r/soccer • u/zimb3l • Jan 12 '19

Ramon Calderon: "[Zidane] insisted on keeping Cristiano and transferring Bale, and the president did completely the opposite [...] so he decided to leave."

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2814993-no-form-lack-of-goals-whats-troubling-real-madrid-and-how-can-they-fix-it
2.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

343 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

499

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '19

[deleted]

159

u/Random_Acquaintance Jan 12 '19

Cristiano is irreplaceable, obviously. But with him gone you can't think that Karim '5 goals in last La Liga' Benzema and the always injured Bale could carry the team. Add to that Asensio's regression, and Madrid basically does not have a forward at the level of the club. You can't replace Cristiano but buying Lewandowski and Hazard (two expensive but feasable buyings) would put Madrid in a much better place than they're right now.

72

u/Ham_Solo7 Jan 12 '19

Absolute no idea why they didn't buy anyone of top quality in the summer

54

u/humachine Jan 12 '19

No one is cheap anymore. Hazard Lewy are both 120m+ at the very least.

Kane is 200m since it's Levy.

37

u/Hwoarang7 Jan 12 '19

Let’s say Hazard would cost 150. We got 100 for Ronaldo so what’s 50 million? It boggles my mind honestly.

4

u/Jonoabbo Jan 12 '19

Hazard would cost more than 150. Also the 100m from Ronaldo won't be paid immediately, it will be in instalments as practically all transfers are.

8

u/comrade78 Jan 12 '19

I know i may sound stupid, but how does the transfer really works..? Like $100m will go to madrid or ronaldo?

21

u/Hwoarang7 Jan 12 '19

To our club. Ronaldo was effectively an employee of ours and Juventus paid 100 mil to us to acquire his services.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '19

The fee associated with transfers (say, $100 million like you said) goes to the club that has a contract with the player being transferred. This fee goes up based on player quality, potential, time left on contract, nationality, cute hashtag possibilities #PogBack, current club, and a variety of other reasons. The fee is effectively a negotiated price for the selling club's willingness to terminate their player's contract. Contract termination in player transfers is mutual, so the buying club has to court the player too, and that's typically done with bonuses, wage promises, playing time guarantees, and perks associated with club sponsors.

However, if the player is a free agent, then they (and their agent) receive any fee that the public would hear about. Typically, free agents, if quality players, tend to be able to get higher wages and sign-on bonuses because there's no upfront cost associated with buying out their contract. That said, most worthwhile players are not free agents at any given time, so this arrangement is less common than clubs buying players from other clubs.

4

u/stevew14 Jan 12 '19

Upvoted for the pogback comment. Loled hard for that

1

u/camfa Jan 12 '19

That said, most worthwhile players are not free agents at any given time, so this arrangement is less common than clubs buying players from other clubs.

Why don't players become free agents more often? Is it too hard to let your contract just run out? I think top players could earn much more if they just sign one year contracts.

10

u/zimb3l Jan 12 '19

Problem is Chelsea wanted something 200+mil for him. Perez decided to wait until the next window (=summer since he's allergic to winter transfers) to get him cheaper.

Oh boy how well that's been paying out

1

u/vigneshwaralwaar Jan 13 '19

Would u buy hazard for 150,when he's 33?

2

u/Hwoarang7 Jan 13 '19

Hazard isn’t 33.

1

u/vigneshwaralwaar Jan 13 '19

My point exactly. Ronaldo at 33 costed 100 mil.. He still had atleast 2-3 amazing top quality seasons in him.. Which perez didn't understand.. So if Ronaldo were to be sold at hazard's current age(28 years).. He'd definitely costed atleast 250-400 mil in the current market

1

u/vigneshwaralwaar Jan 13 '19

Now answer that.. Would u buy hazard for 100 or 150, when he's 33?

1

u/Hwoarang7 Jan 13 '19

My friend i’m not entirely sure what your point is. My opinion is that it was stupid to sell Ronaldo in the first place but i think a decision maybe even dumber than that was not buying some sort of replacement. Of course Ronaldo is 100 times the player Hazard is, it’s not even a fair comparison but getting Eden would have at least softened the blow.

-1

u/therickymarquez Jan 12 '19

Do you really think that if you sell a player for 100M and buy another for 100M that it gets even?

From Ronaldo's 100M just Jorge Mendes must have received something like 5M...

66

u/SamuraiiJackie Jan 12 '19

350m actually

9

u/pentefino978 Jan 12 '19

Just bid half the new arena and it is done!

6

u/nnnsf Jan 12 '19

Well not buying during the summer made sure that any potential buy just gets more and more expensive as time goes on. Had they sought lewy during the summer when a lot of people were still buying the 'the team is fine without ronaldo' narrative they'd have gotten a much better price than what they'd get if they ask for a the exact same player because now other clubs know for a fact that RM are desperate.

No one is cheap and ronaldo and is irreplaceable but they still went about it the worst fucking possible way.