• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sturridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gotta hear the explanation for this one.

Do you really need an explaination?

*grabs old economics books*

It's simple enough really, people can defend players wages by pointing to the fact that they're unique talents and one of a kind hence the lower the supply of labour(pro footballers) the higher the footballer's salary is going to be. There's only one Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Gerrard,

I get that point but i still think the money in football could and should be used in better ways like football centres, on the youth etc. Ian Holloway's colomn in the Sunday Mirror was an interesting read today.
 
Do you really need an explaination?

*grabs old economics books*

It's simple enough really, people can defend players wages by pointing to the fact that they're unique talents and one of a kind hence the lower the supply of labour(pro footballers) the higher the footballer's salary is going to be. There's only one Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney, Gerrard,

I get that point but i still think the money in football could and should be used in better ways like football centres, on the youth etc. Ian Holloway's colomn in the Sunday Mirror was an interesting read today.
Have you read your old economics books?
 
Dont even have one.

Was that brief explaination good enough for you?
Not really, no. It's fairly obvious why the supply and demand of PL football means high wages for PL players. So I'm still waiting for your 'it doesn't sit right with you' explanation.
 
Wasn't it reported that Henderson's wage was quadrupled from £15k to around £60-65k per week?
 
Not really, no. It's fairly obvious why the supply and demand of PL football means high wages for PL players. So I'm still waiting for your 'it doesn't sit right with you' explanation.

Does it sit right with you then? Do you think football players are fully deserving of their exorbitant wages? I think what Gary's intimating is also, as you put it, fairly obvious.
 
Does it sit right with you then? Do you think football players are fully deserving of their exorbitant wages? I think what Gary's intimating is also, as you put it, fairly obvious.

Yes, but however much he might have clarified his "players wages are extortionate" stance (shocker!). His original point came across as though he was suggesting that £60k per week for a player of Sturridge's standing was over the odds. In this day and age, unfortunately, it isn't.

As for Mullet, the economics are obviously wrong then, aren't they!? There's no justification for the money footballers or other entertainers are on. It might be supply and demand and they might be the very best at what they do, it doesn't make it right though when, as pretentious as it'll probably be acknowledged, there are kids starving in the World.
 
Yes, but however much he might have clarified his "players wages are extortionate" stance (shocker!). His original point came across as though he was suggesting that £60k per week for a player of Sturridge's standing was over the odds. In this day and age, unfortunately, it isn't.

As for Mullet, the economics are obviously wrong then, aren't they!? There's no justification for the money footballers or other entertainers are on. It might be supply and demand and they might be the very best at what they do, it doesn't make it right though when, as pretentious as it'll probably be acknowledged, there are kids starving in the World.

It doesn't make it right, of course it doesn't.

However, as long as people will pay £50 a month for sky & £50 for a match tickets, £60 for a concert ticket & buy celebrity shite like heat magazine the money to pay entertainers then they'll be able to demand a salary that reflects that demand from the public.

I don't agree, but unless society massively changes its outlook & starts making nurses paramedics, firemen etc their stars then there'll be no pay that reflects the magnitude & respect they deserve.
 
It doesn't make it right, of course it doesn't.

However, as long as people will pay £50 a month for sky & £50 for a match tickets, £60 for a concert ticket & buy celebrity shite like heat magazine the money to pay entertainers then they'll be able to demand a salary that reflects that demand from the public.

I don't agree, but unless society massively changes its outlook & starts making nurses paramedics, firemen etc their stars then there'll be no pay that reflects the magnitude & respect they deserve.

It amazes me, that we're supposed to be in a recession, yet concert and match tickets are still extortionately priced.
 
I doubt there would be a significant drop in prices if there was a wage cap. The money would just go to the shareholders instead.

I'd rather it went to the players.
 
Yes, but however much he might have clarified his "players wages are extortionate" stance (shocker!). His original point came across as though he was suggesting that £60k per week for a player of Sturridge's standing was over the odds. In this day and age, unfortunately, it isn't.

As for Mullet, the economics are obviously wrong then, aren't they!? There's no justification for the money footballers or other entertainers are on. It might be supply and demand and they might be the very best at what they do, it doesn't make it right though when, as pretentious as it'll probably be acknowledged, there are kids starving in the World.

I think £60k is slightly surprising for Sturridge, considering how little he'd achieved when they handed him that contract. I would expect as yet unproven youngsters to be a lot cheaper than established first-teamers. Having said that, I suppose some of Chelsea's first-teamers are on almost three times that, so perhaps that's the going rate at the bridge.
 
Fucking hell, I didn't think £65k a week was that bi a deal these days

Me neither. Seems fair enough for a player of his quality when you consider who he's playing for. You don't have to have won the CL to earn the big bucks, just show you have the talent. He's been there a while now as well hasn't he.
 
I think £60k is slightly surprising for Sturridge, considering how little he'd achieved when they handed him that contract. I would expect as yet unproven youngsters to be a lot cheaper than established first-teamers. Having said that, I suppose some of Chelsea's first-teamers are on almost three times that, so perhaps that's the going rate at the bridge.

Sturridge had a big reputation at youth level and it was always obvious that he was going to be a good player.

Normally you'd pay 10M for that kind of talent. I'm not sure what they paid in compensation (if any) to City but the rest was made up in wages. It was a fairly good deal for Chelsea.
 
This doesn't work on so many levels.

- Why would Chelsea sell him to us?
- Even if they did they'd want 20M and he's not worth that
- And if they were selling he's the sort of cunt that'd think he's better than going to Liverpool

It will never happen.
 
As for Mullet, the economics are obviously wrong then, aren't they!? There's no justification for the money footballers or other entertainers are on. It might be supply and demand and they might be the very best at what they do, it doesn't make it right though when, as pretentious as it'll probably be acknowledged, there are kids starving in the World.
Ah, the old is it fair that some people earn a fortune while there are starving people, kids even, in the world.

That argument, although morally justifiable, is frankly against the economical laws/rules and how a market operates in the world. Unjust as it is shit happens. The PL is a cash cow and the agents/players/clubs/media are going to milk it until it becomes out of favour and then the next sport or fad will take over and guess what, there still will be starving people, kids even, in the world. It's their justification, and if you were given a chance to earn high wages playing football, I bet you would.

If you feel so against it, abandon football and any other vices that makes other people money and pour all your resources into helping the starving people in the world. Especially the kids, don't forget the starving kids.
 
Ah, the old is it fair that some people earn a fortune while there are starving people, kids even, in the world.

That argument, although morally justifiable, is frankly against the economical laws/rules and how a market operates in the world. Unjust as it is shit happens. The PL is a cash cow and the agents/players/clubs/media are going to milk it until it becomes out of favour and then the next sport or fad will take over and guess what, there still will be starving people, kids even, in the world. It's their justification, and if you were given a chance to earn high wages playing football, I bet you would.

If you feel so against it, abandon football and any other vices that makes other people money and pour all your resources into helping the starving people in the world. Especially the kids, don't forget the starving kids.

What a cunt of a post. Honestly, I don't really know what's got into you, Red Mullet. There is a real stench of intellectual snobbery coming from you these days. Couple that with the kind of arrogance and insensitivity shown above, and you have a shadow of the poster who used to post here. Seriously, who the fuck are you to tell people how they should live their lives?

I don't think anyone was making anything other than a moral judgement on the wages of footballers. Which, as you admit, is perfectly justifiable. It was merely an expression of distaste. As such, I don't think the patronising lesson on the basics of economics really adds anything to the discussion, other than making you look like a pompous twat. If that's what you were after, then allow me to congratulate you on a job well done.
 
I wasn't even going to grace it with a response tbh. Given he completely shirked the point about the economics being wrong. I don't think I tried to get on a high horse about the morals of the game, it was just a comment about entertainment and life in general, but given the cunt made assumptions on the basis of me being overly moralistic..

First of all, I don't "pour all my resources" into the game. I don't even go to the game anymore, after being a regular attendee up until about 10 years ago. I get offered free tickets all the time, which I turn my nose up at and the only time I do go is to give my kids a taste of the atmosphere at a friendly in the Summer, even that has been a rarity these days, my lad now goes to watch Runcorn Linnets play every week for free, and loves every minute of it. I don't buy football tops or kits anymore, if the kids want kits, they buy it with money they get for their Birthday's or Christmas or from their savings - their choice, and I do advise them it's largely a waste of money. We used to buy them kits every year.

I watch the game I adore, I follow my team but I've always maintained I don't agree with the ethics or the financial aspect anymore. I don't agree with us spending ridiculous amounts of money on players and have always been fairly vocal about that and wanted us to be shrewd and not whore ourselves as a club. You can argue that even at the lower end of the transfer spectrum, we're still operating on a grand scale - fine, the line should be drawn where players aren't earning tens of thousands of pounds a week and clubs aren't generating and spending hundreds of millions on players, even more aggravating has been our predicament of literally wasting that money rather than investing in rising talent and keeping the money within the game across the board, to the lower sides in the divisions. Of course I love watching our foreign signings play, that's part of the draw of the sport these days, but it shouldn't been seen as a symbol of someone justifying the economics.

For the record aswell, as a regular gig goer, I have stopped paying the extortianate amounts for anything other than a pub/academy sized gig these days. There's no justification in financing already well earned professionals by paying £60 for tickets at a venue where you're then likely to pay £4-£5 for a drink. I'll listen to the music, I'll buy the CD's of the smaller artists trying to establish themselves, but when you see greed on a scale of multi-millionaire rock stars selling multi format albums so collectors will by every copy, that's where it stops becoming the regular working mans game.

You can dissect the morals to your hearts content and no doubt pick at how selective my stance and choices may be, but brandishing the whole financial implications of the sport and entertainment industries as ludicrous and lacking in basic morals is a fair start. And if my money then goes elsewhere, into the industries that I choose and that may make a better moral difference, then who the fuck are you to preach to me, when your only fallback is to tell me to stop pumping my money into the game, an assumption that already falls flat on it's arse.
 
Daniel Sturridge suffers meningitis scare

By Alistair Magowan
BBC Sport
Chelsea striker Daniel Sturridge has had tests for suspected meningitis.
The 22-year-old has been selected in Stuart Pearce's Great Britain Olympic football squad, but was taken ill over the weekend and had tests at St Mary's Hospital in Paddington.
It is not yet known how serious the illness is, but Chelsea manager Roberto Di Matteo will reveal more details at a scheduled news conference on Wednesday.
Team GB is due to play its first game at the Olympics on 26 July.
Team GB group opponents
Senegal

How they qualified: Beat Oman 2-0 in a play-off for the 16th and final place

One to watch: Ibrahima Balde (Osasuna)

United Arab Emirates

How they qualified: Finished top of Asian Olympic qualifying Group B.

One to watch: Hamdan Al Kamali (Lyon - on loan from Al Wahda)

Uruguay

How they qualified: Finished as runners-up to Brazil at the 2011 South American Youth Championship.

One to watch:Gaston Ramirez (Bologna)

The development could mean Pearce might have to call up another striker in Sturridge's place and presents a potential selection dilemma after the coach was criticised for leaving out LA Galaxy and England midfielder David Beckham.
The Team GB squad is set to meet at a holding camp in Loughborough next weekend, and Football Association medical staff will assess the results of tests before deciding if Sturridge can still play a part.
Pearce has until July 25 to select a replacement should Sturridge be forced to withdraw, with those on the stand-by list believed to include Huddersfield striker Jordan Rhodes.
Team GB face Senegal in their opening match, before facing United Arab Emirates on 29 July and Uruguay on 1 August.
Sturridge was left out of England's Euro 2012 squad despite impressing in the friendly against the Netherlands when Pearce was in temporary charge.
He scored 13 goals for Chelsea in 43 appearances last season

Hope he makes a full recovery
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom