We are very fortunate to be in a position where we have wealthy owners who are willing to back the club to the hilt.
And I can't help but wonder if some of the criticism levelled at City - from both inside and outside the game - is borne of jealousy.
In the past, only a handful of teams have had the resources to compete for the world's best players. We have now joined that group - and it's clear that some people don't like it.
Is City's bid to sign Kaka really any crazier than Real Madrid's £46m bid for Zinedine Zidane eight years ago? Or United's £27m signing of Wayne Rooney when he was still a teenager?
Is it any crazier than Newcastle's £15m signing of Alan Shearer in 1996? Or United's signing of Andy Cole for £7m in 1995?
Clubs have always been prepared to spend fortunes to attract the big-name players.
So while I can understand that the Kaka bid has shocked a few people, I would suggest that it's only indicative of spiralling transfer fees and wages generally.
Some commentators have also suggested that it's outrageous that Kaka should be offered £500,000 a week in wages.
I would suggest it is more surprising that no one bats an eyelid any more when players at the so-called big four clubs routinely pick up six-figure weekly salaries.
But that is the going rate for the best. If you look at the top players in tennis, golf and basketball, they are all multi-millionaires.
The other question that has been aimedat City regards what happens if the owners walk away.
I cannot see that happening. They are successful business people in this for the long term.
They are not going to throw millions at a football club and then just up sticks and leave.
Sheikh Mansour and the Abu Dhabi Group are just starting. And that's why the long-term future is bright for City - Kaka or no Kaka.
Gary Owen is at gtcmanagement.co.uk, for business energy savings.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
rosler's rasper, GM (17/01/2009 at 14:01)
marko77, sharston (17/01/2009 at 14:03)
madblue, oldham (17/01/2009 at 14:05)
blueloon, Northwich (17/01/2009 at 14:23)
padscity, south yorks (17/01/2009 at 14:24)
All these knockers are mostly coming from salford or connected from manure in someway?
just been on skysports and andy "manu"gray just want's to knock our bid for kaka saying it's a ridiculous amount of money, maybe so but has not SAF been doing it all these years? £30 mill for rooney £30 mill ferdinand
£30 mill berbatov,£18 mill carrick,£30+ for tevez if he signs...the list goes on.Didn't see any knockers there or chelsk when abramovich came in,NO!! because unfashionable city are gatecrashing the party!!!
Makes my blood boil!
what about beckham did he not sign for galaxy at £125- MILLION PER YEAR!!!! for 5 years!
well like it or not,CITY mean business,he may sign he may not,but our intent is real make no mistake about that!!
MCFC THE RIDE CONTINUES.
the cursed colin, portsmouth (17/01/2009 at 14:27)
Sheikh rattle and rolling in it!.. formally Thaksin's shoe shine boy, Falmouth.. Costa Del Cornwall. (17/01/2009 at 14:34)
my big gripe tho is why nothing was ever said when chelski offered 150million euro's (then about 70million quid in our money) for him the other year it was when they bought sheva and maybe the only reason milan didnt accept then was coz of the money they got for shev meant they didnt need to sell anyone else at that time.. yet fast forward to the present and we offer less at about 120 million euros' but more in our money (107million quid) due to the drop in the £... and we get slaughterd from all sides!
also why is nobody mentioning that feckham from peckham is getting £480k per week from lala galaxy and he has never been a true world great like Kaka is... double standards once again i think..
finally look at the transfer of turdinand from leeds to manure for 30 million... and if u check out some facts about leeds you find that they we're prepared to sell him for 12 -15 million until fungie made his enquiry and offered them double and as such made sure nobody else could afford to compete.. yet nothing was said about them hiking up the price and killing football as we know it... but then again when is anything ever said against them and the way they steamroller over everyone else..
so thanks gary for standing up and fighting our corner, and to all those know it all football pundits and so called big clubs all i can say is .... tough titties this is the way its gonna be from now on so get used to it... and remember if we come knocking on ur door and we really want ur best player we will take him and theres nothing u can do!! mwhahahaha!!!!
Esso blue, Elite are circling,, Manchester City F.C. busy Rubber Stamping. It's a done deal. Next (17/01/2009 at 14:35)
CITY sent a warning shot across the bow with ROBINHO, this one with KAKA has just hit the engine room.
Ferrari, Toulouse (17/01/2009 at 14:37)
Blue Balls, Napier, NZ (17/01/2009 at 14:37)
I am Blue Balls larger than life, and the goal, they will never get around me :P
ps my goal kicks are crap tho : (
bludarnsarf (17/01/2009 at 14:48)
Pity we can't get him on MOTD or a SKY programme to give a balanced view against what is currently being said in the media!
They dont like it up 'em Mr Mainwaring!
Andrew Shaw (17/01/2009 at 14:50)
John Syred, Vancouver, Canada (17/01/2009 at 14:53)
Harry`the DIV` H, Manchester (17/01/2009 at 14:57)
The hypocrisy with regards to this Kaka saga has been mind-boggling, we even have Garry Birtles commenting now, a man who left a championship(old first division)and European cup winning side to join a mediocre Man United side, I wonder why ?
As people say, the `Sky 4` know there`s the most realistic chance now more than ever that one of them may lose out somewhere down the line and they don`t like it.
Trotsky The Red (17/01/2009 at 15:00)
Citeh, you couldn't make it up.
big blumer, cheltenham (17/01/2009 at 15:12)
today on footie focus darren anderton and mark lawrenson were condeming it as "stupid" but as usual were too dumb to back it up with any real balance......
how darren anderton can talk about immoral wages when he probably got paid for about 5 seasons at spurs on 20 grand a week and played once a season was pure hypocracy.....
then some genius said - "30 million, thats fine, but 100 million is insane, football will die etc etc".......sorry but by my logic if you have a problem with 100 million you should also have a problem with 30 million, and if you accept 30 million as ok then why is 100 million so bad. example, rio ferdinad for 30 million 7 years ago. not the finished article and a centre back. great coup all the pundits like the perma-thick paul merson crooned. so why then, with inflation, is kaka, a true legend and many would say the best in thw WORLD and at the height of his powers not worth, relativly, 3 times more?????
the best came from lawrenson though, yet again.....he said somthing like - "we are in a credit crunch, how can people look at this and not think it is crazy"........i absolutly love it mark, LOVE IT.....how the hell does kaka become responsible for the credit crunch, his fee comes from OVERSEAS from a wealthy individual. if anything the hundred grand per week that this country will recieve in tax from his wages will be welcome, courtesy of abu-dhabi, wont it........you, on the other hand, get a six figure salary for sitting on a sofa once a week for 45 minutes saying things like - "at the end of the day its a game of two halves. the offside rule needs sorting and blah blah blah"......and thats what my tv licence fee pays for.......
HANSEN, LAWRENSON, CROOKS AND DUMB DUMBS MERSON,SHEARER AND WORST OF ALL CHRIS KAMARA........YOU ARE HYPOCRITS WITH NO ABILITY TO HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A LINEAR WAY OF THINKING.........
tell somone like paul merson that water is wet and he can understand it, just about, as a concept. tell him that it is wet, can be used for drinking and cleaning yourself and he would probably suffer a stroke from information overload............thick as all of them. with the added bonus of having the dream combinaton of stupidity and self-righteousness
Andrew Shaw (17/01/2009 at 15:14)
StretfordBLUE, America (17/01/2009 at 15:15)
ted knott, droylsden (17/01/2009 at 15:32)
Okanagan Blue, Kelowna, Canada (17/01/2009 at 15:36)
blue 12 (17/01/2009 at 15:56)
Besides, City`s owners were recently spotted outside a certain cash machine in Stretford so whats the problem ?
CTID.
Michelle Vonks Nose, Pembrokeshire (17/01/2009 at 16:19)
Bert is my hero, Cheshire! (17/01/2009 at 18:25)
tommy hutchinson's dribble, Mexico (17/01/2009 at 18:32)
Then an executive attack force arrives from City with a bag of money, a crow bar, and significantly an additional 27 million pounds to go on 'signing on fees' and 'agency fees.'
City are paying the agents more than Utd paid for Rooney in total! Now that is crazy!
So, Kaka, I won't go so far to say is being kidnapped, but it is fair to say he is being railroaded by interests other than his own.
Notice that the decision appears to be being taken by Kaka's father, not Kaka.
Delighted if he comes to Eastlands, and think he will be the catalyst for the revolution! Just wanted to say why I think it is a different deal.
Kippax Lover, Failswerf, Manchester (17/01/2009 at 18:49)
£100m for a player is the new £30m.
Q. Why is it suddenly immoral / obscene to spend £100m on 1 player?
A. Because Liverpool, Chelski, Rags or Arsenal don't have that kind of money.
But it's not immoral to spend £25-30m on Essien, Torres, Shrek, Rio, Shevchenko and the likes. Or pay Lampard £150k a week. Because that's the 'going rate' for top players (quote Lawrenson).
If thats the 'going rate' how WHY have 80% of clubs in the Premier League never even spent as much as one third of the 'going rate' on one player?
Simple, because the 'top 4' of the last 15 years have been the only ones to afford the 'going rate' because of the financial advantage they have had from Champions League success. Now that's unfair and immoral and clubs like City have had to live with that for too long.
The 'top 4' do not see their immorality when the money tips the playing field in their favour and their trophy cabinets are well stocked directly because of that.
Our money is only immoral because the money threatens the status quo of the 'top 4'.
No more no less.
Those who take a pop at our ridiculous amounts of money are in denial, have short memories and red tinted glasses.