Lagerstedt Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 From the Guardian website: Exclusive Jamie Jackson Sunday March 11, 2007 The Observer Frank Lampard and Cristiano Ronaldo have 'no chance' of receiving the massive pay increases they are demanding from Chelsea and Manchester United. That is what they will be told this week by Peter Kenyon and David Gill, the chief executives of their clubs. Given the value of both men to their teams - Lampard was voted the world's second-best player last year and Ronaldo is 'currently the best player in the world', according to Sir Alex Ferguson - the decisions signal a sea change in attitudes to players' wages, which, in some cases, have spiralled to more than £100,000 a week. Article continues A senior executive at one the Premiership's 'big four' clubs told Observer Sport last night: 'There has been no formal discussion between clubs about this, but when speaking generally with other executives I sense there is certainly a feeling of "no more on player wages, otherwise where will they stop?" In negotiations, we now have an element where player representatives point to the new TV deal as if it is more money for the pot to pay player wages. That is not going to happen.' A senior source at Old Trafford said: 'There is currently a big fight going on between Ronaldo and United. He wants around £120,000 a week, but the club will not go above £100,000. He will stay, but there is a lot of trouble ahead.' The Portugal winger is thought to be on £60,000 a week in a deal that ends in 2010. Lampard will also be frustrated in his demands. 'He has no chance of getting what he wants,' an insider claimed. 'He will not be offered more than £100,000. That's final. He will have to take what Chelsea offer, end of story.' It is further evidence of Roman Abramovich's new stance over Chelsea's finances. After sanctioning the £130,000...#8209;a-week wages for summer signings Andriy Shevchenko and Michael Ballack, the billionaire owner refused to pay inflated fees in the January transfer window and, with negotiations with John Terry also having stalled, is taking a hard line over players' salaries. Lampard signed a five-year deal in 2004, but under European Union employment law he can buy himself out of the contract from May. Steve Kutner, Lampard's agent, described the Chelsea insider's statements as 'preposterous'. 'We haven't been made an offer yet,' said Kutner. 'But £100,000 is absolutely ridiculous because Frank is on way more than that already. I've had discussions with Peter [Kenyon] and we know where we want to go. Chelsea want Frank to stay for the next five years and so do we. I certainly haven't given the club any parameters - we are waiting.' Lampard, 28, is thought to earn closer to £80,000 a week rather than the £100,000-plus claimed by Kutner. And it is unlikely that he or Ronaldo will be able to attract higher wages in Europe. Barcelona have never been extravagant payers and Real Madrid's galactico days are behind them. They are the only two clubs that could feasibly top the wages paid in England. There has been speculation that Lampard is heading for Barca in the summer. His wife is from the region and the Catalan club were thought to be interested. But a Barcelona executive confirmed to Observer Sport that they will not target the midfielder. 'The club is not interested in Lampard, no way,' he said. Good news IMO. Have to stop this ridiculous wages that some players are on... Just one really worrying part, and that is the other top clubs around Europe. If they are willing to offer players more than 100k, definitely some players will move from the premiership, and this may lead to a fall in quality... By the way, isn't Michael Owen earning more than a 100k? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Should limit the whole of football to £50k pw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I never believe these figures tbh. Don't get me wrong, they're getting ridiculous money, but I think the media over-egg salaries. In fact, remember this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4898392.stm That puts the average Premiership player on £13k per week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon55544 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Should limit the whole of football to £50k pw. Why? Why do people moan about footballers wages? If footballers got a cap at £50k and because of that the price of tickets went down then yea i can understand but that wouldnt happend all that would have is dividends would go up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 aye lets keep paying £40 a match to fund the top player's wages, lest they go to Europe and the Premiership 'quality' drops jcoab Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Should limit the whole of football to £50k pw. Why? Why do people moan about footballers wages? If footballers got a cap at £50k and because of that the price of tickets went down then yea i can understand but that wouldnt happend all that would have is dividends would go up Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Players wages will go up to 200,000 for the top players by the end of next year. The new TV rights will not have gone unoticed by the players. They will push and push. The average premiership player will be on about 50k a week by the start of the 08/09 season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anthony118 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 the billionaire owner refused to pay inflated fees in the January transfer window And whose fault is that, Roman? £21m for Wright-Phillips to name but one? 'But £100,000 is absolutely ridiculous' Fuck off it's absolutely ridiculous - this is what gets on my tits with footballers (actually really its more the agents) like the whole Ashley Cole saga - they earn an absolute fortune and go crying when they "only" earn X amount of money a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Too much jealousy on this board. The only instance I'd agree to cap wages is if that actually brings the price of the tickets down but clubs won't do that knowing full well that demand for tickets are inelastic. I say let market forces decide. For every successful football player, there are thousands more who did not make it as pros and are earning pittance, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Can't blame the players for the salaries. They ask for what they think they can get from the clubs. If I thought my boss could afford to double my wage - I'd ask him for it. He'd probably say "fuck off, midds!" but it'd be worth asking the question. The player has signed a contract offered by the board. If the boards up and down the country were so upset - they wouldn't have offered the contracts in the first place. Movie stars earn $millions because they attract the crowds to the cinemas. Footballers do the same. Yes, it's obscene but that's life. If there was a salary cap on a players wage then the clubs could easily get around it by offering the basic salary with HUGE bonuses for winning games/cups/league. E.G. Basic of £20k a week with a £2m bonus for the league, £1m for either cup and £2m for Champions League. Technically the player is only on £1m a year but the bonuses kick in for a good season and no-one can touch them for breaking the salary cap. Better off bumping the dodgy Russian fucker off than making Chelsea jump trough hoops... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 If there was a salary cap on a players wage then the clubs could easily get around it by offering the basic salary with HUGE bonuses for winning games/cups/league. E.G. Basic of £20k a week with a £2m bonus for the league, £1m for either cup and £2m for Champions League. Technically the player is only on £1m a year but the bonuses kick in for a good season and no-one can touch them for breaking the salary cap. I dont see anything wrong with that, At least they might actually put the effort in every week, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toptoon Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Should limit the whole of football to £50k pw. Most sensible suggestion i've heard in a while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon55544 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Should limit the whole of football to £50k pw. Most sensible suggestion i've heard in a while. Please explain why its a good thing? I havent heard one good reason yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin99. Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I couldn't care less what the players salaries are, so long as their performances on the pitch entertain me. Unfortunately more often than not, they don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maddog2 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Lampard should not be allowed anywhere near 100,000 a week (even in Italian Lira) because in an ideal world I would get paid for watching that skilless, boring sack of shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 How would you feel if your wages were decided by a load of people who had nothing to do with either you or your employer? Players wages are down to the clubs, if the clubs pay their players more than they can afford and get into problems due to that, a la Leeds, then they only have themselves to blame. This is just yet another example of the shite level of business acumen in football, the majority of football club chairmen couldn't run a corner-shop let alone a multi-million pound business. Most of them took their positions when football clubs were small-fry, when they could be run almost as a hobby, by local businessmen in their spare time. Football isn't like that any more and the majority are way out of their depth; they get bullied by players and their agents into paying huge wages and the only response they can come up with is to raise ticket prices and pray that the next TV deal is as ridiculously huge as the last one. One day it won't be and a significant number of clubs will be totally screwed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 How would you feel if your wages were decided by a load of people who had nothing to do with either you or your employer? Players wages are down to the clubs, if the clubs pay their players more than they can afford and get into problems due to that, a la Leeds, then they only have themselves to blame. This is just yet another example of the s**** level of business acumen in football, the majority of football club chairmen couldn't run a corner-shop let alone a multi-million pound business. Most of them took their positions when football clubs were small-fry, when they could be run almost as a hobby, by local businessmen in their spare time. Football isn't like that any more and the majority are way out of their depth; they get bullied by players and their agents into paying huge wages and the only response they can come up with is to raise ticket prices and pray that the next TV deal is as ridiculously huge as the last one. One day it won't be and a significant number of clubs will be totally screwed. Whats Chelsea's excuse then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 How would you feel if your wages were decided by a load of people who had nothing to do with either you or your employer? Players wages are down to the clubs, if the clubs pay their players more than they can afford and get into problems due to that, a la Leeds, then they only have themselves to blame. This is just yet another example of the s**** level of business acumen in football, the majority of football club chairmen couldn't run a corner-shop let alone a multi-million pound business. Most of them took their positions when football clubs were small-fry, when they could be run almost as a hobby, by local businessmen in their spare time. Football isn't like that any more and the majority are way out of their depth; they get bullied by players and their agents into paying huge wages and the only response they can come up with is to raise ticket prices and pray that the next TV deal is as ridiculously huge as the last one. One day it won't be and a significant number of clubs will be totally screwed. Whats Chelsea's excuse then Well obviously, at the moment money is no object for them, but even so, they're getting their house in order, business-wise. Kenyon is a seriously good football-businessman and is at least as responsible for where ManU are today as Ferguson is, he recognises that Abramovich might not be around for ever - as he consistently says - and is even now preparing the club to stand on its own two feet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 nobody else think it's a two way street? for every lampard with super agents there's a james milner who doesn't even use an agent but uses a PFA representative (love that lad for his attitude to everything by the way) it's double edged sword - wherever you work if someone could get you more money then who in their right minds would say no? let's face it most of the people running clubs would tear the eyes out of players and did so for many, many years (bobby moore earned truppence and a mandarin each week type cr@p).... now the tables have turned and either clubs cap their wages from within or they don't....i for one would hate, totally HATE to see shepherd taking someone like milner for a ride (which he would) but then on the other hand we have luque who is to all intents and purposes putting on a dildo and raping the club each week and waltzing off with a fortune comes down to clubs - apparently even chel$ki have baulked at terrys latest demands (wanted guaranteed to be the highest earner at the club as long as he was there) and remain in stalemate with lampard.... no easy answer to this one if you ask me, all you can ask is clubs work within their means... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now