PODCAST: Darwin Nunez is a Red

5 hours ago, dave u said:

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

 

With regard to the points about Haaland and Nunez, I agree with Dave’s points.

It is to be expected that newspapers / sports news will cover the respective purchases of Haaland and Nunez in terms of comparison – two big rivals, two new purchases, two similar footballers etc etc.

It is also clear that the price in Euros is being reported more for Nunez than Haaland (both purchased from Europe).  I think the reason for this is that “100” is an eye-catching, more appealing number to report, so it is just a matter of expedience on the part of journalists.  Hyperbole and exaggeration generates interest which drives sales and clicks.

But the other point, about one financial cost appearing lower (whilst other elements of the deal being ignored) is also true.  They are not reporting the cost, they are only reporting the fee.

Does this matter?  I would say it does.

We would agree that presenting the story like this suits Manchester City.  I would say they benefit from it.  Public perception informs discourse around an issue, which in turn influences media “takes” on a matter.  It all connects.  It’s only on the rare occasion when we are totally at odds with public discourse that we notice our complicit acceptance of the way we perceive news stories.

So at the moment, at least a part of the public perception has been that Man City are a malevolent force in football due to their financial power – outspending competitors at will.  Attention to this may in turn generate scrutiny of how this has come about, which may again place FFP on the news agenda.

But in this instance they are being outspent by Liverpool.  This is shorthand for “nothing to see here, look, Liverpool are outspending rivals: they are ALL doing it”.  They benefit from a surface comparison of “fees”.

Whilst I’m not suggesting that there is co-ordinated approach to covering news stories, I would say that an “agenda” IS set in terms of the way a news story is presented, and other news outlets repeat it.  (Unless it is a divisive issue, this is true about most media.)  It’s just easier that way.

So, in short, Man City will be happy that Nunez is being reported in one way, and Haaland in another.  I would say it does matter, and it is more important than people think.

It is part of the co-ordinated sports wash.

Man City’s Media Dept will be pumping out news releases every day with statements around “Man City’s new £51m purchase …” / “Haaland, who joined City in a deal worth £51m…”.

This all sticks.  And is churned.

So, we wait and see who will challenge the narrative, and look at the COST of the deal, rather than a headline fee figure.  If he flops, you can bet this will happen.  Otherwise, City have won in this one.

A rambling point.  But when I was listening, I could see Dave’s point.  It is a convenient smokescreen.  It’s how public perception changes. 

Just to finish, I just want to say the podcasts are excellent.  I really do enjoy them – well done to all!

That's a fucking great post.

21 hours ago, razor said:

With regard to the points about Haaland and Nunez, I agree with Dave’s points.

 

It is to be expected that newspapers / sports news will cover the respective purchases of Haaland and Nunez in terms of comparison – two big rivals, two new purchases, two similar footballers etc etc.

 

It is also clear that the price in Euros is being reported more for Nunez than Haaland (both purchased from Europe).  I think the reason for this is that “100” is an eye-catching, more appealing number to report, so it is just a matter of expedience on the part of journalists.  Hyperbole and exaggeration generates interest which drives sales and clicks.

 

But the other point, about one financial cost appearing lower (whilst other elements of the deal being ignored) is also true.  They are not reporting the cost, they are only reporting the fee.

 

Does this matter?  I would say it does.

 

We would agree that presenting the story like this suits Manchester City.  I would say they benefit from it.  Public perception informs discourse around an issue, which in turn influences media “takes” on a matter.  It all connects.  It’s only on the rare occasion when we are totally at odds with public discourse that we notice our complicit acceptance of the way we perceive news stories.

 

So at the moment, at least a part of the public perception has been that Man City are a malevolent force in football due to their financial power – outspending competitors at will.  Attention to this may in turn generate scrutiny of how this has come about, which may again place FFP on the news agenda.

 

But in this instance they are being outspent by Liverpool.  This is shorthand for “nothing to see here, look, Liverpool are outspending rivals: they are ALL doing it”.  They benefit from a surface comparison of “fees”.

 

Whilst I’m not suggesting that there is co-ordinated approach to covering news stories, I would say that an “agenda” IS set in terms of the way a news story is presented, and other news outlets repeat it.  (Unless it is a divisive issue, this is true about most media.)  It’s just easier that way.

 

So, in short, Man City will be happy that Nunez is being reported in one way, and Haaland in another.  I would say it does matter, and it is more important than people think.

 

It is part of the co-ordinated sports wash.

 

Man City’s Media Dept will be pumping out news releases every day with statements around “Man City’s new £51m purchase …” / “Haaland, who joined City in a deal worth £51m…”.

 

This all sticks.  And is churned.

 

So, we wait and see who will challenge the narrative, and look at the COST of the deal, rather than a headline fee figure.  If he flops, you can bet this will happen.  Otherwise, City have won in this one.

 

A rambling point.  But when I was listening, I could see Dave’s point.  It is a convenient smokescreen.  It’s how public perception changes. 

 

Just to finish, I just want to say the podcasts are excellent.  I really do enjoy them – well done to all!

To put some conservative numbers to it: 

- from the figures being bandied about, the agent and dad both receive €30M, which translates roughly to £51M combined

- Let's say Nunez e aarns £150k p/w and Haaland is on double that (again, going ballpark from varying reports on these transfers) Nunez has 6 years on his contract, Haaland 5. 

- Haaland would earn £78M over the duration of his contract, Nunez £47M

So even with an extra year's wages, Nunez is still £31M 'worse' off than Haaland. 

- Add the non transfer fees to the extra wages and you get £82M not being discussed at any great length anywhere.

- So roughly the same number as the entirety of the Nunez fee IF he is a huge success at Liverpool. At which point his transfer fee would barely be mentioned in the same manner as now ever again. 

Life is far too fucking short to be worrying about the currency a transfer fee is being reported in. But, by the same token, Razor's point is excellently made. 

Speak for yourself, I'm planning another 10 minute diatribe in the next pod!