Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Hectic, May 28, 2012.
Mata is on about £60,000
My impression is that if United want players bad enough, SAF will be heavily involved. You've got Kagawa having meetings with Sir Alex, yet we have a bid accepted on Hazard and Fergie is off sunning himself. Instructions to Gill were probably "If we get him good, if not, don't care"
Oh and this signing was undoubtedly for the ridiculous pay package he'll receive. United would never have offered him 5 million quid a year net. At most it would have been 120k before tax.
He's English, which adds about £10-15m onto his valuation, plus he performed at the Euros. Hazard won't be at the Euros.
Every report I have heard from the time and since is that he is on £3 million a year.
Don't take the piss. Even clodhopper Cahill is on £80K. Mata is on £120K he turned down £90K at Arsenal.
Maybe Mata turned down £90,000 at Arsenal because he didn't want to go to Arsenal.
Most don't to be fair.
As Harry said said: ‘We were in for Mata and close to doing a deal. But he didn’t come and Chelsea came in. 'Obviously they can blow you out of the water wage wise, and then he changes his mind and they get him. It’s all about wages.’
Good for him but every Chelsea site and report since he signed puts it at £60,000 which is the sort of level that Cech, Luiz, Meireles and Ramires are all at.
In his eight completed seasons in charge, Chelsea spent an incredible £642,584,000 on buying players — and then a mindboggling £1,170,591,000 on paying them. That makes an eye-watering total of £1,813,175,000.
Add a further £66m lavished on the likes of Juan Mata last year...
Chelsea spent upwards of £30 million hiring and sacking two managers too, its chump change to them.
You know City's figures might end up even worse looking than that in half the time.
It would be hilarious if he just failed in the Premier League after all this "where will I join" drama.
Man City are catching up fast in the obscene spending stakes. Both they and Chelsea, with losses of £67.7m and £194.8m respectively last season, seem to have little chance of meeting UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations which will limit deficits to a total of 45m euros (£37.8m) over THREE seasons.
Chelsea players to leave in last 12 months:
Alex: £3.5 million p/a
Anelka: £4.5 million p/a
Bosingwa: £4 million p/a
Drogba: £6 million p/a
Kalou: £4 million p/a
Zhirkov: £3.5 million p/a
That is over £25 million there off the wage bill whilst Mata, Luiz, Meireles and Sturridge have all entered the wage bill on less than any of those players.
The three Belgians in the Chelsea squad maybe tipped the scales a teeny-tiny bit in the end.
though it may be a crazy money package, it is meaningless to have the money without any titles and getting worse, the money will dry up if we win nothing.
Well Lukaku is on £25,000 a week and I imagine De Bruyne will be similar whilst we are yet to hear anything about where we are at with Hazard.
This time next year we also have Lampard and his £7.5 million p/a coming off the wage bill and John Terry and his £7.5 million p/a in 2014.
To be replaced by more players on equal or higher wages with a transfer fee to pay into the bargain.
There isn't a chance we offered him £170,000 per week, so it blatantly wasn't equal money on offer. Chelsea are the worst team of the three by a significant amount, so he hasn't gone because he believes they have the best chance of winning the league.
He would walk into City's starting 11, so first team opportunities didn't play a role. A talented player like Hazard would get in for any team, he'd get in ahead of Young for United. But City especially were crying out for someone in their three attacking midfielders to provide width, none of their attacking players are natural out wide, bar Johnson who isn't a regular. I can't believe they didn't match or beat Chelsea's offer, thought Hazard was perfect for them.
Chelsea have no less competition for places than us or City, they have Mata, Marin and seem to be adding Hulk as well.
£6million to his agent as well?
What a joke.
A name like that, he will be inevitably a curse on Chelski. Lots of own goal and pen giveaways.
United had a Fortune and we didnt do too badly did we?
Best post in this thread IMO.
What I want to know is why Madrid and Barcelona weren't in for Hazard if he's meant to be that good?
Not to mention that if City weren't willing to pay his crazy money, Chelsea most probably would.
Also, Vermaelen and Gervinho are just down the street. No doubt having a few other friends in the vicinity would help him settle too.
They don't need him as much as the rest of us.
He's moving to England for a few years before going to Spain, imo. He's said several times he wants to play there in his career and probably sees England as a step to that. Neither club need him at the moment or would offer him any playing time. He can get a few years of development/experience in the Premier League so he can make the move eventually. I don't see him staying at Chelsea for the rest of his his 20s.
I'd say the same if he chose United. Given his penchant for drama and attention, it's going to be a bitch in a few years if he gets his way.
Madrid don't need him as they have a good, young front four which could play for another 3 or 4 years easily, so no need to buy Hazard.
I agree Barca could certainly do with an option to give some width on the left, obviously they have Tello but he is incredibly raw and Cuenca is primarily a right winger from what I've seen.
They have been strongly linked with Neymar who can play a similar role to Hazard, so maybe that's why they didn't go for him?
So you'd say he's probably not good enough to start for Madrid or Barcelona?
He wouldn't be the centre of the side, at either, which is probably something he's used to. I dare say Chelsea can and will build a side around him... Give him a real stage to shine.
Definitely. Who would he replace at Madrid? Obviously not Ronaldo on the left, so the only possibility is Ozil in the centre, which I don't think he would do. Ozil has been very up and down but he still has 20 assists for the season and suits Madrid more than Hazard would.
He would play some games for Barca when their normal game isn't working and they decide to play with more width. But for the majority of games Iniesta or Fabregas plays out on the left, but just cut in all the time, so he isn't going to replace either of them unless they change the way they play.
Tello played in the final classico on the left, so they do occasionally use some width and Hazard would be a clear improvement there. But Tello only played because Fabregas was rested for the second leg against Chelsea, so in the majority of games they would seem to use their usual approach and pack the midfield.
Saying that alot of people think they should change the way they play and get some width on the left as well as the right, hence being linked to Bale and Neymar. So I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their approach and stopped using so many central midfielders out of position. If they were to do that then Hazard would get in, because he is better than Tello or Cuenca currently. But like I said before, they could have a Neymar deal agreed, which means they wouldn't need Hazard.
Unproven? I don't see that in there anywhere? Not seeing the comparison.
Rooney had banged in goals for Everton and shown talent and ability in the domestic league and raped Euro 2004 before he busted his metatarsal.
If the 100, 000 a week after tax thing is true. I'm not surprised we didn't get him. I wouldn't have wanted us paying him that.
Talk about delusion.
I agree with Count Orduck (who I suspect is really the former poster Count Duckula).
I also think it is a bit arrogant to suggest that he only chose Chelsea because of money. We tend to do that when players go elsewhere. We don't know what Chelsea have promised him in terms of chances, role, etc., nor what plans they have about a new manager and their long terms plans. They might just have had a better offer for us in those regards as well.
Perhaps he sees, like others have mentioned, that we have Nani, Valencia and Young playing from the wings. Perhaps he also is worried about our long term future, as Ferguson is only getting older. We don't really know.
History is another thing mentioned. I think most young footballers are more obsessed with their own future than history tbh. I don't think they really care much about it.
It's really unthinkable that player would think of United as unstable because our manager is going to leave in a few years and then go to Chelsea. Five or six years ago I'd agree with you, right now there's no other incentive for a player to join Chelsea other than money. They're a circus and a really bad team.
fecking prick, damm Chelsea winning the CL has ruined everything.
If you read that article in full it appears that money was the key factor in this deal. Bico clearly wanted to earn top dollar from this transfer and when City pulled out he knew that Chelsea were his only hope.
Look like we might have just been pawns in Bico's game. Hazard was probably never joining us.
I m under the impression that his agent was inventing those stories of us being favourites and that he reached an agreement with 3 clubs and so on...
it's usual stuff that you d expect from those scum (agents), but this time it worked even better because the use of twitter made it more effective.
I just hope that fans wont turn on their clubs because some scum agent organised a good campaign on twitter....
As a Belgian I have to say I'm glad we didn't get him. Doesn't have the personality to be a United player. Seems like a guy that disrupts a dressing room.
Separate names with a comma.