Roadrunner Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 In todays Daily Echo (Southampton) it states that Southampton wage bill in 2007/08 was 81% of the clubs income. With Stern being one of the higher earners at £8, 000 a week. Jason Euell meanwhile was on a two year contract at £10,000 per week plus £200,000 signing on fee for BOTH his two seasons. On top of that Saints have to pay his national insurance contributions of 12.5%- meaming they pay an extra £90,000 just for Euell. I was made redundent 3 months ago and currently get £60 a week from the goverment. The worlds gone crazy and teams like Southampton will pay the price at the end of the day. But do the players, management or directors lose out. No just the long suffering FANS. Footbal has to get back to the real world. The world you and me live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangers Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Don't blame Euell for getting a decent deal. At the end of the day if you can milk it, you milk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BristolCity1992 Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Exactly clubs have to take the rap for this the wages do not need to be so high what else are these footballers going to do with their lives that earns them that much money? If you look at the rich list, the only one who has made a lot of the money of his own back is Fowler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Blame the people that subscribe to Sky and Setanta for the feeding frenzy that is professional football these days, you can hardly blame the players - we would all get paid as much as we can given the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodburyred Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 In todays Daily Echo (Southampton) it states that Southampton wage bill in 2007/08 was 81% of the clubs income. With Stern being one of the higher earners at £8, 000 a week. Jason Euell meanwhile was on a two year contract at £10,000 per week plus £200,000 signing on fee for BOTH his two seasons. On top of that Saints have to pay his national insurance contributions of 12.5%- meaming they pay an extra £90,000 just for Euell. I was made redundent 3 months ago and currently get £60 a week from the goverment. The worlds gone crazy and teams like Southampton will pay the price at the end of the day. But do the players, management or directors lose out. No just the long suffering FANS. Footbal has to get back to the real world. The world you and me live in. I thought according to some city fans he was on anything between 12-20 thousand a week!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo1111 Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Blame the people that subscribe to Sky and Setanta for the feeding frenzy that is professional football these days, you can hardly blame the players - we would all get paid as much as we can given the opportunity. good point. the TV money that came in with the Premier League has not been good for the game in this country IMO. clubs overstretch themselves to try and get to the promised land which creates an inflated environment of often unsustainable wages. and those that are there overstretch to either stay there in some cases or chase the even bigger carrot of the champions league. either way its all about wanting more money, not just from the players but the clubs as well. i was hoping one of the very few good things about this recession would be that that sky would get their wings clipped and that people would cancel their subscriptions, bringing more realism back into the game in terms of wages, transfer fees, etc. but from a distance this doesnt appear to be the case at this stage. hopefully people will cancel and end this Premier League circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Blame the people that subscribe to Sky and Setanta for the feeding frenzy that is professional football these days, you can hardly blame the players - we would all get paid as much as we can given the opportunity. I subscribe to both a consider myself blameless! Sky doesn't pay the players obscene wages and if UEFA introduced a salary cap in the Prem like in other sports it would prevent clubs from using their tv revenue to pander to the overpaid knobs in the Prem but I agree that anyone would take the money on offer. A salary cap would also be good for the development of English players because some foreign mercenaries would go where they have a better cultural fit - ie all the Latinos would play in southern Europe if they were wanted there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I subscribe to both a consider myself blameless! Sky doesn't pay the players obscene wages and if UEFA introduced a salary cap in the Prem like in other sports it would prevent clubs from using their tv revenue to pander to the overpaid knobs in the Prem but I agree that anyone would take the money on offer. A salary cap would also be good for the development of English players because some foreign mercenaries would go where they have a better cultural fit - ie all the Latinos would play in southern Europe if they were wanted there. Are there other sports with salary caps? Apart from those in the USA where it's not really sports!! ;-) I thought a salary cap would be against Euro law (or perhaps I'm confusing Euro law with the utterings of the top European clubs who I'm sure wouldn't support a cap - just a shame their parents didn't suport a Dutch one!!!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdgifford64 Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Are there other sports with salary caps? Apart from those in the USA where it's not really sports!! ;-) I thought a salary cap would be against Euro law (or perhaps I'm confusing Euro law with the utterings of the top European clubs who I'm sure wouldn't support a cap - just a shame their parents didn't suport a Dutch one!!!). I could be wrong but i`m sure the RFU or Rugby league introduced it. PDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I could be wrong but i`m sure the RFU or Rugby league introduced it. PDG Correct - Bristol Rugby is £1m below the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Correct - Bristol Rugby is £1m below the cap. So is that a cap per player or an overall cap in that you can't spend more than £xm pounds on wages, or a percentage of turnover? I think the trouble with caps is that there is always a way around it - fringe benefits. Can't imagine Ashley Cole being happy with £100,000 in luncheon vouchers every week though!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bh red Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I could be wrong but i`m sure the RFU or Rugby league introduced it. PDG I thought there was salary caps in cricket as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdgifford64 Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I thought there was salary caps in cricket as well? Not sure, but as regards the getting around it query. If i remember correctly one or two of the league clubs went over the cap and were penalised but the penalties didn`t come into effect until the following season ? I don`t follow the egg-chasers a great deal, as you may have gathered. Source ? Somewhere down in the cob-web infested depths of my memory. PDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meh Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I thought according to some city fans he was on anything between 12-20 thousand a week!! I have it on very good authority it is certainly more than £8k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddevon Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I think the time has come when football should enter the real world. In what other market/business would you have an unlimited number of staff on high wages, many of them sat on their bums doing nothing! Just like the real world when there are few jobs and many applicants, wage demands are more reasonable. I can't see wage capping working - as said above clubs would get round it one way or another or players would probably strike. Managers and directors continue to panic and the spiral of more expensive signings and bigger squads goes on. I would have a radical change: Have a maximum registered professional squad of say 20 at start of season Ban transfers/signings during a season Loans to be within the maximum squad number A player can only represent one club per season That way with a defined number of jobs, managers would be forced to manage and players would be more realistic in their demands. Also perhaps a welcome chance for the clubs youth in times of injuries/suspensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back of the net Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 So is that a cap per player or an overall cap in that you can't spend more than £xm pounds on wages, or a percentage of turnover? I think the trouble with caps is that there is always a way around it - fringe benefits. Can't imagine Ashley Cole being happy with £100,000 in luncheon vouchers every week though!!! I'm led to beleive than in Rugy Union the clubs get around the salary cap by employing the players family members in adminstration roles. As an example, one NZ players dad is paid £100k a year as a consultant, but doesn't actually consult on anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.