£385.000 a week
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:33 am
Obscene and all that's wrong with football. Just my opinion,some will disagree.
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48166
Simple answer. Stop paying to watch sport on TV. Without companies like SKY, BT, Amazon Prime funding games, wages would soon fall and we might get back to 'Free to air' sport on channels like the BBC.conyoviejo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:33 amObscene and all that's wrong with football. Just my opinion,some will disagree.
Clubs would still live on the edge. Just at a lower turnover.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:38 amSimple answer. Stop paying to watch sport on TV. Without companies like SKY, BT, Amazon Prime funding games, wages would soon fall and we might get back to 'Free to air' sport on channels like the BBC.
This is it. 90% of those complaining - or simply being jealous - will have a Sky Sports subscription. It's not coming out of a government pot intended for public spending, it's the cash of armchair fans, oligarchs and arabs. Nobody has to hand over their money to footballers, there's a non-league club in every town.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:38 amSimple answer. Stop paying to watch sport on TV. Without companies like SKY, BT, Amazon Prime funding games, wages would soon fall and we might get back to 'Free to air' sport on channels like the BBC.
Exactly. If anything, these huge wages are good for the country in that the tax and NI contributions are massive (in theory)NottsClaret wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:43 amThis is it. 90% of those complaining - or simply being jealous - will have a Sky Sports subscription. It's not coming out of a government pot intended for public spending, it's the cash of armchair fans, oligarchs and arabs. Nobody has to hand over their money to footballers, there's a non-league club in every town.
Does anyone work so hard they deserve such an income in any aspect of life? Is there anyone who could argue that their quality of life would be unfairly curtailed if they couldn’t earn more than £100k per week?conyoviejo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:33 amObscene and all that's wrong with football. Just my opinion,some will disagree.
Of course they would, but players wouldn't be being paid obscene sums every week and conyoviejo who started the thread would be happier. As would I.huw.Y.WattfromWare wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:42 amClubs would still live on the edge. Just at a lower turnover.
As with any profession the elite rake it in.
What if I want to watch football on Sky but think a player earning £385K pw is utterly ridiculous and, somehow, just shouldn't be permitted ......are the two things incompatible then ?Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:34 amJust a thought. (No names, no pack drill.) Strange how so many right wing capitalists on these boards complain about players being paid huge sums of money, funded by capitalist companies at the expense of the man in the street.
If you don't like it, then don't support the media companies that cause it. Simples.
GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:19 amII assume the Op has similar feelings about movie stars and musicians?
There are movie stars who command upwards of £20 million per film, musicians who've got millions in the bank.
Same with Authors making millions from a story they've written...
What's so wrong with people earning what they can whilst it's there?
You aren't forced to buy/watch/listen to anything that makes someone else some money.
They wouldn't be earning that sort of money if it wasn't for yours and others subscriptions to SKY and the like. It's a moral question that you can only answer yourself.Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:37 amWhat if I want to watch football on Sky but think a player earning £385K pw is utterly ridiculous and, somehow, just shouldn't be permitted ......are the two things incompatible then ?
I quite agree Gordale,unfortunately a majority those on low incomes who can't afford Sky will find their way to the pubs to watch it and spend a considerable amount of money drinking copious amounts of alcohol whilst watching the matches for free. A double edged sword perhapsGordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:45 amThey wouldn't be earning that sort of money if it wasn't for yours and others subscriptions to SKY and the like. It's a moral question that you can only answer yourself.
Platforms like Sky are only able to be watched by people with good, secure jobs who can afford the subscriptions. Ask yourself this. Is it fair that people on low incomes therefore aren't able to watch sport on TV? I don't think so, and the sooner all sport is free to air as it used to be, the better.
You make my point for me. Those people who go the the pubs and end up spending food money, would not have to do so if sport was free to air.conyoviejo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:55 amI quite agree Gordale,unfortunately a majority those on low incomes who can't afford Sky will find their way to the pubs to watch it and spend a considerable amount of money drinking copious amounts of alcohol whilst watching the matches for free. A double edged sword perhaps
How Much!!!?
Before Sky there was little live football to be watched. You would only get the 90 seconds of Burnley highlights shown on MOTD - and only then, as long as we stay in the PL. TV programming of Championship, League 1 and 2 games only came about as a result of the Sky/PL exclusivity deal taking away football from 1 terrestrial free to watch channel whilst they saw viewer numbers dramatically increase.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:45 amThey wouldn't be earning that sort of money if it wasn't for yours and others subscriptions to SKY and the like. It's a moral question that you can only answer yourself.
Platforms like Sky are only able to be watched by people with good, secure jobs who can afford the subscriptions. Ask yourself this. Is it fair that people on low incomes therefore aren't able to watch sport on TV? I don't think so, and the sooner all sport is free to air as it used to be, the better.
Yes, and now there are loads of channels willing to show football, if only they didn't have to compete with the likes of SKY. SKY, Virgin etc. have monopolised the industry and it shouldn't be allowed. It's only the money mad football authorities, filling their own pockets that have allowed it, at the expense of the fans. Surely you realise that?bfcmik wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:07 pmBefore Sky there was little live football to be watched. You would only get the 90 seconds of Burnley highlights shown on MOTD - and only then, as long as we stay in the PL. TV programming of Championship, League 1 and 2 games only came about as a result of the Sky/PL exclusivity deal taking away football from 1 terrestrial free to watch channel whilst they saw viewer numbers dramatically increase.
Expense of fans how? Those fans “ripped off” should look a little closer to home than sky for being ripped off.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:26 pmYes, and now there are loads of channels willing to show football, if only they didn't have to compete with the likes of SKY. SKY, Virgin etc. have monopolised the industry and it shouldn't be allowed. It's only the money mad football authorities, filling their own pockets that have allowed it, at the expense of the fans. Surely you realise that?
Please don't misquote me. I didn't say "Ripped off" and I don't know what you mean by "Closer to home". If you mean BFC, then I'm wondering why you would think that when season ticket prices have remained unchanged for about seven years now.