Its economy of scale though isnt it, Hancock on its own did $645 million worldwide.
Kaka isnt going to generate $645 million worth of turnover for city, even if they win the CL and Prem year in, year out, yet he is going to be paid £15 million a year odd if reports are to be believed.
The rules should be that you cant spend more than earn, and the club should be run out of the income it generates and not from benefactors, I've been saying this since even before Jack walker bought the title with Blackburn. Its the fairest and most equal way of competition, every club started with nothing, People rag on about united being rich and buying the best players, yes, because the club EARNED the money.
THats where you're wrong, if Man City without Kaka win nothing, but with him win the CL, the League and the cups, thats 100mil in JUST the prize money, another 100mil in tv rights and ticket sales through all the various stages of all those cups, thats EVERY year aswell.
Remember also that say Kaka got 500k a week(which i don't remotely belive tbh, 250k seems more likely), but that makes the club seem serious, now to get say, Sergio Ramos in, without Kaka/Robinho, to persaude him it was worth joining they'd have to offer him 200k, but because Kaka and Robinho are their no persauding is required, he WANTS to join them and they pay him 100k a week instead.
You also need to remember, debt = turnover or income, debt is just that, debt.
if a club makes 100mil in a year through sales and merchandise, and spends 100mil in wages, thats fine, it would break even, if some stupid manager comes along and buys every player available(like redknapp at all clubs he goes to), in that instance you'd need extra cash. Sometimes its investors spending money they have, sometimes its loans, sometimes its multiple things, but mostly you'll find people spending money to make money. They think if they spend 50mil on players they'll do better, win a cup, make that money back, and from the increased position and cup winnings they think they'll sell more tickets and be able to sustain the higher wages they've given out. It all goes balls up when they spend more than they should and then they don't improve and don't increase their incoming money like they had planned to.
Several clubs are prime examples of that, Leeds spending to maintain competitive in the champs league, thinking they'd have that money every year, spunking loads on players and wages, dropping out of the league, dropping down the table and now massively overspending on wages and having gone into debt to buy.
Arsenal's debt isn't increasing, its decreasing, its managed debt and is working out great. We're making more profit AFTER the debt payments than before we took on the debt, once the debt is paid off we'll just be in even stronger a position.
LIkewise, ARsenal should have spent 10-20mil on 2-3 good players at the start of the season, it would have likely all but assured us of champs league football. Meaning spending 10-20mil now, gets us 30million more next year. Now we're looking like we could easily miss out on the champs league, so we spent nothing, but are now looking at our incoming money for next year being down 20-30million. it hurt us to not spend.
. Thank you.
