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

[Boff]

Its just capitalism.

eh? what does paying exaggerated wages have to do with the private ownership of capital driving an economic system?

 

[bluemoondays]

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.

I think this should be approached a different way, surely a youngster would benefit more from having top class international coaches and facilities rather than, for example, being at Barnsley reserves.

As long as a player is a youth in the clubs books, even if he hasn't signed a contract the following should apply. This is to get around the poaching of a player when he is old enough to sign a contract and then some stupidly low abitration figure being given for his "value".

Imho the arbitration council should still award a figure for a player as at the current time but the ideas below would be mandatory and have no relation to the initial arbitration figure.

The there should be an automatic percentage applied to any youth player of their resale value going to the finding club, say 50%. That way, if some club finds the next Shrek, they are guaranteed a bumper pay out when he is eventually sold by the poaching club.

In addition, there should also be automatic payments triggered by 1st team appearances (even as a sub) £250k for 10, £250k for 20, £500k for 40, and then £1m for every 60 performances after that on a sliding scale depending on the division the poaching club is in e.g. half those amounts for Championship. This would mean, for example, Giggs would have cost the scum around £10m since 1990, still a bargain for a player they got 20 years service out of, but at least City would have got £10m from it.

The purchasing club get the benefit of the player staying if he turns out great and a decent wedge if he gets sold to compensate them for his training costs and the finding club get some decent payments and a bumper pay-off when the player is sold. If the player doesn't turn out to be worth keeping by the poaching club then he is sold early to reduce the appearance payments and the losing club still get something from it.

 

[SWP's back]

Its just capitalism.

eh? what does paying exaggerated wages have to do with the private ownership of capital driving an economic system?

A market system thicky! Whereby the market dictates the prices.

I think you need to read up on economics.

 

[Dhenry]

eh? what does paying exaggerated wages have to do with the private ownership of capital driving an economic system?

A market system thicky! Whereby the market dictates the prices.

I think you need to read up on economics.

Boff's counterargument sort of answers his own question there indeed.


160k a week may seem plenty, but you cannot lay blame at a single club, agents, managers, players. It's all proportionate.

Say I worked as a sales person for company A who make product X. If product X is worth £10 and I want to earn £30,000 p.a. I need to sell over £50,000 worth of product X to be worth that much to the company. Now say product X suddenly becomes a scarce resource and company A is one of much fewer organisations who can make it. The price goes up to £10,000. If I now sell the same amount - i.e. 5000 products a year, I can make £30,000,000 p.a.

There's this business guy, comes to Manchester every year and books a small hall for 2 nights. He gives two hour long speeches, in front of an audience of about 200 people per night. Interesting thing is, he charges about £3,000 per person for the hour. Now that's what I call ridiculous. Yet, if I wanted to go see him, I probably couldn't, because the tickets are sold to big companies and sell out very quick. A footballers wages are - in the long run - determined by what fans are willing to shell out to see said footballer. The long run being your tickets, your official kits as well as your sky sports packages. or you flying with etihad airways.

 

[col87]

Lets not forget that what these guys gain the club in terms of increased revenues, season ticket sales, sponsership, the foreign players bring increased interest from there respective countries, meaning yet more merchandise, higher TV deals, sponsership etc! so yes while the amount seems obscene i don't blame them for wanting a chunk of it! i know i would if i was in there position!

 

[Fuschimuschi]

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.

 

[Skashion]

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.

 

[Boff]

eh? what does paying exaggerated wages have to do with the private ownership of capital driving an economic system?

A market system thicky! Whereby the market dictates the prices.

I think you need to read up on economics.

Ahh silly me 

 

[Balti]

 

[SWP's back]

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.

But City's ticket prices have gone up around 5% in 4 years.

Compare that to our wage bill increase and you will see we are protected by our owner.

The large jump can also be put down to increase TV revenue rather than directly from the fans.<br /><br />-- Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:43 pm --<br /><br />

A market system thicky! Whereby the market dictates the prices.

I think you need to read up on economics.

Ahh silly me 

No worries. Sorry for being mean calling yoiu thicky. Hope you see it was in jest.