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

[mammutly]

The wages in football now are unsustainable. The premier league cannot be a proper competition if only one or two clubs who can afford the elite players.

The bigger problem now, which hasn't been there before, is that the other clubs can no longer follow at a reasonable distance. The gap has become too big as the majority have got, or will get, very much poorer.

And even apart from that -loyalty, ambition, feeling for the game - for the club. It all becomes irrelavant if a player need never work again straight after signing the contract.

Well they should put more effort into their academies then shouldn't they? There is no reason why a club like Bolton for example can produce a Weiss, Ireland, Rodwell, Sturridge ect which would give them a pretty good young side plus a few lower league buys like Joe Hart, Lescott ect.

And if one of those young players looked like being exceptional, they would be off after the money, fast as...

 

[King Geedorah]

Its just capitalism.

 

[SWP's back]

Well they should put more effort into their academies then shouldn't they? There is no reason why a club like Bolton for example can produce a Weiss, Ireland, Rodwell, Sturridge ect which would give them a pretty good young side plus a few lower league buys like Joe Hart, Lescott ect.

And if one of those young players looked like being exceptional, they would be off after the money, fast as...

It has ALWAYS been thus.

As I say - if you want communism - sod off to Cuba or North KOrea and see how that suits.

 

[dctid]

Well they should put more effort into their academies then shouldn't they? There is no reason why a club like Bolton for example can produce a Weiss, Ireland, Rodwell, Sturridge ect which would give them a pretty good young side plus a few lower league buys like Joe Hart, Lescott ect.

And if one of those young players looked like being exceptional, they would be off after the money, fast as...

Footballers wages are fookin ridiculas but so are actors, pop stars, CEO's (I work for a large multinational company whose CEO makes in excess of 20 million dollars a year - yes its fookin obscene but thats life - me i just think of the tax they pay - its life - also need to think of it another way of all the tens of thousands of kids that play football those that make it into academies only a fraction every make it and only small portion of them earn the big bucks.

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

as long as the club wins something I couldn't care what they were getting a week, there's no difference from £80,000 a week to £160,000 a week both ridiculas and way over the odds for a footballers weekly wage.

 

[mcfc83]

Well they should put more effort into their academies then shouldn't they? There is no reason why a club like Bolton for example can produce a Weiss, Ireland, Rodwell, Sturridge ect which would give them a pretty good young side plus a few lower league buys like Joe Hart, Lescott ect.

And if one of those young players looked like being exceptional, they would be off after the money, fast as...

This is where 'smaller' clubs need more protection. It is one thing clubs having more to spend on transfer fees and wages in order to attract players but it is another to poach 15/16 year olds. It destroys any motivation smaller clubs have for running an academy. They should at least stay until they are 17/18 and can command a decent transfer fee for the efforts the youth coaches put in.

 

[Tevez City]

I'm not blaming anyone in particular.

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

It's beyond silly.

Does it make a difference if its 160,000 or just 100,000 a week :)

John O`Shea takes more than 60,000 a week , is it reasonable ! :)

Don`t pay too much attention to these numbers if you are not the one who is writing the checks every week.

 

[Nicky D]

I think what a lot of people are alluding to is the potential for divisiveness that wages of 160k a week create.

Maybe the people labelling wages of that kind 'obscene' are not jealous of those sums, but are pointing out the potential for jealousy amongst members of City's first team squad.

That is why in the coming seasons we will see the wisdom (or otherwise) of the failure of City's management to create a lower wage ceiling.

Because in terms of player harmony, paying players 160k a week is simply not sustainable - after all, you can't pay everyone that amount.

 

[kennycar]

160000 a week doesnt equal 10 million a year, it's 8 million.

 

[citymad]

I think what a lot of people are alluding to is the potential for divisiveness that wages of 160k a week create.

Maybe the people labelling wages of that kind 'obscene' are not jealous of those sums, but are pointing out the potential for jealousy amongst members of City's first team squad.

That is why in the coming seasons we will see the wisdom (or otherwise) of the failure of City's management to create a lower wage ceiling.

Because in terms of player harmony, paying players 160k a week is simply not sustainable - after all, you can't pay everyone that amount.

Spot on Nicky. Just look at Arsenal, they have a wage structure and they still seem to hang onto their best players. (They also know when to get rid of "problem" players but thats another talent.) Having a player on 60K while his mate beside him is on 160K is surely recipe for discontent somewhere down the line and it will probably manifest itself in terms of results on the pitch.