Obscene and all that's wrong with football. Just my opinion,some will disagree.

Is this the new living wage announcement?

You might have to pad that out a bit, like as in who, where, why??

Is it Claret Tony's salary??

Has Jeff signed for Milan?

£385 a week ?

Our under 23s earn more than that

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:33 am

Obscene and all that's wrong with football. Just my opinion,some will disagree.

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.

I agree with you 100% conyoviejo

I think you are talking about Leroy Sane

I remember when you could go to the pictures and still have enough change for the chippy on the way home for that sort of money.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:38 am

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.

Clubs would still live on the edge. Just at a lower turnover.
As with any profession the elite rake it in.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:38 am

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.

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.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:43 am

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.

Exactly. If anything, these huge wages are good for the country in that the tax and NI contributions are massive (in theory)

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:33 am

Obscene and all that's wrong with football. Just my opinion,some will disagree.

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?

I 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.

I prefer a nice £3.85 sarnie from M and S tbh

huw.Y.WattfromWare wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:42 am

Clubs would still live on the edge. Just at a lower turnover.
As with any profession the elite rake it in.

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.

Well I certainly won't be taking a pay cut to play football in the rain.
I'd have to stop eating pies, drinking beer and having 2 week sessions over Christmas too.

Pfft

Just 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.

What’s the issue? If clubs negotiate a huge fee, the player is well within his rights to get as much as he can.

Whilst tapping out their messages on devices made made by vast multinational conglomerates using cheap labour in the far east...

If the lad ensures Bayern's continued dominance over the next few years, as he will, it makes perfect business sense.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:34 am

Just 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.

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 ?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:19 am

II 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.

I assume the Op has similar feelings about movie stars and musicians?..I do

What's so wrong with people earning what they can whilst it's there? Nothing

You aren't forced to buy/watch/listen to anything that makes someone else some money.
I don't buy anything musical or videos..

Guess I'm just a tight git who resents people being paid massive amounts of dosh..

Stalbansclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:37 am

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 ?

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.

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.

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:45 am

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.

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.

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 perhaps

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:55 am

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 perhaps

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.

How much does sky premier league football cost per month?
Somewhere in the region of £50?

Hibsclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:20 am

I prefer a nice £3.85 sarnie from M and S tbh

How Much!!!?
Kin Daylight robbery

Okay I’ll say it. That’s an inSane amount.
See what I did?

just love that a simple post becomes all about capitalists and morals,

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:45 am

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.

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.

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.

Crazy amount of money but if someone wants to pay him that amount for his services then fair play to him. I don't see how this demonstrates that there's anything wrong with football, it just shows how hugely popular the game is and how the players who make it to the very top of the game are rewarded in line with that popularity.

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:07 pm

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.

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?

Gordaleman wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:26 pm

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?

Expense of fans how? Those fans “ripped off” should look a little closer to home than sky for being ripped off.

Dyched wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:29 pm

Expense of fans how? Those fans “ripped off” should look a little closer to home than sky for being ripped off.

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.

Sky, Virgin, BT etc. have formed monopolies and consistently raise their prices every year by more than inflation, knowing that they have a captive audience. The sooner people dump their services and bring some sanity back to football, the better.

Mind you, as many predicted the Covid19 crisis has seen the end of the top 6 clubs offering massive transfer fees.

Manchester United are offering a derisory £50m for the services of Jadon Sancho.

KateR
"just love that a simple post becomes all about capitalists and morals, "

Erm that's what the original post suggested shouldn't come as a surprise