Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Two seasons, 7 goals, 1 new Lamborghini Aventador.



Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,364
Up until 20-25 years ago, the professional footballer relied on bonuses to improves his wages. In the 1980's BHA players were roughly on £400 per week but a win bonus could double their money. That was worth fighting for. An incentive to bust a gut for a result. Players were hungrier and more motivated. Like a lot of other professions, football is a results driven business and players should be rewarded accordingly. A salesman hitting targets or a construction worker finishing inside a deadline. Both relying on their bonus to boost their money. Both driven to succeed.
But somehow, football has lost sight of this. It has loosened its grip on reality and has started to slide into a trough of largesse. And you know what happens when you reward people handsomely for doing nothing. Exactly.
Footballers are talented but so are doctors, scientists, bakers, butchers, bricklayers, restorers, chefs and hosts of others. The difference is that most people earn their rewards through success. Most footballers don't. A very few end up as winners, the rest go through their careers with brief moments of success surrounded by a lot of non-achievement.
Surely it would make sense to reward the successful ones. A win bonus should mean everything to a footballer but it doesn't. When you are earning millions in basic pay, it doesn't matter if you are injured or below par. You still get your vast rewards. Players have become so powerful that they hold clubs to ransom. If they don't fancy their manager, they down tools and stop playing. Result...the manager gets sacked and the players still draw their vast salaries.
Do we get value for money from these highly paid individuals. Largely, no. And that is because the system is now making them lazier and lazier. They don't have to display skill anymore when the system allows them to cheat and use gamesmanship wherever possible. Its not their fault, its all down to incompetent officialdom.
Some footballers admit they are not even fussed about playing. What a life when you can train 6-8 hours a week and then warm a bench for £2m a year.
Fletcher is no different from many others. Overpaid and overrated. Just lucky to be in the right place at the right time. Journeyman pro's earning a kings ransom. Nice work if you can get it.
 




The Antikythera Mechanism

The oldest known computer
NSC Patron
Aug 7, 2003
8,093
Earning £40k/week and buying a £260k car = 6.5 x weekly salary
Earning £1k/week and buying a £6.5k car = 6.5 x weekly salary
 


Diego Napier

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2010
4,416
We've had this argument before. I'm a Sky Sports subscriber so part of my monthly pittance (and it is dirt cheap) goes into Fletcher's pocket - even though I don't watch Premier League football. There is FAR more to Sky than just football, indeed I'm just going to catch the end of the New Zealand innings now.

Whatever sport you watch the fact remains that you and millions like you are the reason for hyper inflated Premier League wages and agents fees; simple cause and effect.
 


Brovion

In my defence, I was left unsupervised.
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,888
Whatever sport you watch the fact remains that you and millions like you are the reason for hyper inflated Premier League wages and agents fees; simple cause and effect.

As I said in another post, it's not Sky's fault that clubs spend the money on wages, (any more than it would be your employer's fault if you spent all your salary on Class A drugs), it's just part of the competitive nature of individual clubs where they each strive to get the best talent. If football had a more collective approach and if the Premier League was more altruistic perhaps it wouldn't be such an issue. Basically you're blaming the wrong people; the clubs set the wages, not Sky.
 


Diego Napier

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2010
4,416
As I said in another post, it's not Sky's fault that clubs spend the money on wages, (any more than it would be your employer's fault if you spent all your salary on Class A drugs), it's just part of the competitive nature of individual clubs where they each strive to get the best talent. If football had a more collective approach and if the Premier League was more altruistic perhaps it wouldn't be such an issue. Basically you're blaming the wrong people; the clubs set the wages, not Sky.

and I'm not "blaming" anyone, I'm looking at it logically (and rationally without any apparent defensive feelings of guilt getting in the way!) and see it for what it is, a simple root cause and effect situation. Sky provide the opportunity and the people on the sofas provide the cash, not the clubs. You could equally assert that Sky are in the wrong for not passing more money to lower league clubs or blame the players for having agents or not volunteering half their wages to lower league clubs or charity. Without people subscribing to Sky, the money simply wouldn't be there.
 




Brovion

In my defence, I was left unsupervised.
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,888
and I'm not "blaming" anyone, I'm looking at it logically (and rationally without any apparent defensive feelings of guilt getting in the way!) and see it for what it is, a simple root cause and effect situation. Sky provide the opportunity and the people on the sofas provide the cash, not the clubs. You could equally assert that Sky are in the wrong for not passing more money to lower league clubs or blame the players for having agents or not volunteering half their wages to lower league clubs or charity. Without people subscribing to Sky, the money simply wouldn't be there.
Originally you were blaming the 'saps on the sofa'! And Sky don't pass (much) directly to the lower league clubs as they don't show much lower league football as it's not that attractive. And you're obfuscating the point by saying Sky should hand the money direct to the lower league clubs. Why? Again that would be like your employer deciding to give half your salary to Oxfam as you can't be trusted to dispose of it ethically. Sky pay the Premier League a lot of money because they want to show Premier League football. What the Premier League does with the money is NOT Sky's 'fault'.
 


Diego Napier

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2010
4,416
Originally you were blaming the 'saps on the sofa'! And Sky don't pass (much) directly to the lower league clubs as they don't show much lower league football as it's not that attractive. And you're obfuscating the point by saying Sky should hand the money direct to the lower league clubs. Why? Again that would be like your employer deciding to give half your salary to Oxfam as you can't be trusted to dispose of it ethically. Sky pay the Premier League a lot of money because they want to show Premier League football. What the Premier League does with the money is NOT Sky's 'fault'.

Good grief! I'm not saying that Sky should pass money to League teams. I was simply pointing out that it is as valid to accuse Sky or the players or their agents as it is for you to blame the Premier League clubs.

I think the obfuscation is in your head, you don't seem to be able to grasp the logic, let me spell it out for you.

Premise: Too much money is distorting the Premier League

Cause - Sky provide an opportunity for people to watch Premier League football and pay for the privilege and people take up that opportunity

Effect 1 - People pay money to Sky
Effect 2 - Sky pays money to Premier League Clubs
Effect 3 - Premier League pays money to Players
Effect 4 - Players pay money to their agents
Effect 5 - Other networks pay Sky to broadcast Premier League games
Effect 6 - Advertisers pay Sky to advertiser before, during and after matches
etc.

"Blaming" the clubs is illogical, they are part of the effect, the root cause is the willingness of the saps on the sofa to provide the money.
 


Brovion

In my defence, I was left unsupervised.
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,888
Good grief! I'm not saying that Sky should pass money to League teams. I was simply pointing out that it is as valid to accuse Sky or the players or their agents as it is for you to blame the Premier League clubs.

I think the obfuscation is in your head, you don't seem to be able to grasp the logic, let me spell it out for you.

Premise: Too much money is distorting the Premier League

Cause - Sky provide an opportunity for people to watch Premier League football and pay for the privilege and people take up that opportunity

Effect 1 - People pay money to Sky
Effect 2 - Sky pays money to Premier League Clubs
Effect 3 - Premier League pays money to Players
Effect 4 - Players pay money to their agents
Effect 5 - Other networks pay Sky to broadcast Premier League games
Effect 6 - Advertisers pay Sky to advertiser before, during and after matches
etc.

"Blaming" the clubs is illogical, they are part of the effect, the root cause is the willingness of the saps on the sofa to provide the money.

You did say it! You said that one could assert that Sky are in the wrong for not passing money to league clubs. Ok, so it was just a spurious argument and you weren't seriously suggesting Sky should do it, fair enough, we agree on that at least. But we're not going to agree on anything else. I reject your 'Cause and Effect' analysis as anything other than an explanation of how the money gets into the game, it is STILL down to the clubs how they spend it.. I really don't see how you can insist on blaming the benefactor, but there you go, you do. Do you want to keep going round in circles (and probably end up arguing semantics about each other's posts) or shall we leave it there?

Love from a Sap on the Sofa.
 




Diego Napier

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2010
4,416
You did say it! You said that one could assert that Sky are in the wrong for not passing money to league clubs. Ok, so it was just a spurious argument and you weren't seriously suggesting Sky should do it, fair enough, we agree on that at least. But we're not going to agree on anything else. I reject your 'Cause and Effect' analysis as anything other than an explanation of how the money gets into the game, it is STILL down to the clubs how they spend it.. I really don't see how you can insist on blaming the benefactor, but there you go, you do. Do you want to keep going round in circles (and probably end up arguing semantics about each other's posts) or shall we leave it there?

Love from a Sap on the Sofa.

How can you talk of love when you can see I'm so angry........
 


Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
72,413
Reassuring in a way to know that the car will be utterly trashed the first time the Premier League journeyman leaves it unattended anywhere in any town centre in the North East :lol:
 






Lower West Stander

Well-known member
Mar 25, 2012
4,753
Back in Sussex
Good grief! I'm not saying that Sky should pass money to League teams. I was simply pointing out that it is as valid to accuse Sky or the players or their agents as it is for you to blame the Premier League clubs.

I think the obfuscation is in your head, you don't seem to be able to grasp the logic, let me spell it out for you.

Premise: Too much money is distorting the Premier League

Cause - Sky provide an opportunity for people to watch Premier League football and pay for the privilege and people take up that opportunity

Effect 1 - People pay money to Sky
Effect 2 - Sky pays money to Premier League Clubs
Effect 3 - Premier League pays money to Players
Effect 4 - Players pay money to their agents
Effect 5 - Other networks pay Sky to broadcast Premier League games
Effect 6 - Advertisers pay Sky to advertiser before, during and after matches
etc.

"Blaming" the clubs is illogical, they are part of the effect, the root cause is the willingness of the saps on the sofa to provide the money.

What a load of rubbish.

Look at the P&L accounts of premiership clubs and look at the amount they spend on transfer fees and player wages. This is vastly disproportionate to turnover and is totally unrealistic in any proper business model. Yes Sky are paying more but until clubs take a more responsible attitude to their finances, transfer fees and player wages will remain out of control. How many clubs are profitable? How many clubs are reliant on benevolent owners to bail them out? QPR are the best example from last season, they spent a fortune getting themselves promoted and are still in the mire. This has the additional effect of clubs like ourselves stretching ourselves to try and keep up which is normal in a competitive business.

To blame the man on the sofa is just ridiculous.
 


Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
12,958
Brighton
Good grief! I'm not saying that Sky should pass money to League teams. I was simply pointing out that it is as valid to accuse Sky or the players or their agents as it is for you to blame the Premier League clubs.

I think the obfuscation is in your head, you don't seem to be able to grasp the logic, let me spell it out for you.

Premise: Too much money is distorting the Premier League

Cause - Sky provide an opportunity for people to watch Premier League football and pay for the privilege and people take up that opportunity

Effect 1 - People pay money to Sky
Effect 2 - Sky pays money to Premier League Clubs
Effect 3 - Premier League pays money to Players
Effect 4 - Players pay money to their agents
Effect 5 - Other networks pay Sky to broadcast Premier League games
Effect 6 - Advertisers pay Sky to advertiser before, during and after matches
etc.

"Blaming" the clubs is illogical, they are part of the effect, the root cause is the willingness of the saps on the sofa to provide the money.

Effect 7 - Sky assess how many people are purchasing their channels because of football
Effect 8 - Viewer purchase reasons affect the future price Sky is prepared to pay
Effect 9 - Less viewers watching football means a cut in the price broadcasters are prepared to pay
Effect 10 - Clubs start to see a fall in revenue
Effect 11 - Prices at turnstiles go up
Effect 12 - The already fragile relationship clubs have with fans breaks
Effect 13 - Football implodes
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,278
There's something of the David Brent about this story:

"Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?"

or

"Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Gus has lost his job and Dick has taken over, and the club will probably get relegated. Those of you who keep going will probably end up watching Swindon, if you wanna renew. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've got a brand new Lamborghini Aventador to go with my Bentley, so...every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?"
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,430
Location Location
As a slight aside, I know two pubs in Portslade which have recently binned Sky Sports because of the crippling price, which apparently is £1,100 a month. Real chicken-and-egg situation, as without Sky, the replica shirt brigade turning up will dwindle massively (not entirely a bad thing), but those pubs that DO still invest in Sky really need those plastic arses on barstools to try and cover the costs just to make it worthwhile.

Personally I quite liked the soccerball as a bit of background down the local on a Sunday afternoon, as I flick though the paper and keep half an eye on my acca. Now I'll either traipse off somewhere else that's still got Sky, or stay at home and watch it. You'd think with the BILLIONS Sky rake in they'd make it a touch more affordable and give the boozers a bit more of a helping hand. £1,100 a month is outrageous.
 


Diego Napier

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2010
4,416
What a load of rubbish.

Look at the P&L accounts of premiership clubs and look at the amount they spend on transfer fees and player wages. This is vastly disproportionate to turnover and is totally unrealistic in any proper business model. Yes Sky are paying more but until clubs take a more responsible attitude to their finances, transfer fees and player wages will remain out of control. How many clubs are profitable? How many clubs are reliant on benevolent owners to bail them out? QPR are the best example from last season, they spent a fortune getting themselves promoted and are still in the mire. This has the additional effect of clubs like ourselves stretching ourselves to try and keep up which is normal in a competitive business.

To blame the man on the sofa is just ridiculous.

I'm no more happy with all the dosh swilling around than you.

However, the top clubs are competing with one another for the best players, which one would be altruistic enough to say hang on, we're not going to pay what you want, off you go to our competitors?

You use the term "blame". I'm saying the source or cause of all this largesse is the pockets of the saps on the sofa. The effect of all the extra dosh is ridiculous Premier League wages.

It's really not difficult to understand is it?
 


Mellor 3 Ward 4

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2004
10,280
saaf of the water
As a slight aside, I know two pubs in Portslade which have recently binned Sky Sports because of the crippling price, which apparently is £1,100 a month. Real chicken-and-egg situation, as without Sky, the replica shirt brigade turning up will dwindle massively (not entirely a bad thing), but those pubs that DO still invest in Sky really need those plastic arses on barstools to try and cover the costs just to make it worthwhile.

Personally I quite liked the soccerball as a bit of background down the local on a Sunday afternoon, as I flick though the paper and keep half an eye on my acca. Now I'll either traipse off somewhere else that's still got Sky, or stay at home and watch it. You'd think with the BILLIONS Sky rake in they'd make it a touch more affordable and give the boozers a bit more of a helping hand. £1,100 a month is outrageous.

I agree with SKY overcharging pubs - I know of one near me which has ditched it.

I believe - could be wrong - that's the charge is calculated by the square footage of the pub concerned.
 


Vegas Seagull

New member
Jul 10, 2009
7,782
As a slight aside, I know two pubs in Portslade which have recently binned Sky Sports because of the crippling price, which apparently is £1,100 a month. Real chicken-and-egg situation, as without Sky, the replica shirt brigade turning up will dwindle massively (not entirely a bad thing), but those pubs that DO still invest in Sky really need those plastic arses on barstools to try and cover the costs just to make it worthwhile.

Personally I quite liked the soccerball as a bit of background down the local on a Sunday afternoon, as I flick though the paper and keep half an eye on my acca. Now I'll either traipse off somewhere else that's still got Sky, or stay at home and watch it. You'd think with the BILLIONS Sky rake in they'd make it a touch more affordable and give the boozers a bit more of a helping hand. £1,100 a month is outrageous.

10 pints a day on average.
Liverpool v Man U would have done a weeks worth in 2 hours you would think compared to being virtually empty
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,430
Location Location
I agree with SKY overcharging pubs - I know of one near me which has ditched it.

I believe - could be wrong - that's the charge is calculated by the square footage of the pub concerned.

Yes, I think you're right. The two pubs I know who've binned it are *roughly* the same size, and both said about it being £1,100 a month so there's probably is a set tariff as per the floorspace.

10 pints a day on average.
Liverpool v Man U would have done a weeks worth in 2 hours you would think compared to being virtually empty

Well its a balancing act, you'll have the regulars who will go regardless, but you need plenty of extra punters for the football to make it work. There's not always a Liverpool v Man U every week, and "Super Sunday" is probably the only main day when they'll make hay.

Its clearly not working out for a lot of pubs these days. I hope enough of them bin it off to make Sky review the pricing, but I guess that'll never happen when they're throwing billions at getting the rights.
 


Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,795
hassocks
Oh come on. A career with Burnley, Wolves and Sunderland and playing for the mighty Scotland is hardly "at the very top level" is it? If supporters think this then it's no wonder mediocre players can get away with such ludicrous salaries.

He still has roughly 1 in 3 goals in the top flight for those clubs you name, which is pretty decent - even more so when you name the clubs.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here