Need to get this off my chest due to reports and interviews in he papares and tv in the last 48 hrs , his is a post by a jopurnalist who happens to be a blue and s disgusted with what has been said , i know a lot ofpeople on this forum will not be interested thats why i posted in gen dis , but some will
IT seems the potential transfer of Kaka has divided opinion among football fans more than almost any other issue in the history of the game.
Those opinions seem to differ dramatically depending on which club you support, so from the outset I feel I should state that I am a Manchester City supporter born and bred.
I am a great believer in healthy debates and accepting differing opinions – that’s part of the beauty of our wonderful game – but some of the criticism levelled at Manchester City in the past few days has been hypocritical and xenophobic.
Apparently spending £107million on one player is ‘bad for the game’. Well it is all very well making this statement but as yet I have yet to hear anyone back it up with a credible argument.
I would like someone to explain how having arguably the best player on the planet playing in the premiership is bad for football in this country.
And if by signing that player it opens up the possibility for another club to achieve success in the division how that can also be a bad thing.
Now here comes the hypocracy.
Name almost any club in the Premiership and I could tell you something they have done that is ‘bad for the game’.
Is having a foreign owner come along and, overnight, plunge a club into hundreds of millions of pounds of debt good for the game? Well that’s exactly what Manchester United and Liverpool did. At least Manchester City are completely debt free.
Wigan chairman Dave Whelan stated yesterday that this transfer will ‘rip the soul out of football’. I would argue that charging extortionate prices to away fans at the JJB Stadium rips the heart and soul out of the game. And as an aside Dave Whelan is the same man who, in his position at Wigan Warriors, has consistently broken the rugby league salary cap year after year.
Much of the heart and soul was ripped out of the game a long time ago (possibly around the time Sky took over and 3pm Saturday kick offs were consigned to history).
Arsene Wenger yesterday stated there will be a ‘disturbance’ in the transfer market, but he is way wide of the mark.
Manchester City are unique and the Kaka transfer is unique. What West Ham would charge Manchester City for a player will be different to what they charge Tottenham but that is the problem of Manchester City and their decision if they choose to pay it.
People are saying that Kaka will only be coming to Manchester City for the money and that he doesn’t really ‘love’ the club.
Well does Berbatov ‘love’ Manchester United and does Febregas ‘love’ arsenal? Let’s get real. Robinho doesn’t ‘love’ Manchester City but he loves us as much as any other player in the Premiership 'loves' their club.
If City can convince Kaka that they can win the Premiership in three years then you may well see him wearing sky blue in the very near future and he wouldn’t be wearing it just for the money.
Possibly the root of these wild accusations is that the money being spent is not that of an Englishman but of a faceless Sheik (described by Mr Whelan as ‘some Arab fella’) from a part of the world many have little understanding of.
But in 2009 should it not be possible for someone to buy a football club regardless of their race, religion or gender? His money is as good as anyone else’s – the problem only arises because he has more than anyone else.
The money being spent is his own personal wealth and he can do with it whatever he chooses within the confines of the law.
Would you tell someone that they couldn’t buy a car because they are paying too much for it? He is not spending the supporters’ money or even television rights money – it is his own cash.
And I have also heard ludicrous suggestions that £107million pounds could build two hospitals. Could anyone tell me why an Abu Dhabi Sheik should have to pay for two hospitals? If anyone could possibly use this argument it would be the people of Abu Dhabi. And for the record he does give very generously to many charities.
There is also the argument that City could buy four £20million players and build the team. Again the uniqueness of the situation has misled people. The fact is that Manchester City don’t just have £100million in the bank – they will buy Kaka as well as four other players and many more in the future.
Many comments have been made regarding Mark Hughes and how he has been undermined by this transfer and that he has had no part to play in the negotiations.
This is grossly unfair.
It is not the job of the modern manager to take part in negotiations other than to speak with the player once a fee has been agreed.
All a manager does at any club is identify a player he would like and ask the club’s hierarchy to purchase him – this transfer is no different to any other.
But all of this is in many ways immaterial because, no matter what anyone says, Manchester City will continue to spend huge amounts of money.
So if you are one those people who don’t agree with it you will just have to learn to live with it.
I am reluctant to use the term ‘jealousy’ because it is such an easy and perhaps childish accusation to throw around.
But judging by the backlash from the Kaka transfer there are many people within the game and sections of the media who are feeling very uneasy about the future.
But I feel assured in the fact that none of this criticism will be giving our owner, or our supporters, any sleepless nights.
the link is
http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103703
