New tv deal

[Frogfish]

I'm saying what they actually spend on an individual nurse's salary compared to an individual footballer's salary. 0.1p is probably a gross overestimate. Make it perhaps 50p on a footballer and 0.001p on a nurse, say. If they valued a nurse anything like as highly as a footballer, then they'd be spending much more on them, but they obviously don't.

As I mentioned before, monetary spend has nothing to do with value. People are selfish - until it becomes an absolute necessity and then football would be binned faster than Rosco can scoff a chip buttie.
If you add up what people actually spend on health care via taxes, private policies etc. then as a national average it is undoubtedly more than they spend on football ! However if you told people they could have health care or football which would they choose ? No-brainer of course and certainly demonstrates which one they value higher and the insanity of footballer's high salaries.

 

[peterhague]

As I mentioned before, monetary spend has nothing to do with value. People are selfish - until it becomes an absolute necessity and then football would be binned faster than Rosco can scoff a chip buttie.
If you add up what people actually spend on health care via taxes, private policies etc. then as a national average it is undoubtedly more than they spend on football ! However if you told people they could have health care or football which would they choose ? No-brainer of course and certainly demonstrates which one they value higher and the insanity of footballer's high salaries.

LOL, where do I start? Firstly you argue that monetary spend has nothing to do with value, then you cite the money spent on healthcare to establish the value people place on it!!!

Secondly, you're conflating 2 separate things: individual doctors and nurses, and healthcare as a whole. OF COURSE people value healthcare above football, indeed above almost all other things, but it doesn't follow that they value *individual doctors and nurses* more highly than individual footballers.

Look at what people spend on a nurse, a doctor, and a footballer. The answer is unavoidable.

 

[Frogfish]

LOL, where do I start? Firstly you argue that monetary spend has nothing to do with value, then you cite the money spent on healthcare to establish the value people place on it!!!

Secondly, you're conflating 2 separate things: individual doctors and nurses, and healthcare as a whole. OF COURSE people value healthcare above football, indeed above almost all other things, but it doesn't follow that they value *individual doctors and nurses* more highly than individual footballers.

Look at what people spend on a nurse, a doctor, and a footballer. The answer is unavoidable.

I thought your acuity far higher than not to comprehend my response re. first value, and then money spent, as a direct response to your previous questions/statements. it's as impossible to separate a football club's income from a player's salary as it is a nurse's from the health service. Supporters don't contribute to a footballer's salary directly and neither do they to a nurses, so your indignation is spurious. You query, I answer and then you attack the post for answering your question. LoL !

If you can conflate Sky and money spent on football as a whole (people don't willingly contribute to a footballer's salary do they) then why can I not integrate doctors, nurses and the health service into my argument. Of course it's valid, you just don't like that it substantially weakens your assertions that people pay more for football entertainment than they do for health care.

 

[Delinquent]

I don't care whether gymnasts would agree with me or not, I'd still be right.

I'm not saying footballers are talented in everything they do. Again I sense a bit of snobbery. Thick, working class, ill-educated oafs getting paid millions more than a nice middle class professional? Can't be right/fair/just!!


Finally, I wish people would not invoke the sentimental love of the caring professions in this sort of debate. Better to remove that and talk in terms of group financial controllers and estate agents instead.

You appear to basing your measurement of talent entirely on what people are prepared to pay for it. As if capitalism is a fair and reliable means of assessing anything!

And I think you're confusing snobbery and resentment. I don't begrudge anyone becoming successful by their own means. But I do resent mercenary footballers being paid able to demand hideous amounts of money for what they do. Of course, I accept that it's a bi-product of the popularity of the game, but I don't think that makes it justifiable, or that it makes them inherently more talented than people in lower-paid professions.

As for invoking sentimental love for caring professions - I can't see where I've done that. I never brought them up, I was just borrowing the example for the sake of argument. I'm quite happy to use financial controllers and estate agents by way of comparison. It doesn't change anything, after all.

 

[peterhague]

I thought your acuity far higher than not to comprehend my response re. first value, and then money spent, as a direct response to your previous questions/statements. it's as impossible to separate a football club's income from a player's salary as it is a nurse's from the health service. Supporters don't contribute to a footballer's salary directly and neither do they to a nurses, so your indignation is spurious. You query, I answer and then you attack the post for answering your question. LoL !

If you can conflate Sky and money spent on football as a whole (people don't willingly contribute to a footballer's salary do they) then why can I not integrate doctors, nurses and the health service into my argument. Of course it's valid, you just don't like that it substantially weakens your assertions that people pay more for football entertainment than they do for health care.

Dear dear me, I know you'll take this as confirmation that you've 'won', but you really are thick. Properly, fucking, thick.

 

[Fox]

Yes but it only goes to players wages not reducing ticket prices To make every ground full every game

 

[peterhague]

You appear to basing your measurement of talent entirely on what people are prepared to pay for it. As if capitalism is a fair and reliable means of assessing anything!

And I think you're confusing snobbery and resentment. I don't begrudge anyone becoming successful by their own means. But I do resent mercenary footballers being paid able to demand hideous amounts of money for what they do. Of course, I accept that it's a bi-product of the popularity of the game, but I don't think that makes it justifiable, or that it makes them inherently more talented than people in lower-paid professions.

As for invoking sentimental love for caring professions - I can't see where I've done that. I never brought them up, I was just borrowing the example for the sake of argument. I'm quite happy to use financial controllers and estate agents by way of comparison. It doesn't change anything, after all.

I'm not basing my measurement of talent on that. Did I not specifically say that one of the respects in which footballers are fortunate is that there is a high demand for their talent, as opposed to a similarly talented, say, gymnast?? So that's that one dealt with.

How is a footballer successful if not by his own means? How are they mercenary to a greater extent than any other professional?

I didn't say their high earning potential makes them necessarily more talented than people in lower-paid professions.

You should stick to answering the arguments I've actually made.

The final point you refer to was intended as a general observation directed to the participants of these kind of debates in general. I accept that you didn't introduce those examples into this discussion. I attempted to make that clear by separating that point from the rest of the post (directed at you specifically) by a couple of spaces, but sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

 

[Frogfish]

Dear dear me, I know you'll take this as confirmation that you've 'won', but you really are thick. Properly, fucking, thick.

Oh I nearly missed this, pity I didn't you supercilious fucking cunt. God you love yourself don't you.

And as far as 'winning' is concerned, any imbecilic prick who thinks an average PL footballer 'deserves' to be paid 50 times more than a nurse or other valuable asset to society is obviously a social deviant. So 'winning' was a foregone conclusion whether I had anything to say in the debate or not.

 

[Frogfish]

Now the reason I looked up the thread re. additional income and the debate on wages :-

The 20 club chairmen agreed to two significant controls on Thursday - to limit players' wage bills from next season ....... the ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52m next season, £56m the following year and £60m in 2015-16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.

 

[Woland]

Behave.

 

[peterhague]

Oh I nearly missed this, pity I didn't you supercilious fucking cunt. God you love yourself don't you.

And as far as 'winning' is concerned, any imbecilic prick who thinks an average PL footballer 'deserves' to be paid 50 times more than a nurse or other valuable asset to society is obviously a social deviant. So 'winning' was a foregone conclusion whether I had anything to say in the debate or not.

You really shouldn't take out your frustration at being a dimwit on me you know. Not my fault.

 

[Frogfish]

You really shouldn't take out your frustration at being a dimwit on me you know. Not my fault.

Your answer to every debate you feel you are getting a good kicking in is to lash out and start abusing people .... and if there was any value whatsoever to your opinion I may be offended but I'm not in the slightest.

It's not my fault either that you are an belligerent egotist but luckily you are the one that has to live with it not us. Now we know why some mammals eat their children.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

Peter / Froggie ... Let's relax a wee bit. Cheers.

 

[peterhague]

I told you you'd take the abuse as a sign you won.

You didn't, by the way.

 

[goodspam]

Now the reason I looked up the thread re. additional income and the debate on wages :-

The 20 club chairmen agreed to two significant controls on Thursday - to limit players' wage bills from next season ....... the ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52m next season, £56m the following year and £60m in 2015-16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.

It emerged that the vote for the financial regulations could hardly have been closer with only 13 of the 20 clubs voted in favour, with six against and Reading abstaining.
The 'yes' vote only narrowly achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of the 19 votes cast.
It is understood that Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.

Some surprises in the 6 clubs that voted against the new restrictions.

 

[hamstrung_pigeon]

Maybe some of these surprises are angling for a rich owner to take over and are afraid the restrictions would scuttle those hopes.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

I pay a lot more to health care than to watching football. I don't have Sky sports, and I pay roughly 100 quid a month in health insurance. Does that mean I think doctors and nurses are infinitely more talented than footballers?

 

[peterhague]

I pay a lot more to health care than to watching football. I don't have Sky sports, and I pay roughly 100 quid a month in health insurance. Does that mean I think doctors and nurses are infinitely more talented than footballers?

No, although of course you might. But this isn't about what certain individuals think, but society as a whole. That should be obvious.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Reading can fuck off.

I hate abstaining in votes more than I do people being stupid enough to vote the way I don't.

You have to have an opinion.

 

[FoxForceFive]

No, although of course you might. But this isn't about what certain individuals think, but society as a whole. That should be obvious.

You're the accountant, add up the total amount spent on football, divided by the population, then do the same for private & public healthcare & see what comes out on top?

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

You're the accountant, add up the total amount spent on football, divided by the population, then do the same for private & public healthcare & see what comes out on top?

Yep, I would imagine more is spent on healthcare than football, by a long way. I could be wrong on that though.

Anyway, I have no idea what this argument is really trying to prove.

Do footballers deserve the money they get? Some do, some don't. Much the same as any other sector.

 

[peterhague]

You're the accountant, add up the total amount spent on football, divided by the population, then do the same for private & public healthcare & see what comes out on top?

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!!

I've already answered that point earlier in thread. Has everyone lost their reading glasses this morning or something?

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

Anyway back to the actual deal. Given that all English clubs will now have more money to spend on transfers and wages, does it mean we might actually get better prices for Carroll and Downing?

 

[mark1975]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!!

I've already answered that point earlier in thread. Has everyone lost their reading glasses this morning or something?

It's Friday! The alcohol starts on the Thursday and we pretend it's already the weekend!

 

[peterhague]

Anyway back to the actual deal. Given that all English clubs will now have more money to spend on transfers and wages, does it mean we might actually get better prices for Carroll and Downing?

Well wages and transfer fees will go up, limited to some extent by the new spending rules, but of course that inflation will also apply to us, so, in short, no.

 

[mark1975]

Well wages and transfer fees will go up, limited to some extent by the new spending rules, but of course that inflation will also apply to us, so, in short, no.

I don't think it will apply to Carroll though, he's been out for a season and his fee has more or less been determined. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with less though.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

Well wages and transfer fees will go up, limited to some extent by the new spending rules, but of course that inflation will also apply to us, so, in short, no.

That inflation should only apply to players currently in England, so if we could manage to offload them, and pick up players from a league where they don't have as high a transfer fee, we should benefit. But we'll probably blow it on some over rated "used to the league" player.

 

[peterhague]

That inflation should only apply to players currently in England, so if we could manage to offload them, and pick up players from a league where they don't have as high a transfer fee, we should benefit. But we'll probably blow it on some over rated "used to the league" player.

True, but the inflation will also affect other leagues to some extent (how much depends on how big a market they are for English clubs) because the new money will also be spent abroad.