[Football] "why can't we sign tried and tested Premier League footballers"

[Guy Fawkes]

Don't be stupid! If I was homeless and unemployed of course I would welcome a £20K a year job; if I was on £20K a year and somebody offered me £200K a year, I'd grab it.

If I was comfortably earning a couple of million or more every year, I was happy in my job, and my family were happy and settled, the inducement of an extra million would not have the same appeal.


If I was already on £2M a year, doing a job I loved, why would I accept that offer. I wouldn't be that stupid.

That's fine if you are doing an everyday job where your earnings (current and future) aren't in jeopardy from the risk of a single injury which could finish your career and that big money offer could be the only chance you ever get to earn that sort of wage. Football is also a short career, unlike everyday jobs where your going to have the chance of continuing in that role you enjoy until you reach retirement age

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Given that we signed Shane Duffy for £4m when he was 24 (vs. £26m for Mings at 26) - That's a big difference in value.

PL clubs held to ransom in fees they are expected to pay simply because they have more money available to them and everyone wants a piece?

Would we have been able to buy Duffy for £4m had we been in the PL when he was 24 and still at Blackburn? or would they have demanded more?

 

[GT49er]

That's fine if you are doing an everyday job where your earnings (current and future) aren't in jeopardy from the risk of a single injury which could finish your career and that big money offer could be the only chance you ever get to earn that sort of wage. Football is also a short career, unlike everyday jobs where your going to have the chance of continuing in that role you enjoy until you reach retirement age

How many years do you need to work at £2M plus a year? You certainly won't need to slog on until you are 65! In fact, a single year at that rate would see me sorted for the rest of my life!

And haven't footballers heard about insurance?

 

[middletoenail]

Don't be stupid! If I was homeless and unemployed of course I would welcome a £20K a year job; if I was on £20K a year and somebody offered me £200K a year, I'd grab it.

If I was comfortably earning a couple of million or more every year, I was happy in my job, and my family were happy and settled, the inducement of an extra million would not have the same appeal.


If I was already on £2M a year, doing a job I loved, why would I accept that offer? I wouldn't be that stupid.

With all due respect, you're answering this as someone who doesn't earn anywhere near as much in a year, as some of our top players earn in 4 days.

If you did, your expectations would be very different!

 

[GT49er]

With all due respect, you're answering this as someone who doesn't earn anywhere near as much in a year, as some of our top players earn in 3 days.

If you did, your expectations would be very different!

Yes, of course they would.

At my level, a 100% increase in my income would be life changing. If I was earning as much as they are, earning still more might not matter as much as other considerations.

 

[Weststander]

If I was on £35K a year (I wish!) and somebody offered me ten times as much, I'd grab it like a shot. If, however, I was getting £35K a week and was happy with my job, circumstances and location, the lure of extra money would be much less powerful.

With some players doing just that, it does happen. Dunk could’ve moved a year or two back for a large pay rise, yet he stayed at his hometown club, taking home circa £1.4m a year. In the past the likes Gerrard (to Chelsea) and Giggs (to the continent) were courted, where they could’ve enriched themselves far more, but they stayed where they were happy and still became rich beyond the dreams of almost everyone.

 

[Mayonaise]

There's not a lot of difference between the Albion and Watford, and I'd expect that gap to narrow in 2018/19.

View attachment 112517

One issue that is different is that of player sales. The other clubs in the list have had substantial sales in recent years, unlike the Albion, and these can be used to contribute towards other player costs such as wages.

Illustrates just how well Tottenham did last season!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Just shows that the 6 clubs with the highest wages bill always end up in the top 6 positions in the league.

The 6 clubs with a far greater income than the rest, (sponsorship and merchandise sales, etc)
The 6 clubs with a larger fanbase, European competition incomes
The top 6 with a far greater appeal to bring in the very top players in the world from other larger clubs elsewhere abroad and also from the rest of the pl, meaning they are much more willing to sign for them for prestige reasons and not joining just to pick up a big fat pay cheque

The rest have to take into account the risk of relegation, and how 'going for it' could have serious implications should they then get relegated with all these expensive players on the books, meaning they have little or no chance of keeping afloat without significant losses funded by the owner (which then breaks FFP) and jeopardises the future of the club.

Plenty of examples of clubs that didn't necessarily overspend, or overspend by that much who have been relegated and ended up in severe financial difficulties (Coventry, Bolton, Leeds, Southampton, Pompey, etc....) Given our history, is that really a path we want to risk, especially as we are already heavily indebted to one man as it is to get where we are and to then want him to gamble a further significant amount of money (to meet your expectations and had a vastly higher wage bill) is crazy imo. Especially given how much we owe already, and that adding it to makes it even harder to help find a new owner should the need ever arise (as they have to take on that debt too)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

With some players doing just that, it does happen. Dunk could’ve moved a year or two back for a large pay rise, yet he stayed at his hometown club, taking home circa £1.4m a year. In the past the likes Gerrard (to Chelsea) and Giggs (to the continent) were courted, where they could’ve enriched themselves far more, but they stayed where they were happy and still became rich beyond the dreams of almost everyone.

Dunk didn't necessarily see Fulham as a big enough step up in his career path to make him want to leave then, had it been a big club in the PL rather than another Championship team, then it's more likely he'd have left. Would he be on the wage he is now with us or even still with us had we not gone up? or would he have moved?

Giggs and Gerrard were at top 4 PL clubs already, where do they go exactly as a big step up from where they were? if they were playing for an unfancied pl team instead of Man U and Liverpool, i doubt they would have turned down a lot of money and a chance to play for a top team in one of the best leagues in the world to stay put at somewhere like a Burnley, Watford, Southampton, Bournemouth or palace.

 

[Weststander]

The 6 clubs with a far greater income than the rest, (sponsorship and merchandise sales, etc)
The 6 clubs with a larger fanbase, European competition incomes
The top 6 with a far greater appeal to bring in the very top players in the world from other larger clubs elsewhere abroad and also from the rest of the pl, meaning they are much more willing to sign for them for prestige reasons and not joining just to pick up a big fat pay cheque

The rest have to take into account the risk of relegation, and how 'going for it' could have serious implications should they then get relegated with all these expensive players on the books, meaning they have little or no chance of keeping afloat without significant losses funded by the owner (which then breaks FFP) and jeopardises the future of the club.

Plenty of examples of clubs that didn't necessarily overspend, or overspend by that much who have been relegated and ended up in severe financial difficulties (Coventry, Bolton, Leeds, Southampton, Pompey, etc....) Given our history, is that really a path we want to risk, especially as we are already heavily indebted to one man as it is to get where we are and to then want him to gamble a further significant amount of money (to meet your expectations and had a vastly higher wage bill) is crazy imo. Especially given how much we owe already, and that adding it to makes it even harder to help find a new owner should the need ever arise (as they have to take on that debt too)

The magnitude of TB’s level of equity and interest free loan to the club, would have no direct effect on potential buyers. They’re irrelevant. A new owner does not take on debt owed to an existing owner. The club have next to no debt with financial institutions.

In this clean scenario of no bank debt, TB and the purchaser would simply agree a price.

 

[GT49er]

Dunk didn't necessarily see Fulham as a big enough step up in his career path to make him want to leave then, had it been a big club in the PL rather than another Championship team, then it's more likely he'd have left. Would he be on the wage he is now with us or even still with us had we not gone up? or would he have moved?

Giggs and Gerrard were at top 4 PL clubs already, where do they go exactly as a big step up from where they were? if they were playing for an unfancied pl team instead of Man U and Liverpool, i doubt they would have turned down a lot of money and a chance to play for a top team in one of the best leagues in the world to stay put at somewhere like a Burnley, Watford, Southampton, Bournemouth or palace.

Yes, that's the whole point that some people on here seem totally incapable of understanding. They had chances to move but opted not to because they didn't appear to think it would enhance their football career progression - it wasn't a big enough step up. There may well have been personal and/or family reasons involved too.

In all three cases, though, it is more than likely that a considerable wage increase was on offer, which they turned down because being wealthy enough already, they had other considerations which took precedence over just getting more money.

 

[Weststander]

Dunk didn't necessarily see Fulham as a big enough step up in his career path to make him want to leave then, had it been a big club in the PL rather than another Championship team, then it's more likely he'd have left. Would he be on the wage he is now with us or even still with us had we not gone up? or would he have moved?

Giggs and Gerrard were at top 4 PL clubs already, where do they go exactly as a big step up from where they were? if they were playing for an unfancied pl team instead of Man U and Liverpool, i doubt they would have turned down a lot of money and a chance to play for a top team in one of the best leagues in the world to stay put at somewhere like a Burnley, Watford, Southampton, Bournemouth or palace.

I was simply sticking to the money discussion of this thread.

Fulham were to pay Dunk more, Chelsea pay Gerrard more, Italian clubs pay Giggs more. In each case, the players stayed put (Dunk so far).

 

[Guy Fawkes]

How many years do you need to work at £2M plus a year? You certainly won't need to slog on until you are 65! In fact, a single year at that rate would see me sorted for the rest of my life!

And haven't footballers heard about insurance?

This sounds a little like wage envy to me

So you think that someone who is probably in the top 1% and probably a lot higher up than 1% and more likely to be 0.(lots of zeros)1% shouldn't be rewarded and paid the market rate but should only expect to earn the same sort of level of wage as someone who has a job that millions of people could do to a reasonable standard with a little training and are easily replaced?

It's like saying that someone who sings and is at the top of their profession shouldn't take the wealth that their success has brought, but be happy with earning around the average wage as 'it's too much money' and that way pub singers can therefore expect to earn the same money as those top music stars because, after all they are both doing a job to earn a living

Both professions can have a very limited shelf life before their careers are over, so why shouldn't the very best be rewarded for their skill and effort (and a lot of effort that they will have had to put in to get to the standards they have reached)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes, that's the whole point that some people on here seem totally incapable of understanding. They had chances to move but opted not to because they didn't appear to think it would enhance their football career progression - it wasn't a big enough step up. There may well have been personal and/or family reasons involved too.

In all three cases, though, it is more than likely that a considerable wage increase was on offer, which they turned down because being wealthy enough already, they had other considerations which took precedence over just getting more money.

So with us, are we a big enough draw to get players to leave their current pl club and join us?

Is that fact that we are a club that will be fighting against relegation when we are competing against better placed teams in the league with a better prospect of survival, so why would a player move expect if they were a fringe player, looking for regular football or for a big pay increase?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The magnitude of TB’s level of equity and interest free loan to the club, would have no direct effect on potential buyers. They’re irrelevant. A new owner does not take on debt owed to an existing owner. The club have next to no debt with financial institutions.

In this clean scenario of no bank debt, TB and the purchaser would simply agree a price.

The accounts say we owe a significant amount of money to TB, meaning either TB would have to write that money off, or a new buyer would either have to pay it off or take on that debt.

 

[Weststander]

The accounts say we owe a significant amount of money to TB, meaning either TB would have to write that money off, or a new buyer would either have to pay it off or take on that debt.

TB with his accountants would decide the mechanics of it.

The new owner would not take on ‘the debt’.

 

[blue-shifted]

What on earth do you spend £100k plus a week on?

There is a limit to the number of Ferraris, Aston Martins, whatever, anyone can want.

I doubt these WAGS come cheap to be honest mate

 

[GT49er]

This sounds a little like wage envy to me

So you think that someone who is probably in the top 1% and probably a lot higher up than 1% and more likely to be 0.(lots of zeros)1% shouldn't be rewarded and paid the market rate but should only expect to earn the same sort of level of wage as someone who has a job that millions of people could do to a reasonable standard with a little training and are easily replaced?

It's like saying that someone who sings and is at the top of their profession shouldn't take the wealth that their success has brought, but be happy with earning around the average wage as 'it's too much money' and that way pub singers can therefore expect to earn the same money as those top music stars because, after all they are both doing a job to earn a living

Both professions can have a very limited shelf life before their careers are over, so why shouldn't the very best be rewarded for their skill and effort (and a lot of effort that they will have had to put in to get to the standards they have reached)

Wage envy? You're talking bollocks - although of course I, like almost everybody else in the population is naturally a little envious of those who manage to earn millions every year.

And yes, of course, footballers should be paid for their skills, and top players will be paid more. And as for suggesting (or apparently suggesting that that is what I'm suggesting) that pub singers should earn the same as top singing stars is bollocks worthy of some of the more notorious posters of bollocks on NSC!

What you fail to understand though, is the basic principle that wealth buys you more choice - and PL footballers are indeed wealthy, even the lower paid ones. So they can afford to make choices about their lifestyle, location, what they want to do, not necessarily merely on money - they've already got enough. If they're offered more to go elsewhere, they can if they want to - and if they don't want to, they can afford not to (as in the cases #Westander quoted of Dunk, Gerrard and Giggs).

 

[rogersix]

That's fine if you are doing an everyday job where your earnings (current and future) aren't in jeopardy from the risk of a single injury which could finish your career and that big money offer could be the only chance you ever get to earn that sort of wage. Football is also a short career, unlike everyday jobs where your going to have the chance of continuing in that role you enjoy until you reach retirement age

but, with football, if you retire at 35 say; you have plenty of free time to re-train, and can then work for another 30 years or more

 

[blue-shifted]

This sounds a little like wage envy to me

So you think that someone who is probably in the top 1% and probably a lot higher up than 1% and more likely to be 0.(lots of zeros)1% shouldn't be rewarded and paid the market rate but should only expect to earn the same sort of level of wage as someone who has a job that millions of people could do to a reasonable standard with a little training and are easily replaced?

It's like saying that someone who sings and is at the top of their profession shouldn't take the wealth that their success has brought, but be happy with earning around the average wage as 'it's too much money' and that way pub singers can therefore expect to earn the same money as those top music stars because, after all they are both doing a job to earn a living

Both professions can have a very limited shelf life before their careers are over, so why shouldn't the very best be rewarded for their skill and effort (and a lot of effort that they will have had to put in to get to the standards they have reached)

I'm not going to worship at the altar of free market economics on this one. This market has been utterly distorted by corrupt sovereign funds and oligarchs who have plundered the riches of their nations under dubious circumstances, as well as TV companies who are using football as part of a wider strategy.

Yes, footballers who are successful should earn well. They should earn more than say a nurse, teacher, policeman etc because the market has dictated that. They shouldn't earn more in a day than what those public servants earn in a year. That's a gross overcentralisation of money and I believe we shouldn't be admiring their wealth or advocating that this positive or socially acceptable