Anyone else see any irony in the captain applauding the protest yesterday?
- Thread starter Woland
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183072#msg1183072 date=1285525056]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183064#msg1183064 date=1285524207]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42049.msg1183058#msg1183058 date=1285522981]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183034#msg1183034 date=1285519693]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42049.msg1183032#msg1183032 date=1285518844]
Re: The initial question...
Not really, no. SG has, for about a decade now, been the Herat and soul of this club, more often than not having to perform his magic surrounded by many players quite simply not fit to wear the shirt. He's been a magnicient servant to the club and when it's all said and done, he will go down as one of our all-time great players.
[/quote]
So? Look at the list of legends who didn't have contracts that threaten to bankrupt us.
[/quote]
Were Kenny and Rushie and Digger and all the rest of our superstars back then not amoung the games best paid players..?The best players get the highest wages - That's always been the way. Are you critical of them too?
[/quote]
The going rate wasn't crippling the club. I remember walking away from the ground with my uncle moaning on that Dalglish was getting paid £70,000 a year - we must have drawn or something - and that was over 10 times what he got at Fords and that was with him doing every bit of overtime he could get. I remember it so well because I couldn't effing believe it... I was like - woah - he gets nearly 1500 a week to do what I want to do - that's sooooo cool.
I wouldn't begrudge Gerrard 10 or 20 times the average wage, but he currently earns 250 of them.
[/quote]
Operationally - we are still profitable. The wage structure is not driving the club to bankruptcy.
The poor management is.
You don't have a point - re 10 time or 250 times. Who decides what is an acceptable norm? The average man is not making n million people drop everything for 90 minutes and watch him work.
You just sound like a jealous bloke.....
[/quote]
Operationally we aren't profitable unless you exclude more than just interest.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183064#msg1183064 date=1285524207]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42049.msg1183058#msg1183058 date=1285522981]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183034#msg1183034 date=1285519693]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42049.msg1183032#msg1183032 date=1285518844]
Re: The initial question...
Not really, no. SG has, for about a decade now, been the Herat and soul of this club, more often than not having to perform his magic surrounded by many players quite simply not fit to wear the shirt. He's been a magnicient servant to the club and when it's all said and done, he will go down as one of our all-time great players.
[/quote]
So? Look at the list of legends who didn't have contracts that threaten to bankrupt us.
[/quote]
Were Kenny and Rushie and Digger and all the rest of our superstars back then not amoung the games best paid players..?The best players get the highest wages - That's always been the way. Are you critical of them too?
[/quote]
The going rate wasn't crippling the club. I remember walking away from the ground with my uncle moaning on that Dalglish was getting paid £70,000 a year - we must have drawn or something - and that was over 10 times what he got at Fords and that was with him doing every bit of overtime he could get. I remember it so well because I couldn't effing believe it... I was like - woah - he gets nearly 1500 a week to do what I want to do - that's sooooo cool.
I wouldn't begrudge Gerrard 10 or 20 times the average wage, but he currently earns 250 of them.
[/quote]
Operationally - we are still profitable. The wage structure is not driving the club to bankruptcy.
The poor management is.
You don't have a point - re 10 time or 250 times. Who decides what is an acceptable norm? The average man is not making n million people drop everything for 90 minutes and watch him work.
You just sound like a jealous bloke.....
[/quote]
Operationally we aren't profitable unless you exclude more than just interest.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183101#msg1183101 date=1285528957]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183072#msg1183072 date=1285525056]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183064#msg1183064 date=1285524207]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42049.msg1183058#msg1183058 date=1285522981]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183034#msg1183034 date=1285519693]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42049.msg1183032#msg1183032 date=1285518844]
Re: The initial question...
Not really, no. SG has, for about a decade now, been the Herat and soul of this club, more often than not having to perform his magic surrounded by many players quite simply not fit to wear the shirt. He's been a magnicient servant to the club and when it's all said and done, he will go down as one of our all-time great players.
[/quote]
So? Look at the list of legends who didn't have contracts that threaten to bankrupt us.
[/quote]
Were Kenny and Rushie and Digger and all the rest of our superstars back then not amoung the games best paid players..?The best players get the highest wages - That's always been the way. Are you critical of them too?
[/quote]
The going rate wasn't crippling the club. I remember walking away from the ground with my uncle moaning on that Dalglish was getting paid £70,000 a year - we must have drawn or something - and that was over 10 times what he got at Fords and that was with him doing every bit of overtime he could get. I remember it so well because I couldn't effing believe it... I was like - woah - he gets nearly 1500 a week to do what I want to do - that's sooooo cool.
I wouldn't begrudge Gerrard 10 or 20 times the average wage, but he currently earns 250 of them.
[/quote]
Operationally - we are still profitable. The wage structure is not driving the club to bankruptcy.
The poor management is.
You don't have a point - re 10 time or 250 times. Who decides what is an acceptable norm? The average man is not making n million people drop everything for 90 minutes and watch him work.
You just sound like a jealous bloke.....
[/quote]
Operationally we aren't profitable unless you exclude more than just interest.
[/quote]
You are just being pedantic here. We are there are therabouts if you look at the raw cashflow.
Even if we have to change the wage structure it's not going to result in us halving all player wages.
Do we have a figure of wages paid as a percentage on Revenue Generated? As long as it is around a healthy 50% mark (which i believe it is), there is really no point in debating player-wages as the only issue that is making the clubs book losses. Even if FIFA implements a wage cap, it will be around that mark, and i believe we are there are thereabouts....is that not the point of this argument? Correct me if i'm wrong, please.
But I really don't wish to further that 10 page debate on player amortization being included as part of operational expense.
If you want, let me rephrase my statement....Our EBIDTA is positive as it is. We don't need to change our wage structure to change that around.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183072#msg1183072 date=1285525056]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183064#msg1183064 date=1285524207]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42049.msg1183058#msg1183058 date=1285522981]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183034#msg1183034 date=1285519693]
[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42049.msg1183032#msg1183032 date=1285518844]
Re: The initial question...
Not really, no. SG has, for about a decade now, been the Herat and soul of this club, more often than not having to perform his magic surrounded by many players quite simply not fit to wear the shirt. He's been a magnicient servant to the club and when it's all said and done, he will go down as one of our all-time great players.
[/quote]
So? Look at the list of legends who didn't have contracts that threaten to bankrupt us.
[/quote]
Were Kenny and Rushie and Digger and all the rest of our superstars back then not amoung the games best paid players..?The best players get the highest wages - That's always been the way. Are you critical of them too?
[/quote]
The going rate wasn't crippling the club. I remember walking away from the ground with my uncle moaning on that Dalglish was getting paid £70,000 a year - we must have drawn or something - and that was over 10 times what he got at Fords and that was with him doing every bit of overtime he could get. I remember it so well because I couldn't effing believe it... I was like - woah - he gets nearly 1500 a week to do what I want to do - that's sooooo cool.
I wouldn't begrudge Gerrard 10 or 20 times the average wage, but he currently earns 250 of them.
[/quote]
Operationally - we are still profitable. The wage structure is not driving the club to bankruptcy.
The poor management is.
You don't have a point - re 10 time or 250 times. Who decides what is an acceptable norm? The average man is not making n million people drop everything for 90 minutes and watch him work.
You just sound like a jealous bloke.....
[/quote]
Operationally we aren't profitable unless you exclude more than just interest.
[/quote]
You are just being pedantic here. We are there are therabouts if you look at the raw cashflow.
Even if we have to change the wage structure it's not going to result in us halving all player wages.
Do we have a figure of wages paid as a percentage on Revenue Generated? As long as it is around a healthy 50% mark (which i believe it is), there is really no point in debating player-wages as the only issue that is making the clubs book losses. Even if FIFA implements a wage cap, it will be around that mark, and i believe we are there are thereabouts....is that not the point of this argument? Correct me if i'm wrong, please.
But I really don't wish to further that 10 page debate on player amortization being included as part of operational expense.
If you want, let me rephrase my statement....Our EBIDTA is positive as it is. We don't need to change our wage structure to change that around.
Warren Buffett's right hand man says when you see EBITDA, just think "bullshit earnings".
An article on EBITDA and why it's a dangerous thing to quote (there are plenty more btw):
http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0317/024.html
Edit: and another one:
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/incomestatementanalysis/a/EBITDA-on-income-statement.htm
An article on EBITDA and why it's a dangerous thing to quote (there are plenty more btw):
http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0317/024.html
Edit: and another one:
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/incomestatementanalysis/a/EBITDA-on-income-statement.htm
Ross reminds me of Erin Brockovic, without the pertness.
[quote author=the count link=topic=42049.msg1183021#msg1183021 date=1285516055]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=42049.msg1182972#msg1182972 date=1285509667]
However the paying public have virtually no say in how much they have to pay to watch a game, buy a shirt, take in a movie or for virtually any other modern sport or entertainment media (DVD's, Blu-Ray, HD & video games are high on my list of rip-off merchants too) where the spectators have to pay for entry / to watch. As a % of average income this continues to rise disproportionately because the vultures are now demanding far more than their pound of flesh.
The entertainment industry is truly sick and what they indulge in would be called profiteering in any other generation of our recent past. I have zero sympathy with their bleating about wages & piracy (there are exceptions of course, new bands, low budget films etc. but they are in the minority since it is the cream of the football, movie and sports industries that are fleecing us left right and centre) or anything else related to their income or profit margins. Now excuse me whilst I go, get my vaseline, & bend over for the next one.
[/quote]
If significent numbers of people stopped paying their subscriptions to Sky, Espn etc, stopped buying those football shirts that start of priced £45 and end up for sale in the barging bin for a tenner, stopped paying over the top ticket prices to go to matches........
what do you think wouuld happen Froggy?
[/quote]
This is an argument that is often raised .... talk with your feet. But it's also extremely ineffective argument because the enterprises that charge the extortionate fees / prices that they do, do so as they know people are not going to change a way of life that they were born and raised in, they are not going to stop going to matches with their friends or supporting the club their families have supported for generations, they are not going to stop watching movies, or disengage themselves from sport with their mates (or even stop playing XBox Death Kill 11 online with their friends) because 90% of the population do not want to ostracise themselves from a way of life that is engrained into them. I's just a very difficult thing to do for the vast majority. And the corporate world knows this.
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=42049.msg1182972#msg1182972 date=1285509667]
However the paying public have virtually no say in how much they have to pay to watch a game, buy a shirt, take in a movie or for virtually any other modern sport or entertainment media (DVD's, Blu-Ray, HD & video games are high on my list of rip-off merchants too) where the spectators have to pay for entry / to watch. As a % of average income this continues to rise disproportionately because the vultures are now demanding far more than their pound of flesh.
The entertainment industry is truly sick and what they indulge in would be called profiteering in any other generation of our recent past. I have zero sympathy with their bleating about wages & piracy (there are exceptions of course, new bands, low budget films etc. but they are in the minority since it is the cream of the football, movie and sports industries that are fleecing us left right and centre) or anything else related to their income or profit margins. Now excuse me whilst I go, get my vaseline, & bend over for the next one.
[/quote]
If significent numbers of people stopped paying their subscriptions to Sky, Espn etc, stopped buying those football shirts that start of priced £45 and end up for sale in the barging bin for a tenner, stopped paying over the top ticket prices to go to matches........
what do you think wouuld happen Froggy?
[/quote]
This is an argument that is often raised .... talk with your feet. But it's also extremely ineffective argument because the enterprises that charge the extortionate fees / prices that they do, do so as they know people are not going to change a way of life that they were born and raised in, they are not going to stop going to matches with their friends or supporting the club their families have supported for generations, they are not going to stop watching movies, or disengage themselves from sport with their mates (or even stop playing XBox Death Kill 11 online with their friends) because 90% of the population do not want to ostracise themselves from a way of life that is engrained into them. I's just a very difficult thing to do for the vast majority. And the corporate world knows this.
Exactly Froggy.
So by lethargy, blind loyalty, stupidity or otherwise we set the price.
All those corporations set a price that will keep us coming back (or at least an amount of us that will maximise profits) for more, albeit grumbling about the cost.
It is basic economics. Supply and demand equals price.
And yes, of course these corporations have the morals of a diaretic dog on a croquet lawn.
So by lethargy, blind loyalty, stupidity or otherwise we set the price.
All those corporations set a price that will keep us coming back (or at least an amount of us that will maximise profits) for more, albeit grumbling about the cost.
It is basic economics. Supply and demand equals price.
And yes, of course these corporations have the morals of a diaretic dog on a croquet lawn.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183129#msg1183129 date=1285531582]
Warren Buffett's right hand man says when you see EBITDA, just think "bullshit earnings".
An article on EBITDA and why it's a dangerous thing to quote (there are plenty more btw):
http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0317/024.html
[/quote]
I wanted to ask this to you --- how exactly are you improving the analysis of LFC by including amortization of long term contracts to EBIDTA? (Essentially we bring future contractual commitment of future player wages to present P&L statements). This is an accounting loss, and especially irrelevant as we have had a recent change in accounting policy in exactly this area (read purslow's interview on amortization of contracts).
But, please ignore that, I really don't have a suicide wish to debate accounting. *Really*.... please. Nor do I want a lesson on equity analysis or stock selection.
I quote myself...
"Do we have a figure of wages paid as a percentage on Revenue Generated? As long as it is around a healthy 50% mark (which i believe it is), there is really no point in debating player-wages as the only issue that is making the clubs book losses. Even if FIFA implements a wage cap, it will be around that mark, and i believe we are there are thereabouts....is that not the point of this argument? Correct me if i'm wrong, please."
Crump's argument was that the player wages are way to high, as it is 1000s of times what an average man earns, and that it is ruining the clubs financially.
- My point is that it is not the wage structure that is responsible for all these booked losses (at least not in our club). Our player wage structure is still within the acceptable 50 to 55% of gross income. Even if we do have to change only the wage structure, instead of other things that can be improvised, the change is not going to be drastic enough to change the multiplication order on the average man's wage. The footballer is still going to earn 1000s of times what the average man earns.
I don't really understand how either of your posts is addressing that.
Warren Buffett's right hand man says when you see EBITDA, just think "bullshit earnings".
An article on EBITDA and why it's a dangerous thing to quote (there are plenty more btw):
http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0317/024.html
[/quote]
I wanted to ask this to you --- how exactly are you improving the analysis of LFC by including amortization of long term contracts to EBIDTA? (Essentially we bring future contractual commitment of future player wages to present P&L statements). This is an accounting loss, and especially irrelevant as we have had a recent change in accounting policy in exactly this area (read purslow's interview on amortization of contracts).
But, please ignore that, I really don't have a suicide wish to debate accounting. *Really*.... please. Nor do I want a lesson on equity analysis or stock selection.
I quote myself...
"Do we have a figure of wages paid as a percentage on Revenue Generated? As long as it is around a healthy 50% mark (which i believe it is), there is really no point in debating player-wages as the only issue that is making the clubs book losses. Even if FIFA implements a wage cap, it will be around that mark, and i believe we are there are thereabouts....is that not the point of this argument? Correct me if i'm wrong, please."
Crump's argument was that the player wages are way to high, as it is 1000s of times what an average man earns, and that it is ruining the clubs financially.
- My point is that it is not the wage structure that is responsible for all these booked losses (at least not in our club). Our player wage structure is still within the acceptable 50 to 55% of gross income. Even if we do have to change only the wage structure, instead of other things that can be improvised, the change is not going to be drastic enough to change the multiplication order on the average man's wage. The footballer is still going to earn 1000s of times what the average man earns.
I don't really understand how either of your posts is addressing that.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183044#msg1183044 date=1285520811]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183017#msg1183017 date=1285514805]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=42049.msg1182972#msg1182972 date=1285509667]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1182964#msg1182964 date=1285507633]
All these petty pot shots on player wages of modern footballers is bit silly IMO...
If you had the talent that made millions of people watch you, i'm sure you would expect to get paid similar amount. After all movie-stars get paid as much or even more.
They deserve every penny, and this is really a pointless thread.
[/quote]
No they don't. Like bollocks they do. What a quite pathetic statement. We are not talking about League Two players here.
And although I agree with the first paragraph of Count's post above, I profoundly disagree with him on the second - that bit about the issue also being partly the fans to blame.
The players, as per any good entertainer, should get paid a decent income, which would translate to vast riches to the great majority of people. But it certainly doesn't mean they should be earning 20k, 30k, 40k and upwards per week (not per match even, and this doesn't take into consideration bonuses and marketing), or that movie stars should be paid in the millions per film - when, to fund those ridiculous payments, it is the general population that have to dig deep into their pockets.
However the paying public have virtually no say in how much they have to pay to watch a game, buy a shirt, take in a movie or for virtually any other modern sport or entertainment media (DVD's, Blu-Ray, HD & video games are high on my list of rip-off merchants too) where the spectators have to pay for entry / to watch. As a % of average income this continues to rise disproportionately because the vultures are now demanding far more than their pound of flesh.
The entertainment industry is truly sick and what they indulge in would be called profiteering in any other generation of our recent past. I have zero sympathy with their bleating about wages & piracy (there are exceptions of course, new bands, low budget films etc. but they are in the minority since it is the cream of the football, movie and sports industries that are fleecing us left right and centre) or anything else related to their income or profit margins. Now excuse me whilst I go, get my vaseline, & bend over for the next one.
[/quote]
A point to add to this is that even if you don't think it's morally questionable, the numbers don't stack up anyway.
You could only even make the point dispassionately, that they earn every penny, if Barca, Madrid, Inter, Milan, Manure, Chelsea, Citeh and us weren't losing money. The fact that all the biggest clubs around bar Arsenal are haemorrhaging cash shows that the race to feed these egos with bigger and bigger contracts doesn't make financial sense, and despite the increased costs to watch each match, the stars certainly don't earn their money.
[/quote]
This is certainly a valid point.
As long as the clubs remain profitable - the prices the charge for the ticket and how they spend it in the form of wages etc is entirely up to them.
That is my take on it. As long as they are able to find 50,000 people to come and watch the game live paying X$ and millions of people turn on the tv and watch them for 90 minutes every week paying X$, everything is justifiable. These are "repeat customers" we are talking about. The holy grail of the corporate world. If because of their talent they are able to spin that kind of money in the world, then they deserve to get the Lion's share of it. Who else do you want the money to go to ....the suits?
Who are we to stand and argue that what they get paid is a ransom? If we don't like it, then we should stop watching the game. Stop paying X$. These are the rules.....either we fit in or fall out.
[/quote]
You have now come out with two specific words in defence of your statement that make no sense whatsoever in either a moral or financial sense :
Deserve :
deserve |d??z?rv|
verb [ trans. ]
do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)
Justifiable :
justifiable |?j?st??f??b?l; ?j?st??f?-|
adjective
able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible
The financial aspect Crump & Rosco have covered is something I agree with but I just couldn't be arsed getting into. Moral outrage is however.
Nobody who plays sport, acts or designs games, deserves to be paid fantastical sums of money. Nobody on earth can convince me that they deserve more than doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, miners, aircraft pilots etc. etc. you can see where I am going. However I understand that this depends on which direction your moral compass is pointing. Yours is obviously ski-whiff if you believe they deserve their wages.
As regards Justifiable then again - just because the club have been forced into paying these salaries by the ever upward spiral that officials of the game have neglected to constrain, doesn't make them justifiable - in the sense that it is 'right'. Being able to do, or afford, something doesn't mean it's morally justifiable.
And by the way, if there was any justice in the world then the money would go to developing the club, not necessarily to the men in suits (though there is a case to be made that they have earned it more than the players by investing in the club in the first place - I am of course referring to years gone by and not those two muppets who took the reins of the club by means of financial skull-duggery). All of that is a moot point though because the excessive wage bill means there aren't any real profits to spread around anyway.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183017#msg1183017 date=1285514805]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=42049.msg1182972#msg1182972 date=1285509667]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1182964#msg1182964 date=1285507633]
All these petty pot shots on player wages of modern footballers is bit silly IMO...
If you had the talent that made millions of people watch you, i'm sure you would expect to get paid similar amount. After all movie-stars get paid as much or even more.
They deserve every penny, and this is really a pointless thread.
[/quote]
No they don't. Like bollocks they do. What a quite pathetic statement. We are not talking about League Two players here.
And although I agree with the first paragraph of Count's post above, I profoundly disagree with him on the second - that bit about the issue also being partly the fans to blame.
The players, as per any good entertainer, should get paid a decent income, which would translate to vast riches to the great majority of people. But it certainly doesn't mean they should be earning 20k, 30k, 40k and upwards per week (not per match even, and this doesn't take into consideration bonuses and marketing), or that movie stars should be paid in the millions per film - when, to fund those ridiculous payments, it is the general population that have to dig deep into their pockets.
However the paying public have virtually no say in how much they have to pay to watch a game, buy a shirt, take in a movie or for virtually any other modern sport or entertainment media (DVD's, Blu-Ray, HD & video games are high on my list of rip-off merchants too) where the spectators have to pay for entry / to watch. As a % of average income this continues to rise disproportionately because the vultures are now demanding far more than their pound of flesh.
The entertainment industry is truly sick and what they indulge in would be called profiteering in any other generation of our recent past. I have zero sympathy with their bleating about wages & piracy (there are exceptions of course, new bands, low budget films etc. but they are in the minority since it is the cream of the football, movie and sports industries that are fleecing us left right and centre) or anything else related to their income or profit margins. Now excuse me whilst I go, get my vaseline, & bend over for the next one.
[/quote]
A point to add to this is that even if you don't think it's morally questionable, the numbers don't stack up anyway.
You could only even make the point dispassionately, that they earn every penny, if Barca, Madrid, Inter, Milan, Manure, Chelsea, Citeh and us weren't losing money. The fact that all the biggest clubs around bar Arsenal are haemorrhaging cash shows that the race to feed these egos with bigger and bigger contracts doesn't make financial sense, and despite the increased costs to watch each match, the stars certainly don't earn their money.
[/quote]
This is certainly a valid point.
As long as the clubs remain profitable - the prices the charge for the ticket and how they spend it in the form of wages etc is entirely up to them.
That is my take on it. As long as they are able to find 50,000 people to come and watch the game live paying X$ and millions of people turn on the tv and watch them for 90 minutes every week paying X$, everything is justifiable. These are "repeat customers" we are talking about. The holy grail of the corporate world. If because of their talent they are able to spin that kind of money in the world, then they deserve to get the Lion's share of it. Who else do you want the money to go to ....the suits?
Who are we to stand and argue that what they get paid is a ransom? If we don't like it, then we should stop watching the game. Stop paying X$. These are the rules.....either we fit in or fall out.
[/quote]
You have now come out with two specific words in defence of your statement that make no sense whatsoever in either a moral or financial sense :
Deserve :
deserve |d??z?rv|
verb [ trans. ]
do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)
Justifiable :
justifiable |?j?st??f??b?l; ?j?st??f?-|
adjective
able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible
The financial aspect Crump & Rosco have covered is something I agree with but I just couldn't be arsed getting into. Moral outrage is however.
Nobody who plays sport, acts or designs games, deserves to be paid fantastical sums of money. Nobody on earth can convince me that they deserve more than doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, miners, aircraft pilots etc. etc. you can see where I am going. However I understand that this depends on which direction your moral compass is pointing. Yours is obviously ski-whiff if you believe they deserve their wages.
As regards Justifiable then again - just because the club have been forced into paying these salaries by the ever upward spiral that officials of the game have neglected to constrain, doesn't make them justifiable - in the sense that it is 'right'. Being able to do, or afford, something doesn't mean it's morally justifiable.
And by the way, if there was any justice in the world then the money would go to developing the club, not necessarily to the men in suits (though there is a case to be made that they have earned it more than the players by investing in the club in the first place - I am of course referring to years gone by and not those two muppets who took the reins of the club by means of financial skull-duggery). All of that is a moot point though because the excessive wage bill means there aren't any real profits to spread around anyway.
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=42049.msg1183151#msg1183151 date=1285532213]
[quote author=the count link=topic=42049.msg1183021#msg1183021 date=1285516055]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=42049.msg1182972#msg1182972 date=1285509667]
However the paying public have virtually no say in how much they have to pay to watch a game, buy a shirt, take in a movie or for virtually any other modern sport or entertainment media (DVD's, Blu-Ray, HD & video games are high on my list of rip-off merchants too) where the spectators have to pay for entry / to watch. As a % of average income this continues to rise disproportionately because the vultures are now demanding far more than their pound of flesh.
The entertainment industry is truly sick and what they indulge in would be called profiteering in any other generation of our recent past. I have zero sympathy with their bleating about wages & piracy (there are exceptions of course, new bands, low budget films etc. but they are in the minority since it is the cream of the football, movie and sports industries that are fleecing us left right and centre) or anything else related to their income or profit margins. Now excuse me whilst I go, get my vaseline, & bend over for the next one.
[/quote]
If significent numbers of people stopped paying their subscriptions to Sky, Espn etc, stopped buying those football shirts that start of priced £45 and end up for sale in the barging bin for a tenner, stopped paying over the top ticket prices to go to matches........
what do you think wouuld happen Froggy?
[/quote]
This is an argument that is often raised .... talk with your feet. But it's also extremely ineffective argument because the enterprises that charge the extortionate fees / prices that they do, do so as they know people are not going to change a way of life that they were born and raised in, they are not going to stop going to matches with their friends or supporting the club their families have supported for generations, they are not going to stop watching movies, or disengage themselves from sport with their mates (or even stop playing XBox Death Kill 11 online with their friends) because 90% of the population do not want to ostracise themselves from a way of life that is engrained into them. I's just a very difficult thing to do for the vast majority. And the corporate world knows this.
[/quote]
The bottom line is that, this is a basic supply/demand problem.
This is fast becoming a political debate....*sigh*
There are many things that needs to be fixed before we come to football, if that is the case. You can't have different standards applying for different things.
Crump i believe runs his own business...so i'm sure he appreciates the capitalistic side of things.
[quote author=the count link=topic=42049.msg1183021#msg1183021 date=1285516055]
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=42049.msg1182972#msg1182972 date=1285509667]
However the paying public have virtually no say in how much they have to pay to watch a game, buy a shirt, take in a movie or for virtually any other modern sport or entertainment media (DVD's, Blu-Ray, HD & video games are high on my list of rip-off merchants too) where the spectators have to pay for entry / to watch. As a % of average income this continues to rise disproportionately because the vultures are now demanding far more than their pound of flesh.
The entertainment industry is truly sick and what they indulge in would be called profiteering in any other generation of our recent past. I have zero sympathy with their bleating about wages & piracy (there are exceptions of course, new bands, low budget films etc. but they are in the minority since it is the cream of the football, movie and sports industries that are fleecing us left right and centre) or anything else related to their income or profit margins. Now excuse me whilst I go, get my vaseline, & bend over for the next one.
[/quote]
If significent numbers of people stopped paying their subscriptions to Sky, Espn etc, stopped buying those football shirts that start of priced £45 and end up for sale in the barging bin for a tenner, stopped paying over the top ticket prices to go to matches........
what do you think wouuld happen Froggy?
[/quote]
This is an argument that is often raised .... talk with your feet. But it's also extremely ineffective argument because the enterprises that charge the extortionate fees / prices that they do, do so as they know people are not going to change a way of life that they were born and raised in, they are not going to stop going to matches with their friends or supporting the club their families have supported for generations, they are not going to stop watching movies, or disengage themselves from sport with their mates (or even stop playing XBox Death Kill 11 online with their friends) because 90% of the population do not want to ostracise themselves from a way of life that is engrained into them. I's just a very difficult thing to do for the vast majority. And the corporate world knows this.
[/quote]
The bottom line is that, this is a basic supply/demand problem.
This is fast becoming a political debate....*sigh*
There are many things that needs to be fixed before we come to football, if that is the case. You can't have different standards applying for different things.
Crump i believe runs his own business...so i'm sure he appreciates the capitalistic side of things.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[quote author=the count link=topic=42049.msg1183157#msg1183157 date=1285532641]
Exactly Froggy.
So by lethargy, blind loyalty, stupidity or otherwise we set the price.
All those corporations set a price that will keep us coming back (or at least an amount of us that will maximise profits) for more, albeit grumbling about the cost.
It is basic economics. Supply and demand equals price.
And yes, of course these corporations have the morals of a diaretic dog on a croquet lawn.
[/quote]
I can't disagree with any of what you have said except to add to the highlighted sentence - those words all have negative connotations but at the same time loyalty to club, family and friends, and a stable and proven socially acceptable way of life, shouldn't be dismissed easily by such a negative viewpoint of their behaviour. It is the manner in which their way of life is feasted upon by corporations that is morally unacceptable - though legally and financially good business practice.
Exactly Froggy.
So by lethargy, blind loyalty, stupidity or otherwise we set the price.
All those corporations set a price that will keep us coming back (or at least an amount of us that will maximise profits) for more, albeit grumbling about the cost.
It is basic economics. Supply and demand equals price.
And yes, of course these corporations have the morals of a diaretic dog on a croquet lawn.
[/quote]
I can't disagree with any of what you have said except to add to the highlighted sentence - those words all have negative connotations but at the same time loyalty to club, family and friends, and a stable and proven socially acceptable way of life, shouldn't be dismissed easily by such a negative viewpoint of their behaviour. It is the manner in which their way of life is feasted upon by corporations that is morally unacceptable - though legally and financially good business practice.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183170#msg1183170 date=1285533833]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
I would prefer it went on a new stadium.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
I would prefer it went on a new stadium.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183173#msg1183173 date=1285533896]
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[/quote]
So do you agree that wages are not the reason why we are booking losses? That is my only point coming into this thread.
For some reason you seem to have a preference to side-track this debate to an accounting one. For the record i do not look at EBIDTA as the parameter to analyse a stock or company that i would like to buy. That is also not what we are debating. The issue in hand is a simple one - Is our sporting wages (the major part of the clubs expense) at an acceptable level? I can get an answer for this particular question by looking at EBIDTA. Are you debating that?
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[/quote]
So do you agree that wages are not the reason why we are booking losses? That is my only point coming into this thread.
For some reason you seem to have a preference to side-track this debate to an accounting one. For the record i do not look at EBIDTA as the parameter to analyse a stock or company that i would like to buy. That is also not what we are debating. The issue in hand is a simple one - Is our sporting wages (the major part of the clubs expense) at an acceptable level? I can get an answer for this particular question by looking at EBIDTA. Are you debating that?
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183170#msg1183170 date=1285533833]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
That wasn't what I argued at all. I'd rather there was a reserve pot of dosh for rainy days so that people didn't assume any CL club was going to go bust if they spend a few years coming fifth. I'd rather the club invested in the local community and led other local businesses by example in that regard. And yeah, I'd rather the match was more affordable for people to attend, as it used to be. Back when Kenny was earning 70k, it was £3.50 for me to get in and price wasn't an issue. Now the vast majority of people I know who don't go the match anymore site cost as the key issue.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
That wasn't what I argued at all. I'd rather there was a reserve pot of dosh for rainy days so that people didn't assume any CL club was going to go bust if they spend a few years coming fifth. I'd rather the club invested in the local community and led other local businesses by example in that regard. And yeah, I'd rather the match was more affordable for people to attend, as it used to be. Back when Kenny was earning 70k, it was £3.50 for me to get in and price wasn't an issue. Now the vast majority of people I know who don't go the match anymore site cost as the key issue.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183176#msg1183176 date=1285534306]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183173#msg1183173 date=1285533896]
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[/quote]
So do you agree that wages are not the reason why we are booking losses? That is my only point coming into this thread.
For some reason you seem to have a preference to side-track this debate to an accounting one. For the record i do not look at EBIDTA as the parameter to analyse a stock or company that i would like to buy. That is also not what we are debating. The issue in hand is a simple one - Is our sporting wages (the major part of the clubs expense) at an acceptable level? I can get an answer for this particular question by looking at EBIDTA. Are you debating that?
[/quote]
Actually I think we are all going off on tangents. We were discussing whether players' astronomical salaries were right or wrong.
Anyway - couldn't sleep, came on here for an hour, and now back to bed. Night all.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183173#msg1183173 date=1285533896]
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[/quote]
So do you agree that wages are not the reason why we are booking losses? That is my only point coming into this thread.
For some reason you seem to have a preference to side-track this debate to an accounting one. For the record i do not look at EBIDTA as the parameter to analyse a stock or company that i would like to buy. That is also not what we are debating. The issue in hand is a simple one - Is our sporting wages (the major part of the clubs expense) at an acceptable level? I can get an answer for this particular question by looking at EBIDTA. Are you debating that?
[/quote]
Actually I think we are all going off on tangents. We were discussing whether players' astronomical salaries were right or wrong.
Anyway - couldn't sleep, came on here for an hour, and now back to bed. Night all.
[quote author=Frogfish link=topic=42049.msg1183175#msg1183175 date=1285534159]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183170#msg1183170 date=1285533833]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
I would prefer it went on a new stadium.
[/quote]
and then what, after the stadium is built? and what about the teams that don't need a new stadium, they can pay more to their players? The stadium project should have its own ROI, and hence the funding should come in the form of new equity or debt and not organically from the company.
After the new stadium is built we will have even more free cash, which will obviously go to the suits? or you ok for the players to get more then?
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183170#msg1183170 date=1285533833]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
I would prefer it went on a new stadium.
[/quote]
and then what, after the stadium is built? and what about the teams that don't need a new stadium, they can pay more to their players? The stadium project should have its own ROI, and hence the funding should come in the form of new equity or debt and not organically from the company.
After the new stadium is built we will have even more free cash, which will obviously go to the suits? or you ok for the players to get more then?
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183176#msg1183176 date=1285534306]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183173#msg1183173 date=1285533896]
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[/quote]
So do you agree that wages are not the reason why we are booking losses? That is my only point coming into this thread.
For some reason you seem to have a preference to side-track this debate to an accounting one. For the record i do not look at EBIDTA as the parameter to analyse a stock or company that i would like to buy. That is also not what we are debating. The issue in hand is a simple one - Is our sporting wages (the major part of the clubs expense) at an acceptable level? I can get an answer for this particular question by looking at EBIDTA. Are you debating that?
[/quote]
Effectively what you're saying is that once wages are less than turnover you're happy. I'm saying that is idiotic, since there are plenty of other annual costs which need to be considered.
Wages are at the peak of what they can be. They aren't the only reason for our losses but the extent of the wage bill impacts on what we have to spend on transfers, which is usually where peoples complaints begin.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183173#msg1183173 date=1285533896]
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[/quote]
So do you agree that wages are not the reason why we are booking losses? That is my only point coming into this thread.
For some reason you seem to have a preference to side-track this debate to an accounting one. For the record i do not look at EBIDTA as the parameter to analyse a stock or company that i would like to buy. That is also not what we are debating. The issue in hand is a simple one - Is our sporting wages (the major part of the clubs expense) at an acceptable level? I can get an answer for this particular question by looking at EBIDTA. Are you debating that?
[/quote]
Effectively what you're saying is that once wages are less than turnover you're happy. I'm saying that is idiotic, since there are plenty of other annual costs which need to be considered.
Wages are at the peak of what they can be. They aren't the only reason for our losses but the extent of the wage bill impacts on what we have to spend on transfers, which is usually where peoples complaints begin.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183177#msg1183177 date=1285534348]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183170#msg1183170 date=1285533833]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
That wasn't what I argued at all. I'd rather there was a reserve pot of dosh for rainy days so that people didn't assume any CL club was going to go bust if they spend a few years coming fifth. I'd rather the club invested in the local community and led other local businesses by example in that regard. And yeah, I'd rather the match was more affordable for people to attend, as it used to be. Back when Kenny was earning 70k, it was £3.50 for me to get in and price wasn't an issue. Now the vast majority of people I know who don't go the match anymore site cost as the key issue.
[/quote]
We still fill out the seats though, so the high cost point is moot. We can only let in 45,000 people in and there has to be a way to filter out people. Money is the best way i know. It works.
The other morals you speak off..help community etc, etc...should football clubs be the only businesses that has to abide by them, or should this apply to all businesses? Would you and your business partake on the same level - we are talking about a substantial % of gross revenue.
I'm ok if it is the same moral rules and values for everyone....if not, we don't really have any right to demand that football clubs act in a different way.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183170#msg1183170 date=1285533833]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
That wasn't what I argued at all. I'd rather there was a reserve pot of dosh for rainy days so that people didn't assume any CL club was going to go bust if they spend a few years coming fifth. I'd rather the club invested in the local community and led other local businesses by example in that regard. And yeah, I'd rather the match was more affordable for people to attend, as it used to be. Back when Kenny was earning 70k, it was £3.50 for me to get in and price wasn't an issue. Now the vast majority of people I know who don't go the match anymore site cost as the key issue.
[/quote]
We still fill out the seats though, so the high cost point is moot. We can only let in 45,000 people in and there has to be a way to filter out people. Money is the best way i know. It works.
The other morals you speak off..help community etc, etc...should football clubs be the only businesses that has to abide by them, or should this apply to all businesses? Would you and your business partake on the same level - we are talking about a substantial % of gross revenue.
I'm ok if it is the same moral rules and values for everyone....if not, we don't really have any right to demand that football clubs act in a different way.
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183180#msg1183180 date=1285534592]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183176#msg1183176 date=1285534306]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183173#msg1183173 date=1285533896]
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[/quote]
So do you agree that wages are not the reason why we are booking losses? That is my only point coming into this thread.
For some reason you seem to have a preference to side-track this debate to an accounting one. For the record i do not look at EBIDTA as the parameter to analyse a stock or company that i would like to buy. That is also not what we are debating. The issue in hand is a simple one - Is our sporting wages (the major part of the clubs expense) at an acceptable level? I can get an answer for this particular question by looking at EBIDTA. Are you debating that?
[/quote]
Effectively what you're saying is that once wages are less than turnover you're happy. I'm saying that is idiotic, since there are plenty of other annual costs which need to be considered.
Wages are at the peak of what they can be. They aren't the only reason for our losses but the extent of the wage bill impacts on what we have to spend on transfers, which is usually where peoples complaints begin.
[/quote]
No, i'm saying it's ok as long as wages as a % of gross revenue is at an acceptable level . Recently FIFA and FA were discussing having 50% or 45% as this acceptable level. I'm assuming they would have considered all these expenses you speak off. I'm not an expert in running football clubs, so i would go by their opinion. As it seems we don't need to make any drastic changes to fall within that norm, there really is no draconian player wage changes required and Steven Gerrard can keep his wage...do you agree?
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183176#msg1183176 date=1285534306]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=42049.msg1183173#msg1183173 date=1285533896]
Wages to turnover was about 56% in the last accounts.
If you think depreciation of assets is irrelevant then I don't really know what to say. (There are reasons why EBITDA is not recognised by GAAP) And regardless of any interview , the accounts are pretty clear it's being done in the same way it always has been.
[/quote]
So do you agree that wages are not the reason why we are booking losses? That is my only point coming into this thread.
For some reason you seem to have a preference to side-track this debate to an accounting one. For the record i do not look at EBIDTA as the parameter to analyse a stock or company that i would like to buy. That is also not what we are debating. The issue in hand is a simple one - Is our sporting wages (the major part of the clubs expense) at an acceptable level? I can get an answer for this particular question by looking at EBIDTA. Are you debating that?
[/quote]
Effectively what you're saying is that once wages are less than turnover you're happy. I'm saying that is idiotic, since there are plenty of other annual costs which need to be considered.
Wages are at the peak of what they can be. They aren't the only reason for our losses but the extent of the wage bill impacts on what we have to spend on transfers, which is usually where peoples complaints begin.
[/quote]
No, i'm saying it's ok as long as wages as a % of gross revenue is at an acceptable level . Recently FIFA and FA were discussing having 50% or 45% as this acceptable level. I'm assuming they would have considered all these expenses you speak off. I'm not an expert in running football clubs, so i would go by their opinion. As it seems we don't need to make any drastic changes to fall within that norm, there really is no draconian player wage changes required and Steven Gerrard can keep his wage...do you agree?
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183184#msg1183184 date=1285534918]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183177#msg1183177 date=1285534348]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183170#msg1183170 date=1285533833]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
That wasn't what I argued at all. I'd rather there was a reserve pot of dosh for rainy days so that people didn't assume any CL club was going to go bust if they spend a few years coming fifth. I'd rather the club invested in the local community and led other local businesses by example in that regard. And yeah, I'd rather the match was more affordable for people to attend, as it used to be. Back when Kenny was earning 70k, it was £3.50 for me to get in and price wasn't an issue. Now the vast majority of people I know who don't go the match anymore site cost as the key issue.
[/quote]
We still fill out the seats though, so the high cost point is moot. We can only let in 45,000 people in and there has to be a way to filter out people. Money is the best way i know. It works.
The other morals you speak off..help community etc, etc...should football clubs be the only businesses that has to abide by them, or should this apply to all businesses? Would you and your business partake on the same level - we are talking about a substantial % of gross revenue.
I'm ok if it is the same moral rules and values for everyone....if not, we don't really have any right to demand that football clubs act in a different way.
[/quote]
Businesses don't spend enough supporting their local communities but that's not legislated for. I'd rather they did. I certainly think that Liverpool FC, in the situation that it's in, should support the local community. There is something wrong about unknowing teens rolling up in aston martins and pissing off again without a thought for one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe. You may not agree but it gnaws at me. As for my businesses and what they do... well one is a technology business based all over the place with various shareholders and doesn't do anything charitable, whereas one is a pub and pretty much everything it does and makes is geared around the community.
But all that is off my point. Gerrard et al have different vested interests to the fans in the club becoming wealthier.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183177#msg1183177 date=1285534348]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183170#msg1183170 date=1285533833]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183167#msg1183167 date=1285533279]
It's 57% but even at that is lower than tons of clubs in the league. That doesn't make it good, neither does it put the beneficiaries in a very good position when arguing we need new investment in the club, given that they're the biggest cost in the first place.
[/quote]
So you are just arguing for a simple reallocation of wealth. You would rather the suits got the money, than the players.
I would prefer the other way. There is not much to debate here then, these preference are based on your personal values and beliefs....
[/quote]
That wasn't what I argued at all. I'd rather there was a reserve pot of dosh for rainy days so that people didn't assume any CL club was going to go bust if they spend a few years coming fifth. I'd rather the club invested in the local community and led other local businesses by example in that regard. And yeah, I'd rather the match was more affordable for people to attend, as it used to be. Back when Kenny was earning 70k, it was £3.50 for me to get in and price wasn't an issue. Now the vast majority of people I know who don't go the match anymore site cost as the key issue.
[/quote]
We still fill out the seats though, so the high cost point is moot. We can only let in 45,000 people in and there has to be a way to filter out people. Money is the best way i know. It works.
The other morals you speak off..help community etc, etc...should football clubs be the only businesses that has to abide by them, or should this apply to all businesses? Would you and your business partake on the same level - we are talking about a substantial % of gross revenue.
I'm ok if it is the same moral rules and values for everyone....if not, we don't really have any right to demand that football clubs act in a different way.
[/quote]
Businesses don't spend enough supporting their local communities but that's not legislated for. I'd rather they did. I certainly think that Liverpool FC, in the situation that it's in, should support the local community. There is something wrong about unknowing teens rolling up in aston martins and pissing off again without a thought for one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe. You may not agree but it gnaws at me. As for my businesses and what they do... well one is a technology business based all over the place with various shareholders and doesn't do anything charitable, whereas one is a pub and pretty much everything it does and makes is geared around the community.
But all that is off my point. Gerrard et al have different vested interests to the fans in the club becoming wealthier.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183188#msg1183188 date=1285535544]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183184#msg1183184 date=1285534918]
We still fill out the seats though, so the high cost point is moot. We can only let in 45,000 people in and there has to be a way to filter out people. Money is the best way i know. It works.
The other morals you speak off..help community etc, etc...should football clubs be the only businesses that has to abide by them, or should this apply to all businesses? Would you and your business partake on the same level - we are talking about a substantial % of gross revenue.
I'm ok if it is the same moral rules and values for everyone....if not, we don't really have any right to demand that football clubs act in a different way.
[/quote]
Businesses don't spend enough supporting their local communities but that's not legislated for. I'd rather they did. I certainly think that Liverpool FC, in the situation that it's in, should support the local community. There is something wrong about unknowing teens rolling up in aston martins and pissing off again without a thought for one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe. You may not agree but it gnaws at me. As for my businesses and what they do... well one is a technology business based all over the place with various shareholders and doesn't do anything charitable, whereas one is a pub and pretty much everything it does and makes is geared around the community.
But all that is off my point. Gerrard et al have different vested interests to the fans in the club becoming wealthier.
[/quote]
All i'm saying is that - it has got to be an all or nothing thing. Either all companies do it, or no company does it. I'm not taking sides on whether it is right or wrong. I have a day job and also part of an IT business that was started as a hobby about a year ago with a bunch of my friends. I'm well aware everyone has different ideas on this. I had no intention of asking you "do you do enough for the community with the money you make from your business?". All i'm saying is that everyone has to have the same thing including you, me and every other business out there.
Another thing is ...You seem to imply that companies that have something to do with the "community" has to give a significant % of their revenue back to the community. Ok, but this still has to be the same for all companies that have something to do with the "community" (policing what constitutes profiteering from involving the community will be a nightmare)...banks, hospitals etc etc. We can't single out football clubs alone.
Teenager making money etc...i honestly think that is a rubbish point. It is their talent and it gets them that much. Do you suggest they wait till they become 35 and try and ply their trade? You may think it is easy money, but to the construction bloke working opposite my building, you and i make a lot of easy money....driving around in cars, buying things for families etc. etc.
The social aspect is not something i wanted to debate.
The profitability question was a valid one, and it certainly applies to clubs like City where money is thrown away for fun. I think based on the numbers and facts on this thread our wage structure is within limits and Steven Gerrard can keep his money with out any guilt.....that is my conclusion.
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42049.msg1183184#msg1183184 date=1285534918]
We still fill out the seats though, so the high cost point is moot. We can only let in 45,000 people in and there has to be a way to filter out people. Money is the best way i know. It works.
The other morals you speak off..help community etc, etc...should football clubs be the only businesses that has to abide by them, or should this apply to all businesses? Would you and your business partake on the same level - we are talking about a substantial % of gross revenue.
I'm ok if it is the same moral rules and values for everyone....if not, we don't really have any right to demand that football clubs act in a different way.
[/quote]
Businesses don't spend enough supporting their local communities but that's not legislated for. I'd rather they did. I certainly think that Liverpool FC, in the situation that it's in, should support the local community. There is something wrong about unknowing teens rolling up in aston martins and pissing off again without a thought for one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe. You may not agree but it gnaws at me. As for my businesses and what they do... well one is a technology business based all over the place with various shareholders and doesn't do anything charitable, whereas one is a pub and pretty much everything it does and makes is geared around the community.
But all that is off my point. Gerrard et al have different vested interests to the fans in the club becoming wealthier.
[/quote]
All i'm saying is that - it has got to be an all or nothing thing. Either all companies do it, or no company does it. I'm not taking sides on whether it is right or wrong. I have a day job and also part of an IT business that was started as a hobby about a year ago with a bunch of my friends. I'm well aware everyone has different ideas on this. I had no intention of asking you "do you do enough for the community with the money you make from your business?". All i'm saying is that everyone has to have the same thing including you, me and every other business out there.
Another thing is ...You seem to imply that companies that have something to do with the "community" has to give a significant % of their revenue back to the community. Ok, but this still has to be the same for all companies that have something to do with the "community" (policing what constitutes profiteering from involving the community will be a nightmare)...banks, hospitals etc etc. We can't single out football clubs alone.
Teenager making money etc...i honestly think that is a rubbish point. It is their talent and it gets them that much. Do you suggest they wait till they become 35 and try and ply their trade? You may think it is easy money, but to the construction bloke working opposite my building, you and i make a lot of easy money....driving around in cars, buying things for families etc. etc.
The social aspect is not something i wanted to debate.
The profitability question was a valid one, and it certainly applies to clubs like City where money is thrown away for fun. I think based on the numbers and facts on this thread our wage structure is within limits and Steven Gerrard can keep his money with out any guilt.....that is my conclusion.
I don't think that all businesses should have to do any or the same as the next, I just wish more would. I wish LFC would. It's not a big deal but I'd rather the players got less and they made everyone round Anfield a bit happier instead. But forget that. I also don't think that Gerrard should feel guilty about his pay at all, I just think that the protest has got bugger all to do with him and his opinion isn't valid. It's at best a bit skewed.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183202#msg1183202 date=1285537520]
I don't think that all businesses should have to do any or the same as the next, I just wish more would. I wish LFC would. It's not a big deal but I'd rather the players got less and they made everyone round Anfield a bit happier instead. But forget that. I also don't think that Gerrard should feel guilty about his pay at all, I just think that the protest has got bugger all to do with him and his opinion isn't valid. It's at best a bit skewed.
[/quote]
It is a bit cruel to expect that Clubs do more, because in the face of cutting competition Clubs need every $ to compete. So if we want them to spend for the community, it needs to be legislated.
Because of the complexities involved in selectively forcing football clubs to do that, I would rather they regulated stadium ticket prices and implied policies on fair chance for every interested person to watch it. But that is easier said than done, and it would still not have significant impact on the revenue the club makes and therefore the wages the players makes....because their marketing potential has simply become enormous. Almost one in 4 household in the world pays for football at nearly 20 pound a month and it compares well when you compare with other entertainments too. The reach is that big. We can't do much about its popularity. The people responsible for it are reaping the benefits and we can't complain about it.
Cheers for the argument/debate....i'm off to bed to catch a couple of hours of sleep.
I don't think that all businesses should have to do any or the same as the next, I just wish more would. I wish LFC would. It's not a big deal but I'd rather the players got less and they made everyone round Anfield a bit happier instead. But forget that. I also don't think that Gerrard should feel guilty about his pay at all, I just think that the protest has got bugger all to do with him and his opinion isn't valid. It's at best a bit skewed.
[/quote]
It is a bit cruel to expect that Clubs do more, because in the face of cutting competition Clubs need every $ to compete. So if we want them to spend for the community, it needs to be legislated.
Because of the complexities involved in selectively forcing football clubs to do that, I would rather they regulated stadium ticket prices and implied policies on fair chance for every interested person to watch it. But that is easier said than done, and it would still not have significant impact on the revenue the club makes and therefore the wages the players makes....because their marketing potential has simply become enormous. Almost one in 4 household in the world pays for football at nearly 20 pound a month and it compares well when you compare with other entertainments too. The reach is that big. We can't do much about its popularity. The people responsible for it are reaping the benefits and we can't complain about it.
Cheers for the argument/debate....i'm off to bed to catch a couple of hours of sleep.
A football player at a top level absolutely deserves to make more money than a Doctor.
A Doctor sacrifices earnings for several years, but still lives relatively comfortably. They put in hellish hours (in the states), then they get a known, stable job, which will pay them handsomely throughout their entire life.
Football players put in similar amounts of time, sacrificing earnings for years. And then if they fuck their knee up, they're pretty much fucked, and have spent those years learning something which can no longer be monetized and they have no other outlet. Even if they remain healthy, it's very unlikely that they'll get paid well.
Those who are able to make it are the sole source of entertainment for one of the largest entertainment industries in the world, and it's one of the only pieces of content (sports) that is relatively immune to the issues that plague broadcast.
A Doctor sacrifices earnings for several years, but still lives relatively comfortably. They put in hellish hours (in the states), then they get a known, stable job, which will pay them handsomely throughout their entire life.
Football players put in similar amounts of time, sacrificing earnings for years. And then if they fuck their knee up, they're pretty much fucked, and have spent those years learning something which can no longer be monetized and they have no other outlet. Even if they remain healthy, it's very unlikely that they'll get paid well.
Those who are able to make it are the sole source of entertainment for one of the largest entertainment industries in the world, and it's one of the only pieces of content (sports) that is relatively immune to the issues that plague broadcast.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1183037#msg1183037 date=1285520117]
The protest was about our inability to reinvest in the squad, thus our inability to compete, and while this is hugely down to the yanks business model, the #1 drain on football clubs everywhere including ours is the wage bill.
[/quote]
You havent got a clue what the protest is all about? Do you really think it is down to such an easy thing as "not able to invest in the team"?? So if the owners put another 50 mill pound depth on the club and we used the money to invest in the team everyone would be happy?? They do that at Old Trafford, and they are certainly not happy there either.
The protest was about our inability to reinvest in the squad, thus our inability to compete, and while this is hugely down to the yanks business model, the #1 drain on football clubs everywhere including ours is the wage bill.
[/quote]
You havent got a clue what the protest is all about? Do you really think it is down to such an easy thing as "not able to invest in the team"?? So if the owners put another 50 mill pound depth on the club and we used the money to invest in the team everyone would be happy?? They do that at Old Trafford, and they are certainly not happy there either.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1182875#msg1182875 date=1285496439]
I mean each of the two thousand people at the sit in paid about 40 quid just to get in. Even if you took those 2000 £40s and stuck them all in a brown paper bag and offered him that to play, it's not enough. He'd need another 1000 to get involved just to pay this week's wages.
I'm sure he and all the other players want new owners, because they've got islands to buy and space tourism to book.
There's an incoherent thread on here talking about the buy out which that even if there is a profit in the business pre interest payments, it's pretty damn small and as a ratio to turnover is pathetic. There's a single reason for that - the wage bill, the colossal amounts that the players bleed from the game.
There was a time I used to idolise the fuckers, back when I was a kid. Then I came to point where I just wanted my eleven dickheads to beat their eleven dickheads, but now I just see them as one of the the chief causes of the slow death of this and many other football clubs.
Prove me wrong, help me to hate the bastards less.
[/quote]
Just stop watching then Crump, i mean, if you hate em like. Stop watching.
I mean each of the two thousand people at the sit in paid about 40 quid just to get in. Even if you took those 2000 £40s and stuck them all in a brown paper bag and offered him that to play, it's not enough. He'd need another 1000 to get involved just to pay this week's wages.
I'm sure he and all the other players want new owners, because they've got islands to buy and space tourism to book.
There's an incoherent thread on here talking about the buy out which that even if there is a profit in the business pre interest payments, it's pretty damn small and as a ratio to turnover is pathetic. There's a single reason for that - the wage bill, the colossal amounts that the players bleed from the game.
There was a time I used to idolise the fuckers, back when I was a kid. Then I came to point where I just wanted my eleven dickheads to beat their eleven dickheads, but now I just see them as one of the the chief causes of the slow death of this and many other football clubs.
Prove me wrong, help me to hate the bastards less.
[/quote]
Just stop watching then Crump, i mean, if you hate em like. Stop watching.
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=42049.msg1183331#msg1183331 date=1285579126]
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1182875#msg1182875 date=1285496439]
I mean each of the two thousand people at the sit in paid about 40 quid just to get in. Even if you took those 2000 £40s and stuck them all in a brown paper bag and offered him that to play, it's not enough. He'd need another 1000 to get involved just to pay this week's wages.
I'm sure he and all the other players want new owners, because they've got islands to buy and space tourism to book.
There's an incoherent thread on here talking about the buy out which that even if there is a profit in the business pre interest payments, it's pretty damn small and as a ratio to turnover is pathetic. There's a single reason for that - the wage bill, the colossal amounts that the players bleed from the game.
There was a time I used to idolise the fuckers, back when I was a kid. Then I came to point where I just wanted my eleven dickheads to beat their eleven dickheads, but now I just see them as one of the the chief causes of the slow death of this and many other football clubs.
Prove me wrong, help me to hate the bastards less.
[/quote]
Just stop watching then Crump, i mean, if you hate em like. Stop watching.
[/quote]
It's about the club. Not the players.
[quote author=crump link=topic=42049.msg1182875#msg1182875 date=1285496439]
I mean each of the two thousand people at the sit in paid about 40 quid just to get in. Even if you took those 2000 £40s and stuck them all in a brown paper bag and offered him that to play, it's not enough. He'd need another 1000 to get involved just to pay this week's wages.
I'm sure he and all the other players want new owners, because they've got islands to buy and space tourism to book.
There's an incoherent thread on here talking about the buy out which that even if there is a profit in the business pre interest payments, it's pretty damn small and as a ratio to turnover is pathetic. There's a single reason for that - the wage bill, the colossal amounts that the players bleed from the game.
There was a time I used to idolise the fuckers, back when I was a kid. Then I came to point where I just wanted my eleven dickheads to beat their eleven dickheads, but now I just see them as one of the the chief causes of the slow death of this and many other football clubs.
Prove me wrong, help me to hate the bastards less.
[/quote]
Just stop watching then Crump, i mean, if you hate em like. Stop watching.
[/quote]
It's about the club. Not the players.
- Status
