Manchester United Transfer Report: No Bid for Kaka, Says Mourinho
The former World Player of the Year was reportedly being "seriously considered" by United boss Sir Alex Ferguson as a potential loan candidate for this season (per The Daily Mail), but Mourinho has confirmed there has been no bid by the Red Devils for Kaka.
The manager claimed that the Spanish club had received no official bids from United despite speculation that there was interest.
He said: "We have no official proposals for Kaka."
According to sources, Kaka had been offered on a season-long loan to Manchester United as Real Madrid prepare for the arrival of Luka Modric.
But Mourinho denied the reports, claiming there was nothing in writing in stone for the 30-year-old Kaka.
Manchester United fans should collectively breathe a sigh of relief with this transfer news, for the acquisition of Kaka would have been one of the more bizarre and downright foolish moves that Sir Alex Ferguson had ever made at Old Trafford.
I know, trust the legend and all that, but a move for Kaka would be just ridiculous. He is not the 2007 World Player of the Year anymore, and he would be a poor addition to United's midfield for the 2012-13 English Premier League.
Kaka's far too expensive for the Red Devils to be seriously considering a loan deal—£250,000 per week is more than what any other player at Manchester United is currently making, including the team's star players Wayne Rooney and Robin van Persie.
Kaka is expensive, he is far too injury-prone, and he simply isn't as good as he was four or five years ago.
I understand the whole form is temporary, class is permanent thing—and I can therefore completely understand why a loan-deal for the jaded star could work out for United—but it is simply too big of a risk for the Red Devils to take.
Especially when the rewards aren't even that spectacular.
Is Kaka making a move to Manchester United this summer?
Comment below or hit me up on Twitter: Follow @dantalintyre
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?