£300k per week

[Petrolhead95]

CHN said:

Why is 30% ok for those of us on normal salaries, but 50% for someone on a huge amount is not?

Wayne earns 720,000% more than me, but only gets taxed 20% more than me. It does sound weird when you put it like that

[TwigtheWonderkid]

spaximus said:

People who value the ability to kick a ball above other things are wrong to me.

By people, you mean the market.

And why pick on the value of the ability to kick a ball. Is a nurses skills more valuable that the ability to run a hedge fund, or be CEO of a blue chip company, or act in a film.

Bottom line is this. I could be a nurse. A few years training and I could do it. So could millions of people. But no amount of training would make me capable of playing Premier League football. I think they call it supply and demand. Of course some countries don't run their economy like that. Cuba for example.

[Wacky Racer]

Don't be fooled.

The reason United, (or any other club) can pay these kind of wages is usually TV money (Sky/BT etc)....if they were relying on gate receipts only, I bet a "good" wage would be £15,000 pw.

When Manchester City won the (old) first division in 1968 the top players were earning less than £150 pw.......average £80 ish.

Now of course City are owned by Sheikh Mansour.....one of the world's richest men, City's Etihad stadium is about to be enlarged to take 62,000...up from 47,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansour_bin_Zayed_Al_...

[crofty1984]

Ki3r said:

There isn't much I wouldn't do for £300,000 a week for however many years!

Amen to that. But no bumming.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Football has always been awash with money, in relative terms. Take a club like Charlton Athletic. In the 30s they were getting crowds of 80K at The Valley. Say the average entrance price was a shilling (5p). That's £4K a game. 21 home games a season in those days is £84K a year, excluding cup matches, programmes, food etc. £84K a year, when a house in London cost under £500.

Where did it go? Ground improvements, nope. Police bill, nope. Players wages were £2/week. It went into the pockets of the owners. At least these days a larger proportion of the money goes to the people who actually provide the entertainment. Who can argue that that isn't a good thing?

[Vipers]

So at £1785 an hour including each hour you sleep, not bad.

Nuts...............

[Supernova190188]

LimaDelta said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Exactly, if he chipped in with a couple of his mates then maybe he could afford to charter an Oceanco 7-series like this. Only 900,000EUR per week (excluding fuel, food and tips of course).

Good on him though I say!

Off topic but holy fking st that is nice! , and to think that is just somebody's toy really, crazy isn't it!

[BoRED S2upid]

Suarez must be kicking himself he must be worth 500k a week if Rooney is worth 300! How will he ever repay £80million quid in performances?

[Chrisgr31]

Personally I think its an obscene amount of money to pay anyone whether they are a footballer, banker or whatever. Its also morally wrong that he will then seek to minimise his tax bill. I know its not his fault and its a commercial decision by the club etc, and that it is capitalism at work but it shows exactly what is wrong with capitalism. Indeed its strange because everyone I have known on benefits has Sky and here they are effectively paying these salaries.

I guess the good thing is at least we can all see Rooneys result, we know he has passed the ball, scored the gaol etc, there are many other jobs where the outcome is not as visible!

[NH1]

LimaDelta said:

NH1 said:

LimaDelta said:

s3fella said:

It's completely obscene, and all of us who watch or enjoy football should kick ourselves in the bks / punch ourselves in the tits for supporting a sport that allows and even encourages such cras obscenity.

Really? Why?

It is an obscene amount of money to pay someone but they are a private company and can do what they like, if people are daft enough to pay £50+ for a ticket whilst they pay their players that much then more fool them, but again they can do what they like. I myself have not been to Old Trafford for 10 years.

Why is it obscene? Sure, it's more than most of us on here earn, but this is capitalism in action. Rooney is obviously worth more than that to the club as a business. I'm not a Manchester United fan, I'm not even a football fan, but people can't possibly still think it is a game played on a pitch anymore? A successful team is just a means to sell tickets, shirts, TV rights, and advertising space. If you don't like it, then stop watching.

Its obscene if you agree stupid people need helping. I used to pay £1.30 to stand on the Stretford end, I realise its a lifetime ago for certain people but 1984 to me is still the recent past. Beer was getting on for a £1 a pint and fuel was about £2 a gallon (40p a litre), you could go to the football even on pocket money, things were so much more in balance back then.
Fast forward today and you need to be a middle earner just to get a foot in the door at utd, scum like me aren't welcome, they want toffs who take their kid to the megastore before each game and spend a couple of hundred on cheap tat. Stupidly though people are still loyal to their clubs even though they are being shafted at every oportunity, so to take gullible peoples hard earned and let Rooney etc wave it in peoples faces like a giant cock IS obscene whichever way you cut it.

[spaximus]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

spaximus said:

People who value the ability to kick a ball above other things are wrong to me.

By people, you mean the market.

And why pick on the value of the ability to kick a ball. Is a nurses skills more valuable that the ability to run a hedge fund, or be CEO of a blue chip company, or act in a film.

Bottom line is this. I could be a nurse. A few years training and I could do it. So could millions of people. But no amount of training would make me capable of playing Premier League football. I think they call it supply and demand. Of course some countries don't run their economy like that. Cuba for example.

The market puts a value on most things, doesn't make them right. We have seen many examples where the market has got it wrong and overvalued things . We as a society used to hold people up who were engineers, researchers, Doctors as being worth paying more. They helped to make Britain great, we now worship sports people and celebrities instead. I would say to society a nurse is more valuble than the others you list, especially if you are ill as all the money in the world is no good then. That is not to belittle the skilss of others but we seem to have got it so far out of kilter the gap between sanity and the insanity of somethings is so far apart some cannot now see the extrems.

[northwest monkey]

crofty1984 said:

Ki3r said:

There isn't much I wouldn't do for £300,000 a week for however many years!

Amen to that. But no bumming.

You know what, for £300k per week, I'd probably even do bumming. Only for a couple of years though then I'd quit.

As for Rooney getting paid £300k per week - I'd take it if I was offered it so why not. Of course it can't be justified - a bit like a Rolls Royce can't be justified or a 200' yacht can't be justified yet people quite rightly still buy them.

I'm guessing someone privy to information they haven't yet leaked to Pistonheads has decided he is worth more than that to the club.

[goneape]

You used to be able to watch the sports and stars you love on terrestrial tv for nothing bar the licence fee. Now it costs the licence fee plus around £600 per year for the satellite subscription plus a surcharge for certain matches. To watch one game live costs the same as every game for a month on the tv.

This is what pisses people off. More fool those who pay gor it. I wouldn't give a st except it's spread to f1 motogp and wrc, whivh I am bothered about.

[northwest monkey]

goneape said:

You used to be able to watch the sports and stars you love on terrestrial tv for nothing bar the licence fee.

No you didn't.

There used to be very little live football - in fact any live sport - on the terrestrial channels apart from some FA Cup matches and the World Cup which are protected anyway. Sky took a massive risk in the 90s with Sky Sports and completely changed the way we watch football and a lot of other sports. I'm not saying they are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but you'll have to take your rose tinted glasses off I'm afraid.

ETA - looking at Wikipedia, Spurs and Notts Forest played on the 2nd October 1983 - the first live league game on ITV since 1960.

Edited by northwest monkey on Sunday 23 February 00:23

[Amirhussain]

spaximus said:

No one can blame Rooney, however I think what brings out the anger is that everytime this happens it makes us focus on those less fortunate and more worthy. Nurse's, care workers, social workers who deal with the st end of humanity, are the first to get balmed when it goes wrong, for example paid a pittance. People who value the ability to kick a ball above other things are wrong to me.

Not this st again I could understand your point if the government was paying Rooney or Lampard' wages, but they aren't, Abromavich and Glazers are.

[Boozy]

Last year Robert Downey Jr earned 75 million dollars, Channing Tatum 60 million and Hugh Jackman 55 million. No one seems to bh and moan about them, yet people happily pay over the odds to get into a cinema and a small fortune for food and drink once you're in there as well. They're all in the entertainment industry but for some reason it's popular to hit out at footballers, I honestly don't get it, good luck to Rooney and anyone else talented enough to command that sort of salary.

[northwest monkey]

Boozy said:

for some reason it's popular to hit out at footballers.

Coz its just kikin a boll innit and dey is orl wel fik.

[spaximus]

Amirhussain said:

spaximus said:

No one can blame Rooney, however I think what brings out the anger is that everytime this happens it makes us focus on those less fortunate and more worthy. Nurse's, care workers, social workers who deal with the st end of humanity, are the first to get balmed when it goes wrong, for example paid a pittance. People who value the ability to kick a ball above other things are wrong to me.

Not this st again I could understand your point if the government was paying Rooney or Lampard' wages, but they aren't, Abromavich and Glazers are.

The owners pay the wages, however it is the public who fund it in one way or another. Either by buying a ticket or on the premiums added to goods that are associated with the team or individual player.
Some of the players do use their wealth and popularity to good use for which they should be applauded. The point I make is that when these sort of figures come out, be it sports people, film stars, pop stars it seems disproportianate against a back drop of others who should get more. The market decides a value but there are many in the football world alone, who see that this is killing the game in the long term with many clubs so far in the red.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

NH1 said:

I used to pay £1.30 to stand on the Stretford end, I realise its a lifetime ago for certain people but 1984 to me is still the recent past.

They saw you coming! When I started going to Stamford Bridge on my own in '74, it was 50p to get in and another 25p to transfer to the west stand benches to sit down.

But having said that, that was to be in a ramshackle tinpot ground watching second rate players battle it out with Hereford and Rotherham, and lose.

At Chelsea now we have flowers in the toilets, back then we didn't even have toilets in the toilets. Just a square room with a gutter round the edge.

All in all, I think £45 to go now is better value.

[Druid]

Petrolhead95 said:

Wayne earns 720,000% more than me, but only gets taxed 20% more than me. It does sound weird when you put it like that

720,000% more? really?