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

[Goater666]

Boateng apparently gets 5.000.000 a year, that about 3 more than he would get at
Hamburg.

Just totally impossible for the Bundesliga to compete with these wages.

Well at least it will mean that German clubs will put even more money into
producing good new talent in hope of selling them for big money to England. :)

Hamburg's Robert Labus is considered a huge talent, certainly bigger than Jerome was at17.
Ah well, you'll probably buy him 3 years from now, seems like Hamburg is your feeder club.

That's bullshit and you know it, Bayern are paying ridiculous wages for their players. Luca Toni was on something like £120k wasnt he?

Edit. It seems he was on £150k.

Ribery is on at least £100k now.

 

[I remember the kippax]

Nope, he didn't push the wages to the current levels (although he started it)

This man did.......

And this is where the problem lies;

David Beckham cost Real Madrid about £25 million, plus wages over his 3 year stay.

LA Galaxy got him for nothing, therefore they could justify his astronomical wages instead of a transfer fee. Approximately $210,000 per week.

Real Madrid got nowt....no return on an investment that can be guessed at easily £40 million (bar a few shirts...)

The clubs do not want players to go out of contract, as they lose any sellon fee....however if the player does see out his contract then they can then command virtually any salary (Joe Cole will be an example of this).

This actually means that players who are bought in have to have parity in pay with their Bosman colleagues, if they are good enough

The clubs are in a lose, lose situation because if they pick up Bosmans, they pay higher wages due to there not being a transfer fee and if they do pay a transfer fee then those players want parity with their colleagues.

However, Mr Cook seems to be playing a good game regarding image rights and our players in that a proportion is paid to the player but the rest go to the club. I don't know this as fact, just something that was mentioned as part of the YaYa deal in one of the papers yesterday. He has a track record of this with what he did with Michael Jordan - Jordan made millions, but Nike made billions.

That is how I believe that the current wages can be afforded by the club... marketing and image rights.

 

[Soulboy]

I have a problem with wages functioning on a wholly market basis. Football clubs aren't wholly run on the market. They depend on the blind loyalty of fans. Most companies in the world aren't in that situation, except Apple and its legions of iDiots, iTards and iSmugs. They know if they charge double for an inferior quality product, nobody will go near it and would go to an alternative product. Would anybody here suddenly become a Wigan fan if Sheikh decides he wants a return on his investment and doubles season ticket prices next year? If football revenues worked according to typical market conditions City probably wouldn't be in the Premier League after not winning a trophy for thirty-four years. It is our sheer emotional attachment to the club which has allowed the club to keep coming back by making the economically irrational decision to come and support the shower of shite we've often had to put up with.

Would you be expected to put up with a market argument with your kids. So, your kid wants to go to university, but he/she can't afford it by him/herself, he/she is eighteen and they ask for your help. What, as a parent, do you say to them, "Sorry, I'd love to help you out but I fear I'd be distorting the market". Reply: "But Dad/Mum, don't you love me?" You: "There is no room for love, my actions must be dictated by market rationalism. I'll buy some stocks in Manchester United PLC instead, I have some inside info of a leveraged buyout by Malcolm Glazer."

In my opinion then, wages should be partly market-based but there should also be a cap so that there is some protection for football fans who throw their heart and soul into supporting a club.

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.

 

[Dubai Blue]

David Beckham cost Real Madrid about £25 million, plus wages over his 3 year stay.

LA Galaxy got him for nothing, therefore they could justify his astronomical wages instead of a transfer fee. Approximately $210,000 per week.

Real Madrid got nowt....no return on an investment that can be guessed at easily £40 million (bar a few shirts...)

Your point is valid, but the example is a bit dodgy. Real Madrid got a lot more than a few shirts out of David Beckham. The season before he joined, they sold 900,000 shirts. Following Beckham's arrival they sold 3 million, and over 50% of those were Beckham shirts.

Madrid got nothing for David Beckham when he left for LA, but then again he completely paid for himself while he was with them. He is, of course, far from being representative of the average footballer though.

 

[Soulboy]

Nope, he didn't push the wages to the current levels (although he started it)

This man did.......

And this is where the problem lies;

David Beckham cost Real Madrid about £25 million, plus wages over his 3 year stay.

LA Galaxy got him for nothing, therefore they could justify his astronomical wages instead of a transfer fee. Approximately $210,000 per week.

Real Madrid got nowt....no return on an investment that can be guessed at easily £40 million (bar a few shirts...)

The clubs do not want players to go out of contract, as they lose any sellon fee....however if the player does see out his contract then they can then command virtually any salary (Joe Cole will be an example of this).

This actually means that players who are bought in have to have parity in pay with their Bosman colleagues, if they are good enough

The clubs are in a lose, lose situation because if they pick up Bosmans, they pay higher wages due to there not being a transfer fee and if they do pay a transfer fee then those players want parity with their colleagues.

However, Mr Cook seems to be playing a good game regarding image rights and our players in that a proportion is paid to the player but the rest go to the club. I don't know this as fact, just something that was mentioned as part of the YaYa deal in one of the papers yesterday. He has a track record of this with what he did with Michael Jordan - Jordan made millions, but Nike made billions.

That is how I believe that the current wages can be afforded by the club... marketing and image rights.

You seriously don't understand economics and the wage-supply business model model, do you?

Bosman's do NOT automatically get higher wages just because they are on a free. Who told you that?

Every Bosman deal is paid by the club as to what they can afford. And that's it. Clubs DO want players to run out of contract... it gets their wages off the books. Do you not think City would love Jo, Caceido and Garido to be out of contract and off the wage bill?

 

[I remember the kippax]

The clubs do not want players to go out of contract, as they lose any sellon fee....however if the player does see out his contract then they can then command virtually any salary (Joe Cole will be an example of this).

This actually means that players who are bought in have to have parity in pay with their Bosman colleagues, if they are good enough

The clubs are in a lose, lose situation because if they pick up Bosmans, they pay higher wages due to there not being a transfer fee and if they do pay a transfer fee then those players want parity with their colleagues.

However, Mr Cook seems to be playing a good game regarding image rights and our players in that a proportion is paid to the player but the rest go to the club. I don't know this as fact, just something that was mentioned as part of the YaYa deal in one of the papers yesterday. He has a track record of this with what he did with Michael Jordan - Jordan made millions, but Nike made billions.

That is how I believe that the current wages can be afforded by the club... marketing and image rights.

You seriously don't understand economics and the wage-supply business model model, do you?

Bosman's do NOT automatically get higher wages just because they are on a free. Who told you that?

Every Bosman deal is paid by the club as to what they can afford. And that's it. Clubs DO want players to run out of contract... it gets their wages off the books. Do you not think City would love Jo, Caceido and Garido to be out of contract and off the wage bill?

How can you say that clubs want players to run out of contract? What an absolutely stupid remark. That would mean they would receive no money for them whatsoever - Jo cost us about £19 million - and City want to recoup some of that outlay.

On your analogy you bought yourself a brand new car last year costing you £10,000 but because you can't afford £40 a week to fill it you'll give it away this year for nothing...

Are you a civil servant or work in local Government? The markets do not run on "last years budget" where everyone buys lightbulbs at £200 in March to get rid of the budget so they get the same next year.

Why do you think it is so important that players sign new contracts - the ones with a resale value that is, not the ones coming to the end of their career, Taylor, Petrov, Benjani.... to drive the price up for their subsequent sale if the club deems them surplus to requirements.

 

[SWP's back]

Nope, he didn't push the wages to the current levels (although he started it)

This man did.......

And this is where the problem lies;

David Beckham cost Real Madrid about £25 million, plus wages over his 3 year stay.

LA Galaxy got him for nothing, therefore they could justify his astronomical wages instead of a transfer fee. Approximately $210,000 per week.

Real Madrid got nowt....no return on an investment that can be guessed at easily £40 million (bar a few shirts...)

The clubs do not want players to go out of contract, as they lose any sellon fee....however if the player does see out his contract then they can then command virtually any salary (Joe Cole will be an example of this).

This actually means that players who are bought in have to have parity in pay with their Bosman colleagues, if they are good enough

The clubs are in a lose, lose situation because if they pick up Bosmans, they pay higher wages due to there not being a transfer fee and if they do pay a transfer fee then those players want parity with their colleagues.

However, Mr Cook seems to be playing a good game regarding image rights and our players in that a proportion is paid to the player but the rest go to the club. I don't know this as fact, just something that was mentioned as part of the YaYa deal in one of the papers yesterday. He has a track record of this with what he did with Michael Jordan - Jordan made millions, but Nike made billions.

That is how I believe that the current wages can be afforded by the club... marketing and image rights.

You seriously don't understand economics and the wage-supply business model model, do you?

Bosman's do NOT automatically get higher wages just because they are on a free. Who told you that?

Every Bosman deal is paid by the club as to what they can afford. And that's it. Clubs DO want players to run out of contract... it gets their wages off the books. Do you not think City would love Jo, Caceido and Garido to be out of contract and off the wage bill?

Oh yes they do. You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail. Sol Campbell is one very large example of this. Or Bolton saying last week the reason they could afford to pay Petrov £35k per week was that they got a £5M player for free.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm not blaming anyone in particular.

But the situation is ridiculous. £160,000 a week!!!

It's beyond silly.

I agree, but it's market forces. When you have Twat Terry earning £170k per week, what can you do.

At a company I used to work for the CEO paid himself around £150m per year - i.e. around £3m/week, so in that sense £160k/week is a bargain!

 

[Dubai Blue]

You seriously don't understand economics and the wage-supply business model model, do you?

Bosman's do NOT automatically get higher wages just because they are on a free. Who told you that?

Every Bosman deal is paid by the club as to what they can afford. And that's it. Clubs DO want players to run out of contract... it gets their wages off the books. Do you not think City would love Jo, Caceido and Garido to be out of contract and off the wage bill?

Oh yes they do. You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail. Sol Campbell is one very large example of this. Or Bolton saying last week the reason they could afford to pay Petrov £35k per week was that they got a £5M player for free.

Maybe for a certain standard of player it is a given, but it certainly isn't automatic across the board. Do you think Caceido will be getting bumper wages when his contract expires? No, he'll take whatever he's offered.

Players who let their contracts expire against the will of their parent club (Sol Campbell, Joe Cole, McManamanamanamanaman etc) will, of course, benefit from their 'free' status because they are/were sought after. But players whose contracts have expired because their parent club had no interest in keeping them are unlikely to feel any benefits.

 

[u2fme2]

agree. its getting well beyond a joke