handsofclay Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 No, I don't think it has any bearing on contract negotiations. I was just replying to your point that there was no comparison between boxing and football because boxers lay their lives on the line each time they step into the ring. It is an interesting fact that in the history of the world heavyweight championship no fighter has died as a result of the fight itself. However, there have been various incidents of footballers being killed either directly or indirectly due to football. Brain injuries are also similar due to repeated heading of the ball. Applying your logic that it was ok to pay Tyson millions aged 20 would mean his opponents should've got more than him as they were more likely to end up killed than Iron Mike was. That didn't happen. Tyson was paid what his worth was at the box office. It had nothing to do with the risk he was taking. Shaw is likewise paid his worth. I have no probs with footballers getting megabits. Gone are the days of the maximum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 It's a fact that desperate teams spunk out big money on wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 It's crazy that we live in world that if you respond to emergency or are absolutely required then you are required to work a permanent job which seems to mean you get a bit of job security but less renumeration but if you work in job thats not really required and doesn't effect anyone short term if it's not done then you work in a contact based industry and can get loads of money but the job is less secure. So in summery if you want to get paid a lot do a job that doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Jose, former Real Madrid and current Chelski boss has, by defininition, forfeited his position to be taken seriously re financial sensibilities, imo. And to be fair, anyone who discusses finance in football, with a straight face, should be disregarded as an idiot/self-serving wum. Yet we persist with: why is our national team a ******* joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyb Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Jose, former Real Madrid and current Chelski boss has, by defininition, forfeited his position to be taken seriously re financial sensibilities, imo. And to be fair, anyone who discusses finance in football, with a straight face, should be disregarded as an idiot/self-serving wum. Yet we persist with: why is our national team a ******* joke? Jose Mourinho. The master at work, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCulturalBomb Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 The most concerning thing is that apparently this is his REQUESTED wage. Who on earth seriously negotiates that much money at 19? Especially after being at Southampton on surely average wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Those of you with Sky Sports - you're responsible for the wages. You know what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 No, what should I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slacker Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 You should invite those of us without it to your house to watch the Sheffield United game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Those of you with Sky Sports - you're responsible for the wages. You know what to do. I spent the entire day watching the test match yesterday, followed by a very enjoyable World Matchplay Darts final. I imagine some of my Sky subscription went towards those events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I spent the entire day watching the test match yesterday, followed by a very enjoyable World Matchplay Darts final. I imagine some of my Sky subscription went towards those events. A very small proportion of it I should think. The majority of the obscene amount that Sky charge to watch their sports channels goes to football, and consequently towards paying the vastly overinflated wages that players receive now. It's all well and good claiming they retire early and need to make all their money in the short career they have, but most people won't earn more than 2-3 million during the course of their working lives and there are many premier league players getting that in less than a season. And their earning power doesn't exactly hit a full stop once retired. They become coaches, pundits or move onto completely separate careers. There are many people in this world whose careers don't really begin until their thirties, so to claim footballers are somehow justified in what they earn is missing the point. Once again, the problem lies behind people's gullibility in falling for the massive amounts of marketing and hyperbole thrown at football, meaning that they think they are somehow worse off if they don't spend a fair chunk of their disposable income on Sky to keep these privileged, spoilt and (in the large part) egotistical young men in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 If you are good enough you are entitled to the riches your talent reaps irrespective of what age you happen to be. With regards to money taking the edge off a good young player it shouldn't make any difference. If they are that shallow as to let their gift decline due to being paid shedloads of dosh then I wager they never possessed the determination to succeed in the first place. I would also assume that the likes of Shaw knew he would be a multi-millionaire at about the age of 11 and the school he attended were aware of it too, so they would've provided him with special lessons in how to invest/spend it wisely. More power to his elbow and good luck to the fellow. Teenagers with loads of dosh isn't a new phenomenon. More than 3,000 years ago Tutenkhamun ordered a gold coffin from the co-op and never received a word of criticism. Did Tutenkhamun go back to play one last game for his old club after signing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 A very small proportion of it I should think. The majority of the obscene amount that Sky charge to watch their sports channels goes to football, and consequently towards paying the vastly overinflated wages that players receive now. It's all well and good claiming they retire early and need to make all their money in the short career they have, but most people won't earn more than 2-3 million during the course of their working lives and there are many premier league players getting that in less than a season. And their earning power doesn't exactly hit a full stop once retired. They become coaches, pundits or move onto completely separate careers. There are many people in this world whose careers don't really begin until their thirties, so to claim footballers are somehow justified in what they earn is missing the point. Once again, the problem lies behind people's gullibility in falling for the massive amounts of marketing and hyperbole thrown at football, meaning that they think they are somehow worse off if they don't spend a fair chunk of their disposable income on Sky to keep these privileged, spoilt and (in the large part) egotistical young men in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Or people just enjoy watching sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Or people just enjoy watching sport. I enjoy watching sport, I just don't enjoy the way that Sky throw money at it and money corrupts. To my mind, anybody that subscribes to Sky is contributing directly to the ruination of football in this country. I fully realise that other sports have also had an increase in funding thanks to the money from Sky but it's all completely piecemeal compared to Football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I enjoy watching sport, I just don't enjoy the way that Sky throw money at it and money corrupts. To my mind, anybody that subscribes to Sky is contributing directly to the ruination of football in this country. I fully realise that other sports have also had an increase in funding thanks to the money from Sky but it's all completely piecemeal compared to Football. Take a deep breath, get over yourself and move on. Last week hooligans ruin the game. Now its TV money. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Take a deep breath, get over yourself and move on. Last week hooligans ruin the game. Now its TV money. Which is it? Watching football becoming a more sterile experience and the link between players and real life are two separate issues. One may have some bearing on the other, but they are separate issues nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I enjoy watching sport, I just don't enjoy the way that Sky throw money at it and money corrupts. To my mind, anybody that subscribes to Sky is contributing directly to the ruination of football in this country. I fully realise that other sports have also had an increase in funding thanks to the money from Sky but it's all completely piecemeal compared to Football. Please accept my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Watching football becoming a more sterile experience and the link between players and real life are two separate issues. One may have some bearing on the other, but they are separate issues nonetheless. So in what way don't you have more access to players now than 1992? The Bosman ruling is the cause of these high wages, coupled with the lack of worthwhile English players, meaning the likes of sure attract a high premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catcott_red1 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 If this is true then it's wrong that a relatively unproven 19 year old is on that amount of money but don't forget who said this.... Mourinho!! Might be a case of Shaw turned Chelsea down (for different reasons than money) or they didn't want to pay the fee that Man U did and Jose is still bitter about it. I take everything he says with a pitch of salt. Good manager but a serial wind up merchant and moaner at the same time. I mean he said Chelsea wouldn't be signing anyone else then signed Drogba 3 days later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North London Red Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I see Sky are getting a bashing on here. It should be remembered that the TV rights paid by Sky will represent only a fraction of the total money in the premier league. The premier league rights are sold worldwide - to give some idea of the scale, take a look at the following list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Premier_League_broadcasters Factor in this income from overseas TV rights, the money from club sponsors (some of whom pay eye watering amounts to have their name associated with a premier league club), the money from other advertisers, gate receipts, corporate hospitality, income from the sale of shirts and other merchandise (again, absolutely huge in the Far East), stadium naming rights, the money pumped in by billionaire owners, and the money paid by BT Sport for live coverage and the BBC for highlights, and I think it is fair to say Sky are far from the only reason that players earn obscene wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsofclay Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I dare say when the envious complained about Shirley Temple as a kid getting more in an hour than a grown man with a family earning in a year people blamed those who went to the cinema. But if they boycotted cinemas in the 1930s in protest it didn't do much good as they're still going strong 80 years later. Let's all live with the fact the Shaw is getting 100k a week and wish the fellow well. No recriminations and all that. The funny thing is the ones who object on here to him getting such a large wedge were happy with him being on 20k a week. Whether it is 20k, 100k, 500k or a cool one million a week it is still more than most of us can dream of. But the dosh is there to pay him that so what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North London Red Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Southampton must be loving it though, .....well, Southampton are selling / have sold their best players from last season. Southampton must now be solid candidates for relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 .....well, Southampton are selling / have sold their best players from last season. Southampton must now be solid candidates for relegation. Perhaps. But, at least they will be one of the richest teams in the Championship.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.