[Albion] A message to Tammy Abraham

[junior]

I would be disappointed if a player like Tammy chooses to sit on the sidelines for a year collecting his pay check, when he could take a salary cut in exchange for regular PL football.

You're thinking like a fan there, not a football player.

I don't know what you do for a living, but would you be happy to move companies for a 50% pay cut?

Before you answer that, consider that you have to retire in 10 years and live off what you earn/invest in those 10 years?

 

[Frankie]

You're thinking like a fan there, not a football player.

I don't know what you do for a living, but would you be happy to move companies for a 50% pay cut?

Before you answer that, consider that you have to retire in 10 years and live off what you earn/invest in those 10 years?

Being his age and having at least 5 million in the bank already I think I could struggle on doing naff all until I pop my clogs .

 

[phoenix]

You're thinking like a fan there, not a football player.

I don't know what you do for a living, but would you be happy to move companies for a 50% pay cut?

Before you answer that, consider that you have to retire in 10 years and live off what you earn/invest in those 10 years?

I think you really do need to give the only got 10 years to earn money bollocks a rest . 100k a week for a few years (minus stoppages) And its not like he can never work after he stops playing football. Before you answer do the maths

edit
He would also be earning a lots of money doing tv ads and sponsorship's.

 

[vagabond]

You're thinking like a fan there, not a football player.

I don't know what you do for a living, but would you be happy to move companies for a 50% pay cut?

Before you answer that, consider that you have to retire in 10 years and live off what you earn/invest in those 10 years?

Actually not all footballers think like that. Especially anymore.

Example: Tariq Lamptey.

And I suppose your advice to J. Sancho would have been to stay in the Man City u23’s and collect his pay cheque?

 

[crodonilson]

Chelsea accepted a bid from Roma in the region of £34m.



That is an absolute bargain in today's market.

 

[sydney]

Chelsea accepted a bid from Roma in the region of £34m.



That is an absolute bargain in today's market.

he'll be in a wheelchair within 3 months of the start of the season.

 

[MJsGhost]

You're thinking like a fan there, not a football player.

I don't know what you do for a living, but would you be happy to move companies for a 50% pay cut?

Before you answer that, consider that you have to retire in 10 years and live off what you earn/invest in those 10 years?

Why do footballers have to retire after their playing days?

Are they not allowed to change job/industry? Work in the media? Run a pub? Build a buy-to-let portfolio? Do whatever they can in order to earn money, just like the rest of us? It really annoys me when people trot out the rubbish about footballers only having a 10-15 year window to earn money because it's absolute BULLSHIT.

Not only is the whole concept of footballers HAVING to retire from work completely at around 35 rubbish, when you look at the numbers involved for someone like Tammy Abraham, taking a pay cut of that magnitude (particularly when you consider it'll be for 1 contract, not the rest of his career), does not condemn him to a life of penury anyway.

Even if a footballer 'only' earns £50k per week, that's nearly £40m over 15 years just from wages. Add on whatever you like from endorsements, image rights & bonuses (which would be higher if the player is actually playing rather than sitting on the bench).

It would take the average Joe more than 1300 YEARS to earn £40m (£585 per week is the median UK weekly wage I think).

£20m in the bank will last nearly 67 years if you spend £300k of it per year, even assuming no income at all from the lump sum (and a modest 2% annual return would earn £400k anyway).

At the level of income most premier league footballers are at, taking a cut won't affect their financial security, because they are set up for life if they are on £30k per week, let alone £100k+ per week.

 

[Springal]

Why do footballers have to retire after their playing days?

Are they not allowed to change job/industry? Work in the media? Run a pub? Build a buy-to-let portfolio? Do whatever they can in order to earn money, just like the rest of us? It really annoys me when people trot out the rubbish about footballers only having a 10-15 year window to earn money because it's absolute BULLSHIT.

Not only is the whole concept of footballers HAVING to retire from work completely at around 35 rubbish, when you look at the numbers involved for someone like Tammy Abraham, taking a pay cut of that magnitude (particularly when you consider it'll be for 1 contract, not the rest of his career), does not condemn him to a life of penury anyway.

Even if a footballer 'only' earns £50k per week, that's nearly £40m over 15 years just from wages. Add on whatever you like from endorsements, image rights & bonuses (which would be higher if the player is actually playing rather than sitting on the bench).

It would take the average Joe more than 1300 YEARS to earn £40m (£585 per week is the median UK weekly wage I think).

£20m in the bank will last nearly 67 years if you spend £300k of it per year, even assuming no income at all from the lump sum (and a modest 2% annual return would earn £400k anyway).

At the level of income most premier league footballers are at, taking a cut won't affect their financial security, because they are set up for life if they are on £30k per week, let alone £100k+ per week.

That is a bit of a nonsense argument though, because the point is why should he / they? That is like saying why did Tony Bloom keeping earning so much money he could afford to plough £350M of it into a football club he will likely never see a return on.

 

[MJsGhost]

That is a bit of a nonsense argument though, because the point is why should he / they? That is like saying why did Tony Bloom keeping earning so much money he could afford to plough £350M of it into a football club he will likely never see a return on.

The nonsense argument is when many fans ridicule the idea that footballers might consider a drop in wage to move to a club where they will get more game time "because they only have a short career" and therefore might somehow be poor when retiring at 35 because (for example) they were only earning £50k per week instead of £80k.

I would argue that at the level of income we're talking about, financial security isn't an issue for any of them and they have no divine right to never work again after turning 35 anyway.

The short window to actually play football and achieve something IS a thing, so why not maximise their short career by actually playing instead of rotting in the reserves somewhere? There will be financial benefits of playing more anyway as the additional income streams based on appearances and the exposure it brings will mean more in endorsements, bonuses, image rights etc (not to mention the additional benefit to all that if they get a call up to their national side as a result of actually playing football somewhere).

For those ex-footballers who are financially secure (and my argument is that there is no excuse for present-day footballers not to be when they retire), do you think there are more regrets about missing out on playing more (and achieving more) or missing out on a bit more £££$$$?

 

[Springal]

The nonsense argument is when many fans ridicule the idea that footballers might consider a drop in wage to move to a club where they will get more game time "because they only have a short career" and therefore might somehow be poor when retiring at 35 because (for example) they were only earning £50k per week instead of £80k.

I would argue that at the level of income we're talking about, financial security isn't an issue for any of them and they have no divine right to never work again after turning 35 anyway.

The short window to actually play football and achieve something IS a thing, so why not maximise their short career by actually playing instead of rotting in the reserves somewhere? There will be financial benefits of playing more anyway as the additional income streams based on appearances and the exposure it brings will mean more in endorsements, bonuses, image rights etc (not to mention the additional benefit to all that if they get a call up to their national side as a result of actually playing football somewhere).

For those ex-footballers who are financially secure (and my argument is that there is no excuse not to be for the present-day footballers not to be when they retire), do you think there are more regrets about missing out on playing more (and achieving more) or missing out on a bit more £££$$$?

I reckon a lot of footballers run pretty tight financial planning etc, so yes they'll unlikely go hungry but suddenly dropping income significantly might impact what they are investing in with their wages. Plus are there that many footballers 'rotting in reserves' ? Given this is a Tammy Abraham thread, he was featuring regularly under Lampard and less so but still occasionally under Tuchel. He has sat tight and got a decent move to Roma. Under your reasoning he should have taken a pay cut to join Brighton already, but given the interest from Roma he is probably proven right to have done what he has.

It's human nature not to do what you are proposing more than anything.

You could also argue why do we keep giving Lewis Dunk payrises every year? Surely the deal we gave him when promoted is good enough to see him through as a Premier League footballer?

Football is broken financially, you have players that basically believe they are the product, so if a club is promoted and gets £120M per season, that most of that money should be going to them, rather than lining football club owners pockets, who a lot will have invested in the football league to get to the PL. It is a big circle of dis-trust and different parties thinking they should get rich from it

 

[Hamilton]

Why do footballers have to retire after their playing days?

Are they not allowed to change job/industry? Work in the media? Run a pub? Build a buy-to-let portfolio? Do whatever they can in order to earn money, just like the rest of us? It really annoys me when people trot out the rubbish about footballers only having a 10-15 year window to earn money because it's absolute BULLSHIT.

Not only is the whole concept of footballers HAVING to retire from work completely at around 35 rubbish, when you look at the numbers involved for someone like Tammy Abraham, taking a pay cut of that magnitude (particularly when you consider it'll be for 1 contract, not the rest of his career), does not condemn him to a life of penury anyway.

Even if a footballer 'only' earns £50k per week, that's nearly £40m over 15 years just from wages. Add on whatever you like from endorsements, image rights & bonuses (which would be higher if the player is actually playing rather than sitting on the bench).

It would take the average Joe more than 1300 YEARS to earn £40m (£585 per week is the median UK weekly wage I think).

£20m in the bank will last nearly 67 years if you spend £300k of it per year, even assuming no income at all from the lump sum (and a modest 2% annual return would earn £400k anyway).

At the level of income most premier league footballers are at, taking a cut won't affect their financial security, because they are set up for life if they are on £30k per week, let alone £100k+ per week.

And they never had to take risks like Gaius Appuleius Diocles.

Well said sir.

#Greed

 

[MJsGhost]

Given this is a Tammy Abraham thread, he was featuring regularly under Lampard and less so but still occasionally under Tuchel. He has sat tight and got a decent move to Roma. Under your reasoning he should have taken a pay cut to join Brighton already, but given the interest from Roma he is probably proven right to have done what he has.

Maybe he would have bagged 20 goals for us and been bought by Spurs to replace Harry Kane on double the money he's going to get at Roma...? (we'll never know)

It's human nature not to do what you are proposing more than anything.

I don't think it is at all. To risk disappearing down a philosophical rabbit-hole (or maybe up my own backside), the view that humans are inherently selfish is not universally accepted.

There are plenty of people that think/thought we are (e.g. Hobbes, Dawkins), but there are plenty of people holding opposing views, pointing out that one of the main things that sets humans apart and has allowed us to evolve as the most successful species is our ability to cooperate (and along with it the concepts of fairness and sharing). I'm in the Jean-Jacques Rousseau camp on this one.

You could also argue why do we keep giving Lewis Dunk payrises every year? Surely the deal we gave him when promoted is good enough to see him through as a Premier League footballer?

I'm not sure how this fits? Dunk is the first name on the teamsheet - he's not a bit-part /reserve team player that might want to revise his wage expectations to get a transfer to another club where he'd get more game time and reboot his career.

Football is broken financially, you have players that basically believe they are the product, so if a club is promoted and gets £120M per season, that most of that money should be going to them, rather than lining football club owners pockets, who a lot will have invested in the football league to get to the PL. It is a big circle of dis-trust and different parties thinking they should get rich from it

I totally agree.

Fans being apologists for players earning ridiculous amounts of money "because they only have a short career" does not help the situation at all. Fan pressure can work (see the failure of the ESL), so maybe if we all stopped making excuses for them we might see some change? It wouldn't take a massive percentage reduction in player wages to see a reduction in ticket prices and reduce the need for clubs to squeeze every last penny of commercial revenue out of the fans... (I won't hold my breath)

 

[Baldseagull]

Why do footballers have to retire after their playing days?

Are they not allowed to change job/industry? Work in the media? Run a pub? Build a buy-to-let portfolio? Do whatever they can in order to earn money, just like the rest of us? It really annoys me when people trot out the rubbish about footballers only having a 10-15 year window to earn money because it's absolute BULLSHIT.

Not only is the whole concept of footballers HAVING to retire from work completely at around 35 rubbish, when you look at the numbers involved for someone like Tammy Abraham, taking a pay cut of that magnitude (particularly when you consider it'll be for 1 contract, not the rest of his career), does not condemn him to a life of penury anyway.

Even if a footballer 'only' earns £50k per week, that's nearly £40m over 15 years just from wages. Add on whatever you like from endorsements, image rights & bonuses (which would be higher if the player is actually playing rather than sitting on the bench).

It would take the average Joe more than 1300 YEARS to earn £40m (£585 per week is the median UK weekly wage I think).

£20m in the bank will last nearly 67 years if you spend £300k of it per year, even assuming no income at all from the lump sum (and a modest 2% annual return would earn £400k anyway).

At the level of income most premier league footballers are at, taking a cut won't affect their financial security, because they are set up for life if they are on £30k per week, let alone £100k+ per week.

The takehome on a £2M annual salary is less than £1.1M. Plus, you have to have an expensive girlfriend, it's the rules.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

So, this saga has finally reached its conclusion: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58242137

I can't figure out if the buy-back clause is insulting to TA or good business sense by Chelsea – probably a bit of both.

They're effectively saying "We know you're not a bad player – and 'one of us' – but we need to save a bit of money having brought back another of our old boys. So off you pop to somewhere else for a bit and, if you turn out to be any good over there', we'll have you back in a few years to replace Lukaku!"

I can certainly see why Bloom, Barber and Ashworth wouldn't want to entertain such an agreement...

 

[sydney]

The takehome on a £2M annual salary is less than £1.1M. Plus, you have to have an expensive girlfriend, it's the rules.

thats a tad footballerist isn't it or salaryist , you are defining people by their profession /salary....tsk.

 

[GT49er]

The nonsense argument is when many fans ridicule the idea that footballers might consider a drop in wage to move to a club where they will get more game time "because they only have a short career" and therefore might somehow be poor when retiring at 35 because (for example) they were only earning £50k per week instead of £80k.

I would argue that at the level of income we're talking about, financial security isn't an issue for any of them and they have no divine right to never work again after turning 35 anyway.

The short window to actually play football and achieve something IS a thing, so why not maximise their short career by actually playing instead of rotting in the reserves somewhere? There will be financial benefits of playing more anyway as the additional income streams based on appearances and the exposure it brings will mean more in endorsements, bonuses, image rights etc (not to mention the additional benefit to all that if they get a call up to their national side as a result of actually playing football somewhere).

For those ex-footballers who are financially secure (and my argument is that there is no excuse for present-day footballers not to be when they retire), do you think there are more regrets about missing out on playing more (and achieving more) or missing out on a bit more £££$$$?

I agree with you 100% - unfortubnately, PL players (and their agents - and sometimes their families) just don't think like normal people. Greed is good, innit - except I think they're so far removed from reality that they can't see it that way.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I agree with you 100% - unfortubnately, PL players (and their agents - and sometimes their families) just don't think like normal people. Greed is good, innit - except I think they're so far removed from reality that they can't see it that way.

Personally I think it's less about greed than status. What they all want is to earn more than the people around them. You see the same in other testosterone fuelled environments like company boards.

We're a status driven species .. (young men particularly prone) unsurprisingly as all the non status driven people / apes / primates have spent the last 50 million years being naturally selected out.

It's what will destroy our species

 

[GT49er]

Personally I think it's less about greed than status. What they all want is to earn more than the people around them. You see the same in other testosterone fuelled environments like company boards.

We're a status driven species .. (young men particularly prone) unsurprisingly as all the non status driven people / apes / primates have spent the last 50 million years being naturally selected out.

It's what will destroy our species

Status is just one manifestation of greed.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

The chance to live in Rome might appeal to young Mr Abraham and be more important than the money. For all we know he's a big fan of Fellini and wants a bit of La Dolce Vita or fancies himself as Gregory Peck tooling around the streets with Audrey Hepburn on the back of his Vespa in Roman Holiday. There would certainly be far worse places to work, although the stadium is a bit antiseptic.

 

[sydney]

all down to money , he'll pocket a nice wedge and is on a great wage , it's only taken 25 years or so for third parties (agents) to drive the game to the edge of the precipice , how long can teams be allowed to carry 1.5 billion of debt , in these days of outrageous levels of political correctness how much longer can it be seen as anything other than obscene that men are getting paid 300k a week plus to play football....it's insane.