Manchester United Place Record Bid for Sneijder

Manchester United have offered Inter Milan a club record of £35 million for Wesley Sneijder, with the player thought to be "seriously considering" his future.

Sir Alex Ferguson yesterday ruled United out of the race to sign Arsenal's Samir Nasri, as the United manager believes Nasri has agreed to move elsewhere, so he has moved quickly to place a bid for his long-term target in Sneijder. Attention is now turned to Inter Milan and their decision as to whether or not they will accept the offer which would eclipse United's current transfer record of £30.75 for Dimitar Berbatov back in 2008.

Sneijder would prove to be Manchester United's most expensive midfield signing ever, with only Juan Sebastian Veron coming close with his £28.1 million transfer fee back in 2001, although United will be hoping that if Sneijder joins his spell will be more successful that the Argentinian's.

Sneijder has been offered £200,000 per week in wages according to TalkSport's Italy reporter Paddy Agnew, and by my calculations, on a four year deal would cost in wages alone, £41.6 million. Add that to the transfer fee and Sneijder would cost somewhere up to £76.6 million in total.

If Manchester Untied could not afford this, they wouldn't have placed the offer, so we must presume that the Old Trafford executives, including David Gill as well as the United manager and the clubs owners understand this, and they have the money to fund a move.

For those worried that United would make too big a loss for the purchase of Sneijder to even be considered, then I would suggest you cast your mind back to Real Madrid'd purchase of United's star man, Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 for £80 million on extraordinary wages. One year after Ronaldo joined Madrid, the Spanish club reported that they had already recouped the £80 million transfer fee in shirt sales with the Ronaldo name printed on the back.

Manchester United, the worlds biggest club and massive worldwide brand should be optimistic of similar success in signing such a big player in Sneijder. Many fans around the world will be hugely enthusiastic about the signing of an intended Paul Scholes replacement, and would be readily and excitedly prepared to fork out around £40-£50 to buy the United shirt with "Sneijder" on the back.

However, the decision still remains in Inter Milan's and Sneijder's hands. The bid is certainly a substantial one - for both the club and the player, and if either the club or the player turns down the offer, I cannot see United upping it by a large amount, leaving Sir Alex Ferguson still searching for that midfield star capable of reaching Paul Scholes standards.

Follow Me on Twitter @DBSFootball

A Prince, a Prime Minister and A Football Icon - But England Lose to... Russia?

England's dream of hosting their first World Cup since 1966 is over, as Russia won in their bid to host the 2018 World Cup.

England sent over the Prince and future King of England, the current Prime Minister, and a worldwide footballing icon, but FIFA were persuaded by Russia, whose bid was backed by oil billionaire and Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, among others. It is bitterly disappointing or England.

Our bid was clearly, far and away the best bid. We have the brilliant stadiums and facilities, we have the hugely passionate fans, we have the hype, the excitement, the love for football. We know know it feels to lose, that is for sure - we lose in the World Cup competitions all the time, but it doesn't stop us from having the same extreme hype year after year. It is even more disheartening that England went out in the first round of voting; meaning that the likelihood is that England received less than 5 votes out of 22. There really is something wrong there - that suggests that England had the worst bid out of all of the bidders - which is clearly untrue.

There will be questions asked about how this could have possibly come about. The credibility of FIFA really has to be questioned. Especially if England were considered to be the worst candidates. We clearly put masses of effort into the bid, while the Russian president only seemed interested when they won.

Did money and corruption play a part in the result? Consider also that the winners of he 2022 bid were Qatar - a country who are, like Russia extremely rich with oil, but whose stadiums are far less developed and facilities far less advanced than England's. Both Russia and Qatar have a big job in building new stadiums, new airports, new stations, and a friendly football environment for visitors; they must do this to justify their wins.

FIFA will say that the countries were chosen because of what they can do in the future, and how much development the country will undergo as a result, but shouldn't they have chosen the best bid? The BBC may be blamed for their Panorama programme accusing certain FIFA members of corruption, but if there is corruption, it should be sorted; a blind eye should not be turned on corruption in football and FIFA, and this result hasn't done any good in excluding England.