£160,000 a week is *&%"ing ridiculous!

[leewill31]

I do not care how good they are or how much money the club's owners have. Paying players £10 million a year is absolutely fucking outrageous.

It is going to ruin football by putting success in the hands of a very rich few and taking the game so far away from normal people that it may as well be played on the fucking moon.

cant really say its ever bothered me.

everybody is dealt a different card in life and we just get on with it!

 

[Skashion]

Football clubs ARE run wholly on the market.

If it's too expensive for you, don't go. Do something else that you can afford.

And as to your analogy of a child going to University... same principles apply.

If you can afford it, they go... if you can't, they don't. You can always borrow for either transaction, but that's your choice.

It's what a free market means.

You don't have to pay to watch a footgball match in the same way you don't have to pay to send your child to University.

It's ALL choice.

Did you stop supporting City when we got relegated to Division 2? Did you stop going to matches? Did you stop buying merchandise? What about people who travel for hours to watch the club and whose transport costs more than match tickets when there are more successful clubs nearer by which would be cheaper?

 

[SWP's back]

Football clubs ARE run wholly on the market.

If it's too expensive for you, don't go. Do something else that you can afford.

And as to your analogy of a child going to University... same principles apply.

If you can afford it, they go... if you can't, they don't. You can always borrow for either transaction, but that's your choice.

It's what a free market means.

You don't have to pay to watch a footgball match in the same way you don't have to pay to send your child to University.

It's ALL choice.

Did you stop supporting City when we got relegated to Division 2? Did you stop going to matches? Did you stop buying merchandise? What about people who travel for hours to watch the club and whose transport costs more than match tickets when there are more successful clubs nearer by which would be cheaper?

You won't win Ska, he has a degree ;)

 

[Skashion]

Did you stop supporting City when we got relegated to Division 2? Did you stop going to matches? Did you stop buying merchandise? What about people who travel for hours to watch the club and whose transport costs more than match tickets when there are more successful clubs nearer by which would be cheaper?

You won't win Ska, he has a degree ;)

Shit, I might as well leave it then... What I want is a market rational argument for City having 28,000 average attendance in the second division. Free markets are free because competition regulates them rather than governments but an element of competition is removed when supporting a football club. Choosing Panasonic over Sony is not the same as choosing City over the rags. I'd honestly dare any true football fan to suggest any different. I could never support the rags under any circumstances and I doubt many blues would.

 

[SWP's back]

You won't win Ska, he has a degree ;)

Shit, I might as well leave it then... What I want is a market rational argument for City having 28,000 average attendance in the second division. Free markets are free because competition regulates them rather than governments but an element of competition is removed when supporting a football club. Choosing Panasonic over Sony is not the same as choosing City over the rags. I'd honestly dare any true football fan to suggest any different. I could never support the rags under any circumstances and I doubt many blues would.

No but some wopuld say the rags and FC United may well be a case in point.

Just playing devils advocate though. Or Wimbledon and MK Dons.

 

[Chris in London]

Why?

Is it ridiculous that Tom Cruise earns $30 million for making a film?

Is it ridiculous that Rafa Nadal earns £850,000 for winning a tennis tournament?

Is it ridiculous that Robbie Williams earns £5m for a world tour?

Football is part of the entertainment business. The salaries in football are ludicrously high because the money swilling around in football is ludicrously high. It is high because two million people in this country (or whatever it is) pay £500 per year (or whatever it is) for Sky, of whom 1.7 million do it largely for the football. And the same is true in Germany, Ditto Italy. So Sky pay top dollar for live football rights, and the clubs pay top dollar for the best players.

Just like actors earn big bucks if everyone wants to see their films, and singers earn big bucks if 70,000 people pay £50 a time to see them play live. And as for Wimbledon, you pick up a four figure cheque for losing in the first round. Now that IS ridiculous.

 

[Skashion]

Shit, I might as well leave it then... What I want is a market rational argument for City having 28,000 average attendance in the second division. Free markets are free because competition regulates them rather than governments but an element of competition is removed when supporting a football club. Choosing Panasonic over Sony is not the same as choosing City over the rags. I'd honestly dare any true football fan to suggest any different. I could never support the rags under any circumstances and I doubt many blues would.

No but some wopuld say the rags and FC United may well be a case in point.

Just playing devils advocate though. Or Wimbledon and MK Dons.

And it is for some. Others would defect, 'the gloryhunters'. Others still would stop going to matches and just support City from their armchairs, but for those 28,000 there was no choice at all. No competition. This is the attitude of the majority of fans. There was a football supporters survey, I probably have the link somewhere, in which fans responded in a significant majority that they would not support another club if their club went bankrupt. Therefore, any attempt to suggest then that a football club's revenues are solely reflected by pure competition is nonsense. Any model which doesn't acknowledge the loyalty a football fan feels towards their club has failed.

 

[mammutly]

I think the argument that market forces drive wages in football is slightly spurious.

Arsenal are a club who have traditionally bought players and paid salaries according to their income. They are an increasingly rare exception as top clubs have borroweed more and more to stay competitive. The pull from the top has come not from the market per se but from a few mega rich owners to whom 'profit' is pretty much irrelevant. The football market in that sense is an artificial one.

 

[Dhenry]

You won't win Ska, he has a degree ;)

Shit, I might as well leave it then... What I want is a market rational argument for City having 28,000 average attendance in the second division. Free markets are free because competition regulates them rather than governments but an element of competition is removed when supporting a football club. Choosing Panasonic over Sony is not the same as choosing City over the rags. I'd honestly dare any true football fan to suggest any different. I could never support the rags under any circumstances and I doubt many blues would.

That's not what the market is - football clubs aren't like manufacturing companies.

Free markets are driven by demand and supply - competition is a part of that, but not the full picture. Competition based football markets would suggest fans go to see the club that has the cheapest tickets. Demand and supply means however different profit possibilities for a single club depending on the clubs image, reputation and aspirations. Crowds are only a small proportion of that - the greater question is, what are fans willing to pay for the same seat under different circumstances, what affiliated companies are willing to spend to be associated with the club, what networks are willing to pay to show games (less applicable to premier league, but it still adds up).

It's still demand & supply that co-ordinates the salaries our club or any other pays for its stars. Do you think the salary & transfer fee negotiations are just pulled from thin air? A footballer is to a club what a restaurant would be for McDonald's - there is clever calculations going on about how much increased revenue signing of a player can bring to the club on and off the pitch. Transfer fees and wages are both based on this, just as McDonald's would consider purchasing a property based on its market value and running costs compared to promised revenue.

Mammulty, Arsenal are a case of a risk-evasive business in terms of player/asset acquisition. The whole move to Emirates was done in a similar fashion, covering all bases before making the move. As I'm sure it's obvious, the less risky the investment, the less deviation from target value.

The strategy of risk-evasive investment is good when you're at the top - but to make up ground or go through great shifts, any organisation needs to look at options with higher risk but a greater promised return on investment. That's where you get your City's and Chelsea's. And yes, we get it wrong some times -Robinho perhaps an example - but that risk needs to be taken to grow business at vast speeds.

 

[mammutly]

As I'm sure it's obvious, the less risky the investment, the less deviation from target value.

Huh?

Are you Garrrrrry Cook?

Football is not a business for the fundamental reason that it isn't profit driven.

Anybody who buys a football club to make money is a fool. Or, as was the case with Shinawatra, a criminal who actaully didn't mind destroying the club to make a quick profit.

The accounts of every top club prove that ownership is a net loss enterprise. The two options are to run up vast debts or (more rarely and good for us) simply give multi millions to the club for the sporting pleasure of it all.