The point is income has grown with expenditure. While players are earning far more, the clubs are earning far more too and if the money wasn't going into the players pockets it would be going into the owners. It wouldn't lead to a reduction in ticket prices.
What would be a very interesting question would be to ask fans what they would rather see the money being spent on?
"we've just signed a new sponsorship deal worth £10m a season. We can use that money to reduce ticket prices or we can hand it to the manager in the summer to add to his transfer kitty"
I wonder what fans would pick?
The same answer probably as when they did a feature in the 80’s (Football Focus or On The Ball) before Bradford happened and asked fans basically would you rather have a nice stadium and crap team or a great team and play in a rat hole (Wolves and a few other clubs nearly went bust building new stands)
And they shouldn't either. Clubs are not run by some special needs unqualified people who are having their pants pulled down by these nasty footballers and their agents. If a club is paying a player more than they can afford that is pure and simple mismanagement by the club and its no-one else's fault.
If that were true then why is just about every single professional football club in this country so in debt? After all, by far their biggest expenditure is players wages.
Therefore, at the moment, the balance of power is very much in the hands of the agents and players because they know they pretty much have the clubs over a barrel and they are mercilessly exploiting that fact.
If their wage demands mean a football club fails it isn't their problem as they will just move to another club, it is the supporters who are left to try and pick up the pieces.
Look at Theo Walcott. Arsenal have offered him an amount of money, he wants more. If he won't compromise and Arsenal don't think he is worth what he is asking, he leaves, simple as that. If another club will pay him what he wants then fair play to him. for recognising that he was worth more. He must then weigh up if the money is more important than playing for Arsenal.
But if you take Walcott as an example, how much of that is down to him and how much of that is down to his agent? After all it is in his agent's interest to keep moving his player around.
Its pretty simple and its the same in any business. In a job i was in about 10 years back i was doing what i thought was a pretty good job but i could have got £3k a year more doing the same job for another company. At that point £3k was a pretty huge chunk of money to me. I went to my boss and said "Im as good as these guys and if i worked for them id be on £3k a year more more". He simply said "I'll be sorry to lose you but i can't pay you that so if you can get it good luck".
Thats just how it works. Football clubs are no different.
But you know full well it isn't that simple.
In any "normal" job no one is irreplaceable. someone leaves and another takes their place and the business continues as normal. However if you remove the best players from any team, whatever the sport at whatever the level, and that can, and often does, have a significant impact on the overall performance of that team. The player know that and, more importantly, so do their agents.
In any "normal" job no one is irreplaceable. someone leaves and another takes their place and the business continues as normal. However if you remove the best players from any team, whatever the sport at whatever the level, and that can, and often does, have a significant impact on the overall performance of that team. The player know that and, more importantly, so do their agents.
You can't have it both ways. If a player is "irreplaceable" then he is entitled to ask for a vast sum of money because you are saying there aren't really any other players who can do that job.
Again, it is market forces.
Some clubs bring in cheap, build up a player and sell for a profit.
Other clubs buy players at the top.
Its entirely up to the club to decide what their strategy is, but it is NOT the agents or players fault that they get paid that money because the clubs are prepared to pay it.
NO ONE in any job would say "I'm worth X, but i'll only take half of that just cos I'm a nice guy and i dint want to seem greedy".
NO ONE in any job would say "I'm worth X, but i'll only take half of that just cos I'm a nice guy and i dint want to seem greedy".
Surely Scholes should be earning more than he has done throughout his time, but he isn't greedy, he is just a nice guy who just wants to play football?
Heck, the feller doesn't have an agent or a boot deal!
He is the ultimate nice guy footballer!
Surely Scholes should be earning more than he has done throughout his time, but he isn't greedy, he is just a nice guy who just wants to play football?
Heck, the feller doesn't have an agent or a boot deal!
He is the ultimate nice guy footballer!
Shame that there are not more like him around!!
I'm sure he knows his worth and gets what he wants...
There should be a wages cap and a limit on foreign players in England to 3 per club in the Premiership and none in the lower leagues
A wage cap wouldn't work, and you would get any lawyer worthy of the name to smash any ban or limit on players based on nationality without any great effort.
A wage cap wouldn't work, and you would get any lawyer worthy of the name to smash any ban or limit on players based on nationality without any great effort.
Then let the game go to ruin.The way things are going , the England team will be looking for the majority of their players in the second tier Championship in 5 yrs.
Id get rid of agents, and let the players and the clubs sort out a contract themselves.
Theo Walcott saying the other night, contract negotiations will be slow, why, maybe if money wasn't a problem, just make him sign, a contract and the wage, fits in with like a age wage relation thing.
Remember England failed to get into 3 world cups and a european championships when most of the players were english...plus lost all 3 games in another euros.
(1974/8 - 1994) and (1984)
Its all about the quality rather than quanity I guess...maybe there are too many average overseas signing now?
Also its easier to pay 5-10 million for a proven guy from overseas than making the mistake liverpool did of paying over 50 million for Henderson/Downing and Carroll!
I agree agents are a problem but then clubs use them to attract/poach players as well as having to work with them on contracts.
Remember England failed to get into 3 world cups and a european championships when most of the players were english...plus lost all 3 games in another euros.
(1974/8 - 1994) and (1984)
Its all about the quality rather than quanity I guess...maybe there are too many average overseas signing now?
At the same time they were dominating European club football though with mainly English players.
Id get rid of agents, and let the players and the clubs sort out a contract themselves.
Theo Walcott saying the other night, contract negotiations will be slow, why, maybe if money wasn't a problem, just make him sign, a contract and the wage, fits in with like a age wage relation thing.
But a contact is not just about wages, The length of contract, goal bonus's, What his off the field responsibies are? Does he have to make his self outside of training/match day hours for Arsenal's sponsers if so how often? Are their companies who the club would rather the player not got involved in? Is there a clause for exending the contract?.
The contract is not just a A4 piece of paper saying you get paid x amount of the last day of the month.
Players need thier minds to be on the game and not on the business side of it,
Fair point although Liverpool for example had players from throughout the UK/Ireland as well.
That was only really in their last win, in the others inc Forest and Villa there there were 7,8 or 9 English players, the British thing is a bit of a myth based solely on the last win in that era.
Yes players wages has just got ridiculous and it's for a lot of people thouroghly offensive to see these top players being paid the kind of money they are especially when you then read players like Ashley Cole saying being paid £50k p/w is insulting. Personally I can't understand why any body even feels they needs to be paid "£100k p/w . I mean what the hell do they spend the money on ?.
But at the end of the day regareis there really any diffrence between paying a footballer £100k p/w or paying an actor millions of pounds to make a film.
Comments
The same answer probably as when they did a feature in the 80’s (Football Focus or On The Ball) before Bradford happened and asked fans basically would you rather have a nice stadium and crap team or a great team and play in a rat hole (Wolves and a few other clubs nearly went bust building new stands)
If that were true then why is just about every single professional football club in this country so in debt? After all, by far their biggest expenditure is players wages.
Therefore, at the moment, the balance of power is very much in the hands of the agents and players because they know they pretty much have the clubs over a barrel and they are mercilessly exploiting that fact.
If their wage demands mean a football club fails it isn't their problem as they will just move to another club, it is the supporters who are left to try and pick up the pieces.
But if you take Walcott as an example, how much of that is down to him and how much of that is down to his agent? After all it is in his agent's interest to keep moving his player around.
But you know full well it isn't that simple.
In any "normal" job no one is irreplaceable. someone leaves and another takes their place and the business continues as normal. However if you remove the best players from any team, whatever the sport at whatever the level, and that can, and often does, have a significant impact on the overall performance of that team. The player know that and, more importantly, so do their agents.
You can't have it both ways. If a player is "irreplaceable" then he is entitled to ask for a vast sum of money because you are saying there aren't really any other players who can do that job.
Again, it is market forces.
Some clubs bring in cheap, build up a player and sell for a profit.
Other clubs buy players at the top.
Its entirely up to the club to decide what their strategy is, but it is NOT the agents or players fault that they get paid that money because the clubs are prepared to pay it.
NO ONE in any job would say "I'm worth X, but i'll only take half of that just cos I'm a nice guy and i dint want to seem greedy".
Surely Scholes should be earning more than he has done throughout his time, but he isn't greedy, he is just a nice guy who just wants to play football?
Heck, the feller doesn't have an agent or a boot deal!
He is the ultimate nice guy footballer!
Shame that there are not more like him around!!
I'm sure he knows his worth and gets what he wants...
A wage cap wouldn't work, and you would get any lawyer worthy of the name to smash any ban or limit on players based on nationality without any great effort.
Then let the game go to ruin.The way things are going , the England team will be looking for the majority of their players in the second tier Championship in 5 yrs.
Theo Walcott saying the other night, contract negotiations will be slow, why, maybe if money wasn't a problem, just make him sign, a contract and the wage, fits in with like a age wage relation thing.
(1974/8 - 1994) and (1984)
Its all about the quality rather than quanity I guess...maybe there are too many average overseas signing now?
Also its easier to pay 5-10 million for a proven guy from overseas than making the mistake liverpool did of paying over 50 million for Henderson/Downing and Carroll!
I agree agents are a problem but then clubs use them to attract/poach players as well as having to work with them on contracts.
But a contact is not just about wages, The length of contract, goal bonus's, What his off the field responsibies are? Does he have to make his self outside of training/match day hours for Arsenal's sponsers if so how often? Are their companies who the club would rather the player not got involved in? Is there a clause for exending the contract?.
The contract is not just a A4 piece of paper saying you get paid x amount of the last day of the month.
Players need thier minds to be on the game and not on the business side of it,
Fair point although Liverpool for example had players from throughout the UK/Ireland as well.
It was only a point about how poor the england team could come with the influx of overseas players really.
Just saying we weren't exactly perfect with a high number of english players to pick from.
Anyway I actually think that is an easy excuse..we still had decent players in the world cups/euros under Sven and Capello.
Rooney/Gerrard and Lampard for example.
But at the end of the day regareis there really any diffrence between paying a footballer £100k p/w or paying an actor millions of pounds to make a film.