mil in wages will now become $151.5 mil.
Man U: From $120 mil will now become $147 million.

So which would the stars player want? $120 mil in wages for each of those 3 teams or $183 mil, $151.5 mil and $147 million respectively?

The more that the teams have, the more that the players will get paid. Oh, the teams also benefit because they pocketed 25% of the transfer fees.

EVIDENCE #10

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27-2088157,00.html
Henry is ours, say Barcelona

The 28-year-old has been offered a four-year deal worth £100,000 a week, but despite repeatedly insisting that he wants to stay, he has yet to sign it.

The Spaniards believe that, as a result of Fifa regulations that enable players over the age of 28, who have been at a club for more than three years, to buy themselves out of the final year of their contract, the maximum compensation they will be obliged to pay is £10 million — and that he could come even cheaper.


Did not know that regulation EXIST. This would make it a lot easier to become a free agent.


Clarification on the terms used:

Star/elite players: Worlds' top 20-30 players only
Big Clubs: Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real, Barcelona, AC Milan, Juventus, Inter Milan and Bayern Munich.

Teso Dos Bichos
16 Mar 2006, 06:38 AM
*yawn*

nicephoras
16 Mar 2006, 07:22 AM
Look, I understand this topic is of huge interest to you (for some reason), but you've already started countless threads on this topic. Lets keep new threads on this topic to a minimum.

RichardL
16 Mar 2006, 08:32 AM
maybe this will help

http://www.nativeremedies.com/ocd-alternative-treatment.shtml?ovchn=OVR&ovcpn=Overture+UK&ovcrn=ocd&ovtac=PPC

MindSoothe is a specially formulated herbal remedy that has been successfully used in the treatment of OCD

Leto
16 Mar 2006, 08:37 AM
Fishing?

leg_breaker
16 Mar 2006, 01:03 PM
ffs, can you stop posting this crap every single day? Anyone who cares would have answered you by now.

dannytoone
19 Mar 2006, 02:20 PM
My butts ability to make cool looking dumps provides more entertainment and education than you.

pc4th
21 May 2006, 07:17 PM
More Evidence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/5001674.stm
Arsenal rejected £50m Henry bids

Arsenal vice-chairman David Dein says the club turned down two £50m offers for striker Thierry Henry before he agreed to sign a new four-year deal.
Henry's decision ended any chance of him replacing £47m Zinedine Zidane as the world's most expensive player.

"We turned down two world record deals from Spanish clubs. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out who they were," he told the Sunday Express.

From soccernet

'The two clubs in question don't like to be outbid by each other. They were ready to go for it.

'Our message was clear. He wasn't for sale and I like to think Thierry heard that.'

The total cost of getting Henry is $95 mil in transfer fee + $10 mil in salary a year + $0 in signing-on fee (TODAY)

The total cost of getting Henry 1 year from now when he is on a free is $0 in transfer fee + $10 mil in salary + X in signing-on fee.

If that X in signing on fee is $50 million, Real/Barca would have save $45 million. The downside is that they have to wait 1 year to get Henry.

Henry, on the other hand, would get that $50 million in signing-on fee.

p.s. I know that what I am doing is right since a lot of people are really pissed about it. What I am advocating will be more detrimental to football than the Bosman Ruling, so I can't blame them for being pissed.

pc4th
21 May 2006, 07:22 PM
Total cost of getting these players for 3 years.

2005

1. $68 mil Essien ([£24.43m] $44 mil in transfer fee + $24 mil in salary for 3 years)

2. $59 mil Shaun Wright-Phillips ([ £21m] $38 mil in transfer fee + $21 mil in salary)

3. $58 mil Michael Owen ([£17m] $31 mil + $27 mil)

4. $54 mil Sergio Ramos ([£18.48m] $33 mil in transfer fee + $21 mil in salary)

5. $51 mil Robinho [£16.64m]$30 mil + $21 mil)

2004

1. $64 mil Drogbar ([£24m] $43 mil in transfer fee + $21 mil in salary for 3 years)

2. $57 mil Rooney [£20m] $36 mil + $21 mil

3. $57 mil Ricardo Carvalho [£19.85m] $36 mil in transfer fee + $21 mil in salary)

4. $57 mil Samuel Eto'o [£18.14m] $33 mil in transfer fee + $24 mil in salary]

5. $54 mil Emerson [£18.48m] $33 mil in transfer fee + $21 mil in salary]

Total cost of getting Mandy Ramirez for 3 years is around $60 million. His annual salary is as you might guess it, $20 million a year since he was a free agent (free transfer).


-------------------------

p.s. What I am debating for is harmful to the game I love. I don't like the Bosman ruling just as much as the next guy. However, this stuff is interesting to me and I am researching into why there are so very few star players that went on a Bosman. Sol Campbell is the first and Ballack is the second star player that took advantage of it. We fans should be thankful that for every Campbell/Ballack, there are 20 other star players that have not took advantage of the free transfer over these past 10 years. As a result, many smaller clubs are able to survive and thrive.

romagol10
21 May 2006, 07:26 PM
Top Soccer Revenue reported by Deloite and Touche (the latest)



Did anyone else read that as toilet and douche or am I the only lysdexic here?

Toon³
21 May 2006, 07:39 PM
More Evidence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/5001674.stm


The total cost of getting Henry is $95 mil in transfer fee + $10 mil in salary a year + $0 in signing-on fee (TODAY)

The total cost of getting Henry 1 year from now when he is on a free is $0 in transfer fee + $10 mil in salary + X in signing-on fee.

If that X in signing on fee is $50 million, Real/Barca would have save $45 million. The downside is that they have to wait 1 year to get Henry.

Henry, on the other hand, would get that $50 million in signing-on fee.


You do know that Henry signed a new contract a couple of days ago?

And why wouldn't Henry get a signing on fee when he transfered for a fee instead of a free?

AND yet again you are making up figures for signing on fees.


p.s. I know that what I am doing is right since a lot of people are really pissed about it. What I am advocating will be more detrimental to football than the Bosman Ruling, so I can't blame them for being pissed.

Alot of people are pissed when I fart in a lift but it doesn't mean I'm right.

What exactly are you advocating? You just spout numbers that have no basis and make asumptions about things.

pc4th
21 May 2006, 07:50 PM
You do know that Henry signed a new contract a couple of days ago?

LOL. Someone who is researching about the transfer fees and reading about sports business everyday, of course I know that.

And why wouldn't Henry get a signing on fee when he transfered for a fee instead of a free?

I don't think Henry got a signing-on fee by extending his contract with Arsenal. Ballack, on the other hand, got a seven-figure signing-on fee from Chelsea when he went there on a free. Same with Sol Campbell who went on a free from Spurs to Arsenal. It was reported that he got a huge signing-on fee as well as a contract that made him the highest paid Arsenal player (until Henry two days ago).

AND yet again you are making up figures for signing on fees.

Since it is a hypothetical situation, I have to make up figures.
REal/Barca is offering $95 million in transfer fees for Henry (which is debatable). If they wait a year and get Henry on a free, even if they give Henry $50 million in signing-on fee, they would be better off by $45 million. That is all I am saying.

What exactly are you advocating?

I am not advocating anything. As a student of sports business/economics, I believe that the transfer fees system is detrimental to the top players (unlike their American counterparts). It costs the Boston Red Sox around $60 million to get Mandy Ramirez for 3 years. It costs Chelsea around $68 million to get Essien for 3 years. Yet, Ramirez is earning $20 million a year and Essien is earning only around $8 million a year.

Toon³
21 May 2006, 08:02 PM
LOL. Someone who is researching about the transfer fees and reading about sports business everyday, of course I know that.

So why did you bring it up?

I don't think Henry got a signing-on fee by extending his contract with Arsenal. Ballack, on the other hand, got a seven-figure signing-on fee from Chelsea when he went there on a free. Same with Sol Campbell who went on a free from Spurs to Arsenal. It was reported that he got a huge signing-on fee as well as a contract that made him the highest paid Arsenal player (until Henry two days ago).

The total cost of getting Henry is $95 mil in transfer fee + $10 mil in salary a year + $0 in signing-on fee (TODAY)

You said that he won't get a signing on fee for moving on a transfer.


Since it is a hypothetical situation, I have to make up figures.
REal/Barca is offering $95 million in transfer fees for Henry (which is debatable). If they wait a year and get Henry on a free, even if they give Henry $50 million in signing-on fee, they would be better off by $45 million. That is all I am saying.

So your saying that Henry wouldn't get a signing on fee if he moved for a transfer fee? Even though in all of your other threads you are adding on signing on fees for players who moved for a transfer fee.


I am not advocating anything. As a student of sports business/economics, I believe that the transfer fees system is detrimental to the top players (unlike their American counterparts). It costs the Boston Red Sox around $60 million to get Mandy Ramirez for 3 years. It costs Chelsea around $68 million to get Essien for 3 years. Yet, Ramirez is earning $20 million a year and Essien is earning only around $8 million a year.

You clearly said in 3 seperate threads in the last 20 minutes that you are advocating something.

The transfer system has worked like this for over 100 years, it's working just fine without any change. If earning $8 million a year is detrimental, then sign me up!

If you really want to try and make football a better place then try tackling the real issues in football finance. Like agents fees and people like Freddy Shephard sucking money out of clubs.

pc4th
21 May 2006, 08:10 PM
So why did you bring it up?

Why wouldn't I? It said that Henry is worth $95 million in the transfer market. I bring it up as a hypothetical situation IF IF IF.

The total cost of getting Henry is $95 mil in transfer fee + $10 mil in salary a year + $0 in signing-on fee (TODAY)

You said that he won't get a signing on fee for moving on a transfer.

As far as I know from my research, there is no signing-on fee from transfer (fees). The player get a cut of that transfer fees, typically around 5-7%.

However, when a player sign on a FREE transfer, there is a signing-on fee. See Sol Campbell and the seven figure signing-on fee for Ballack.

You clearly said in 3 seperate threads in the last 20 minutes that you are advocating something.

I am pointing out that the transfer fees system is detrimental to the elite stars players.

The transfer system has worked like this for over 100 years, it's working just fine without any change. If earning $8 million a year is detrimental, then sign me up!

I agree that the transfer system is working fine. But it could be better for the elite player. Would you like to earn JUST $8 million a year or $16 million a year?

If you really want to try and make football a better place then try tackling the real issues in football finance. Like agents fees and people like Freddy Shephard sucking money out of clubs.

If the transfer system becomes the American free agency system, the agents fee would come out of the player salary (maybe). In American sports, the agent get a cut (usually 5%) from the contract.

For example, Alex Rodriquez makes $25 million a year. His agent gets 5% of that, which is about $1.75 mil a year. Basically, the agent fees is negotiate between the player and the agent in American sports. In European football, the agent fee is negotiate between the club and the agent (for the most part).

Toon³
21 May 2006, 08:22 PM
OK, trying to reason with you is like talking to a brick wall so I'm going to stop. :)

Players are paid far too much as it is at the moment so your idea to pay them even more is just plain silly.

DaPrince84
22 May 2006, 10:32 AM
why is this thread being made again... and why am I reading it... I DO NOT CARE!!

nicephoras
22 May 2006, 10:40 AM
For example, Alex Rodriquez makes $25 million a year. His agent gets 5% of that, which is about $1.75 mil a year.

I now understand where your Ballack numbers come from.

billyireland
22 May 2006, 10:47 AM
Fishing?
Just back from the local place, got some good bait and a sparkling new rod.

pc4th
23 May 2006, 04:36 PM
I now understand where your Ballack numbers come from.

I take it that you've never made a mathematic error before?

Also, I see a lot of flaming and no voting. Maybe you know deep down that I am right. Heck, Ballack proved that I am right. If he went on a transfer fees, he will probably make around 100,000 pounds a week. On a free transfer, he got 121,000 pounds a week + a seven figure signing-on fee.

nicephoras
23 May 2006, 04:45 PM
I take it that you've never made a mathematic error before?

Also, I see a lot of flaming and no voting. Maybe you know deep down that I am right. Heck, Ballack proved that I am right. If he went on a transfer fees, he will probably make around 100,000 pounds a week. On a free transfer, he got 121,000 pounds a week + a seven figure signing-on fee.

Wait, I thought he was making gazillions. :rolleyes: Ballack took a calculated risk. Theirry Henry signed a new deal and got a large salary increase. So, who does what prove right? If Ballack had blown out his knee a week before finalizing terms with Chelsea, bye bye money.