Yorkie Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Players get paid what they are offered by clubs wanting to employ them. Not sure why it's always a reason to hate a player tbh. Don't think anyone here is, tbh. IE - hating Owen cos he's on such massive wages. I'm just saying that he's done nothing more than Martins on the pitch, that justifies him being on £40,000-a-week extra, so Oba's entitled to a moan. More of a general comment. Do you think over a season, Martins would have the same effect as Owen? Owen has been here a season longer than Martins and Oba's still had a greater effect on the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Aye Pongle, just made the point above. End of the day it comes down to the fans being willing to pay £30+ for match tickets and £40+ per month for Sky. The money snowballs and players/agents want their cut, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps it would have been nice if this Sky contract thing had not happened, forcing clubs to rethink wages. But would they have simply added costs to what we already pay? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 going rate has fuck all to do with anything going rate suggests a supply and demand at work, no-one is going to suggest footballers are rarer than ten years ago surely? or that the standard of football played by them has increased 100%? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 going rate has fuck all to do with anything going rate suggests a supply and demand at work, no-one is going to suggest footballers are rarer than ten years ago surely? or that the standard of football played by them has increased 100%? Going rate is what you have to pay to keep your players, or else someone else will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 [move]INFLATION LA LA LA :celb: [/move] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Owen can't help being injured can he? Why should he suffer in wages just because he got f*cked, and why should Martins expect the same just because he managed to do better than a player, who probably would have done better, who wasn't even fit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 It was a general comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 going rate has f*** all to do with anything going rate suggests a supply and demand at work, no-one is going to suggest footballers are rarer than ten years ago surely? or that the standard of football played by them has increased 100%? Going rate is what you have to pay to keep your players, or else someone else will. I stand by my point on TV money. As long as clubs are getting that amount of money in, the players have every right to expect it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Pongle Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 going rate has fuck all to do with anything going rate suggests a supply and demand at work, no-one is going to suggest footballers are rarer than ten years ago surely? or that the standard of football played by them has increased 100%? Silly me, here's me thinking players would still play for money that they would have been earning in the 70's when another club can offer them a contract that will make them a millionaire after 10 weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 going rate has f*** all to do with anything going rate suggests a supply and demand at work, no-one is going to suggest footballers are rarer than ten years ago surely? or that the standard of football played by them has increased 100%? Going rate is what you have to pay to keep your players, or else someone else will. I stand by my point on TV money. As long as clubs are getting that amount of money in, the players have every right to expect it. Which is why i'm not sure the bigger re-negotiated Sky contract was a good thing. I thought everyone was expecting it to drop massively this time btw? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 going rate has f*** all to do with anything going rate suggests a supply and demand at work, no-one is going to suggest footballers are rarer than ten years ago surely? or that the standard of football played by them has increased 100%? Going rate is what you have to pay to keep your players, or else someone else will. I stand by my point on TV money. As long as clubs are getting that amount of money in, the players have every right to expect it. aye well fuck them then. I would point their greedy nose bags in the direction of Italy and Leeds United Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Pongle Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Aye Pongle, just made the point above. End of the day it comes down to the fans being willing to pay £30+ for match tickets and £40+ per month for Sky. The money snowballs and players/agents want their cut, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps it would have been nice if this Sky contract thing had not happened, forcing clubs to rethink wages. But would they have simply added costs to what we already pay? The solution is simple. Cap wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Aye Pongle, just made the point above. End of the day it comes down to the fans being willing to pay £30+ for match tickets and £40+ per month for Sky. The money snowballs and players/agents want their cut, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps it would have been nice if this Sky contract thing had not happened, forcing clubs to rethink wages. But would they have simply added costs to what we already pay? The solution is simple. Cap wages. I'd agree, but is there not a problem with the EU with that approach? I'd prefer to see a performance/appearance-related wage in all honesty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 That's what it needs. For the TV companies to instead pay £400m, if they offered say £50m for the coverage of Premier League games. That way, clubs wouldn't be able to afford such wages and fees and they'd have to accept lower wages. That, or the league would do to how it was before Sky came along where there were no big-name foreign players, and the standard of football was generally sh*t. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 going rate has f*** all to do with anything going rate suggests a supply and demand at work, no-one is going to suggest footballers are rarer than ten years ago surely? or that the standard of football played by them has increased 100%? Going rate is what you have to pay to keep your players, or else someone else will. I stand by my point on TV money. As long as clubs are getting that amount of money in, the players have every right to expect it. aye well f*** them then. I would point their greedy nose bags in the direction of Italy and Leeds United And enjoy the likes of Mark Robins, Steve Morrow, Mike Marsh and Joe Allon at the likes of Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea again rather than Ronaldo, Gallas, Mascherano & Drogba. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 going rate has f*** all to do with anything going rate suggests a supply and demand at work, no-one is going to suggest footballers are rarer than ten years ago surely? or that the standard of football played by them has increased 100%? Going rate is what you have to pay to keep your players, or else someone else will. I stand by my point on TV money. As long as clubs are getting that amount of money in, the players have every right to expect it. aye well f*** them then. I would point their greedy nose bags in the direction of Italy and Leeds United And enjoy the likes of Mark Robins, Steve Morrow, Mike Marsh and Joe Allon at the likes of Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea again rather than Ronaldo, Gallas, Mascherano & Drogba. what's your point? your glad these players have inflated wages so much the league could go the way of Italy? once the TV companies realise they are getting shafted, they simply stop paying, then your precious Ronaldo fucks off to whichever league is the new rich men Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Aye Pongle, just made the point above. End of the day it comes down to the fans being willing to pay £30+ for match tickets and £40+ per month for Sky. The money snowballs and players/agents want their cut, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps it would have been nice if this Sky contract thing had not happened, forcing clubs to rethink wages. But would they have simply added costs to what we already pay? The solution is simple. Cap wages. Easy way round that though. Offer basic salary but include huge bonuses for league placing/goals/assists etc. Good idea but it would be exploited imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 They have inflated wages, because clubs are paid inflated fees by the TV companies because they want these stars on their TV channels. If a club is given £40m a season or whatever, then that club has to accept that a large chunk of that goes to it's players. Simple really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 with a cap they would fuck off to Europe anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 They would, yes. And look at how sh*t English football was from the mid 80s to early 90s when that was the case. (I'm not talking about caps here but the money clubs received) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Pongle Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Aye Pongle, just made the point above. End of the day it comes down to the fans being willing to pay £30+ for match tickets and £40+ per month for Sky. The money snowballs and players/agents want their cut, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps it would have been nice if this Sky contract thing had not happened, forcing clubs to rethink wages. But would they have simply added costs to what we already pay? The solution is simple. Cap wages. I'd agree, but is there not a problem with the EU with that approach? I'd prefer to see a performance/appearance-related wage in all honesty. I've no idea. As for pay-as-you-play contracts, I reckon they should only be offered to players who have Darren Andertonesque injury problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 They have inflated wages, because clubs are paid inflated fees by the TV companies because they want these stars on their TV channels. If a club is given £40m a season or whatever, then that club has to accept that a large chunk of that goes to it's players. Simple really. if your short sighted enough to think that trend will never end. players are not innocent bystanders here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Some actors get $15m a movie... If an employer can afford the best, they'll shell out for the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Aye Pongle, just made the point above. End of the day it comes down to the fans being willing to pay £30+ for match tickets and £40+ per month for Sky. The money snowballs and players/agents want their cut, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps it would have been nice if this Sky contract thing had not happened, forcing clubs to rethink wages. But would they have simply added costs to what we already pay? The solution is simple. Cap wages. Easy way round that though. Offer basic salary but include huge bonuses for league placing/goals/assists etc. Good idea but it would be exploited imo. Huge bonuses that would have to be actually earnt though, which would be far more palatable for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 They have inflated wages, because clubs are paid inflated fees by the TV companies because they want these stars on their TV channels. If a club is given £40m a season or whatever, then that club has to accept that a large chunk of that goes to it's players. Simple really. if your short sighted enough to think that trend will never end. players are not innocent bystanders here So would you rather see average players playing average football in England's top flight again then? 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