Originally posted by ShAoLiN_ChRoNiC:
<strong>
I agree, he is best on the left, but thats because he has never really played as a striker before. He didnt do bad did he? Just remember Henry's transformance given time.
I dont think it was a case of Duff suddenly getting better when he moved out wide, it was Ireland getting better when Quinn moved in and troubled defences. As a partnership, Keane and Duff shouldnt really work, but they did ok against the odds (and logic). Duff would be better with RVN.
As for Ronaldo - he doesnt earn as much as Beckham.
As for Nike, they are different IMO. They interfered with the 98 WC Final, Ronaldo and Nike are very tightly associated, and if that isnt the case, Nike will make it the case. They forced him to play the final and then made him dangle his boots around his shoulders for the cameras - so they'd get maximum exposure right next to his toothy grin.
I think any move for Ronaldo would depend on Nike. They must be fed up of him being at Inter. He might be fed up too...
Ronaldo is a huge part of Nike's strategy, HUGE, but if anything rivals that, its Man Utd, their deal with us totally eclipses their deal with Brazil. I have to admit, we're bordering on conspiracy theories, but theres definitely a chance of Nike doing this IMO. They're capable, but doesnt mean they will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ronaldo more than Beckham in wages, but less in sponsorship deals. See this <a href="http://www.soccernet.com/england/news/2002/0501/20020501mufcbeckham.html" target="_blank">link</a>.
Anyway, here is what Edwards had to say about signing Ronaldo.
UWS: United fans have been disappointed with the seeming inability to attract players such as Batistuta and Salas to Old Trafford and they believe that it is because of the clubs' refusals to make their wage demands. Is this the case and how will the takeover affect future transfer dealings at the club?
Edwards: Salas would not have been a problem. We knew what the terms were and if the manager wanted Salas he could have had him - we've said that publicly. Alec went to see Salas in South America, and came back impressed but it was just at the time when Cole had started firing on all cylinders. Alec felt that Salas was a risk and questioned whether he would settle in this country with the different climate and language. Alec felt he was a box player and that we already had a perfectly good box player in Cole.
In terms of Batistuta you're quite right. His terms were at least three times more than the highest paid player and quite frankly we weren't prepared to bust the wage scale for one player. We've made no secret of our wage scale and we adopt the policy whereby we budget sensibly in terms of the players we bring in and in terms of wages and we're not prepared to broker the club for one player and that's quite right. We haven't had many refusals with that policy. Batistuta was one and Ronaldo may have been another one.
UWS: Say we broke the bank for Ronaldo. We'd have the world's best player in the side, the share price would rise and surely there would be associated spinoffs in merchandise. Wouldn't the transfer pay for itself?
Edwards: Perhaps you're right but the transfer fee element is only one part of the deal and the wages have become a major element. If we bring in Ronaldo and pay him three times more than everybody else, when it comes to the other players renegotiating their contracts: the likes of Giggs, Beckham, Schmeichel and Keane, then they're going to want a huge rise too. They're not going to be too happy playing alongside someone who's earning three times as much as them. With our twenty first team players, we could end up doubling our total wage bill just for one player and we're not prepared to do that. In the last three years the salaries of all our players have gone up by 30% a year - it's incredible. We'd end up losing money and we are a public company who is answerable to our shareholders and expected to make money each year.
Look at Real Madrid - who won the European Cup last season. Real Madrid are millions and millions of pounds in debt - I hear all sorts from £25 - 50 million. They don't know how they are going to get out of that debt, whether they are going to mortgage the ground or whatever.
We'd hate to be in that situation at United because we've always run the club as a serious business and we've been successful along the way too winning championships and developing the stadium. You could say that if we'd gone a little bit further, then we might have won the European Cup, but last year we got to the quarter final and the year before we got to the semi. We're not far off and it's not worth putting the club in jeopardy because the day of reckoning always comes.
If anybody accuses me of pulling back on players then I would have to accept that but whilst I'm the chief executive, I will always do what is best in the long term for Manchester United and the long term interests may not coincide with the supporters short term interests. They might say, "win the European Cup this year at all costs," but I have to take a longer, more pragmatic business view on that one because I'm responsible for the club. I can't please everybody all the time.
