If every Pompey player worked one week for free....

Basil Plumley · 10-03-2010, 6:26 PM

...by my reckoning and the obvious innacurate reporting by the papers, 85 people would still have their jobs tonight...

Reports stating that 2 out of a playing squad of what...? 20 players maybe...? have volunteered to take a wage cut...big deal!

Some family club they turned out to be...

NOW - I hope I'm wrong and that some of these so called heroes give up their £50k for one week of the year, each player will pay probably 2 employees for a year...Peter Storey has taken a 50% cut, so he's only on half a million a year now...how will he ever get by I wonder...?

No - I'm not a Pompey supporter but I do love my footie but this is just stupid - how can the club run as a viable business when it lays off someone on £20k a year and still pay the jumped up ponces 3 times that a week...something seriously wrong there...

dazza74 · 10-03-2010, 7:29 PM

This is why I don't feel the league as a whole should have took such a tough stance with Portsmouth. As with everything in life it's always the little man who suffers first.

RMCF · 10-03-2010, 7:55 PM

I just listened to some of the laid off workers on the news and it shows football up for what it really is these days.

85 people earning very little in comparison to these overpaid, overhyped prima donna's, are now struggling to survive and pay the bills, while the very players who have left the club at the bottom of the EPL thru their lack of real ability still swan around with their designer clothes, designer jewellery and watches, their sports cars and wouldn't even take a bit of a pay cut to keep people earning £15,ooo per year in a job.

How exactly is a football club going to run with no staff other than the players and coaching staff? Who's going to man the shop and do all the admin? The players?

The best thing that could happen to Portsmouth is for it to go bust and these selfish footballers find themselves unemployed themselves, cos you can be sure there are very few of them who would be in demand.

But I guess the FA and Sky TV will somehow keep them afloat to keep the 'best league in the world' dream alive and keep selling it to the public.

Aaron D84 · 10-03-2010, 8:39 PM

Anyone said who the players are? I reckon one will have been Heriedarrson but dunno about the rest of them.

The worst thing about clubs in trouble is that regular people on normal wages not superstar wages will lose their jobs. I couldn't care about the players it's the guys who work at the ground and have done for years who get the short straw.

dazza74 · 10-03-2010, 8:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron D84

Anyone said who the players are? I reckon one will have been Heriedarrson but dunno about the rest of them.

I wouldn't be surprised if David James was one of them. He was very good when a while back that lady was trying to get footballers in the EPL to give up a day's pay for nurses. Always remember the time Leeds were laying of loads of staff and Harry Kewell was arguing about them paying his £30K a year players insurance even though he'd moved club. Nothing surprises me with these guys anymore.

Aaron D84 · 10-03-2010, 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazza74

I wouldn't be surprised if David James was one of them. He was very good when a while back that lady was trying to get footballers in the EPL to give up a day's pay for nurses. Always remember the time Leeds were laying of loads of staff and Harry Kewell was arguing about them paying his £30K a year players insurance even though he'd moved club. Nothing surprises me with these guys anymore.

To be honest when i saw it on Sky Sports news earlier my first thoughts were Heridarrson and James as to the players who would have took a cut.

I really can't se many of the other players at the club being that generous. They don't have many local lads i think and alot of them are on loan so will probs be having their wages paid by their parent clubs.

SHATNERSTACTIC · 10-03-2010, 9:02 PM

Not surprised to be honest. You don't get many 'club men' these days, money is everything. The whole Premier League is full of mercenary players, middle-men chancers and foreign owners who don't give a monkeys ultimately.

RMCF · 10-03-2010, 10:48 PM

I can't understand the logic of sacking a guy on £15,000 per year when you keep a tube on £40,000 per week.

Shows that football has lost touch with the man in the street.

Might send out a message if they also sacked a handful of players too. But then I heard a spokesman say today that they couldn't take action against any playing staff as they are protected by the PFA or something. Typical. Closed shop and look after your own.

dazza74 · 11-03-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMCF

I can't understand the logic of sacking a guy on £15,000 per year when you keep a tube on £40,000 per week.

Shows that football has lost touch with the man in the street.

Might send out a message if they also sacked a handful of players too. But then I heard a spokesman say today that they couldn't take action against any playing staff as they are protected by the PFA or something. Typical. Closed shop and look after your own.

There's no logic sadly

If I was in charge I'd simply say to the players a certain percentage of money every week is coming out of your wages until the end of the season to keep these people in jobs. If you don't like it, tender your resignation. The clubs already getting relegated so what difference does it make how well they perform on the pitch.

JohnG · 11-03-2010, 8:13 AM

The money that these players have already earned mean they could all miss a whole month's payment and still hardly notice it. But the greedy overpaid spoilt gits won't hear of that.

I strongly believe that no football body should step in to help any club, if they were normal businesses then they'd have to take the consequence of trading so badly over the last few years. I heard that Pompey made a loss out of their FA Cup win because the bonuses they paid were more than the money they made for winning it - utter madness. No player should have to be paid a bonus to win a major trophy

I still think Harry Redknapp may have been partly responsible for this mess, although ultimately it has to be down to the owners.

Basil Plumley · 11-03-2010, 8:38 AM

There's a touch of the Don Revie in Harry Redknapp in my opinion...brilliant manager - no doubt about that...but I read in one players autobiography that the first thing that Revie did when he was England manager was to negotiate the match fees for the players to £1000...most of them were disgusted with it and said that they all donated their England match fees to charity anyway...

FZR400RRSP · 11-03-2010, 9:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMCF

I can't understand the logic of sacking a guy on £15,000 per year when you keep a tube on £40,000 per week.

Chances are the person on £15k a year is an employee, not on contract.
So they can be laid off relatively easily.
A contracted player has to have his contract fulfilled until they're sold, or the contract is settled.
I'm not saying it's morally right, just pointing out why they appear to be keeping a £40k a week player instead of a £15k a year employee.
They have no choice, basically.

dazza74 · 11-03-2010, 9:33 AM

Portsmouth also highlights what a real nonsense this strict transfer window deadline is turning into. Maybe even the sale of one additional player could have protected these jobs at least until the end of the season. I agree with "FZR" they've essentially got rid of the staff they can easily get of the payroll with little if any legal implications. I don't personally believe Harry was responsible myself to any get degree if at all, it wasn't his responsibility at the club to pay the inland revenue for starters. If anything recently he's helped the club out buying players like Defoe for more money than he originally signed them for when at Portsmouth.

FZR400RRSP · 11-03-2010, 9:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazza74

If anything recently he's helped the club out buying players like Defoe for more money than he originally signed them for when at Portsmouth.

And Kaboul.
They didn't get him in a 'fire sale' either.
Allegedly, Spurs paid £9.5million for him, with Portsmouth actually only receiving £6.5million of it because they were still due Spurs fees from the previous deal!

JohnG · 11-03-2010, 9:47 AM

Of course it might just be proving that Harry is going to do the same to Spurs as well

I wonder if he contributed to Southampton going into administration as well?

FZR400RRSP · 11-03-2010, 9:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnG

Of course it might just be proving that Harry is going to do the same to Spurs as well

Have you seen the profits Spurs recently posted?

JohnG · 11-03-2010, 9:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FZR400RRSP

Have you seen the profits Spurs recently posted?

No mate, I'm just playing the

here a bit

JohnG · 11-03-2010, 10:05 AM

Or it could be that the "Harry Effect" has not yet kicked in at Spurs

dazza74 · 11-03-2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnG

Of course it might just be proving that Harry is going to do the same to Spurs as well

I can't see that happening myself, very wealthy club Spurs I think Joe Lewis who owns about 85% of the shares is worth around £1.5BN, he was worth about £3BN but took a massive hit on Bear Stearns a couple of years back. Sensibly run as well spurs with player wage cap of around £70k a week.

JohnG · 11-03-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazza74

Sensibly run as well spurs with player wage cap of around £70k a week.

I wouldn't call paying someone 70k a week sensible, but that's just football in this country being unrealistic again I think.

Oh for a 70K a week wage packet, I'd work for a month and then retire.

dazza74 · 11-03-2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnG

I wouldn't call paying someone 70k a week sensible, but that's just football in this country being unrealistic again I think.

Oh for a 70K a week wage packet, I'd work for a month and then retire.

I think it creates a good environment at a club having a wage ceiling. You don't get so many of the problems Chelsea and Man City have at the moment with contract negotiations for Joe Cole & SWP.

FZR400RRSP · 11-03-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnG

I wouldn't call paying someone 70k a week sensible, but that's just football in this country being unrealistic again I think.

Why this country?
Have you heard of a team called Bunyodkor?
FYI, they're Uzbekistan champions..

But they have Scolari as the highest paid club manager in the world, at 13million euros a year, and they have Rivaldo on an equally fantastic contract.

So it's all relative.

If Spurs manage to break into the top 4 with the wage structure they have, it will be a fantastic achievement.
Of course, getting to the next level (Champions League and consistent top 4) will probably require them to ditch that wage structure.

FZR400RRSP · 11-03-2010, 10:50 AM

By the way, seeing as we're discussing players giving up a week's wages for better causes/Portsmouth/Redknapp
Spurs players caught up in the Irish party fiasco agreed to donate a weeks's wages each to charity, as a 'fine'.
That was Redknapp's suggestion, and it reportedly raised a million quid.

thelegendofyrag · 11-03-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FZR400RRSP

Why this country?
Have you heard of a team called Bunyodkor?
FYI, they're Uzbekistan champions..

But they have Scolari as the highest paid club manager in the world, at 13million euros a year, and they have Rivaldo on an equally fantastic contract.

So it's all relative.

If Spurs manage to break into the top 4 with the wage structure they have, it will be a fantastic achievement.
Of course, getting to the next level (Champions League and consistent top 4) will probably require them to ditch that wage structure.

But if you did, the extra TV money, prize money, gate reciepts, shirt sales etc. would allow an increase in the cap

FZR400RRSP · 11-03-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelegendofyrag

But if you did, the extra TV money, prize money, gate reciepts, shirt sales etc. would allow an increase in the cap

Of course, but you've got to be careful you don't 'do a Leeds'.

JohnG · 11-03-2010, 12:04 PM

I can see a lot more clubs "doing a Leeds" in the next couple of years.

JohnG · 11-03-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FZR400RRSP

Why this country?

Because 56% of the total debt in European football is in the Premier League. And the worrying thing for the financial experts is that the level of debt in the premier league is not far off the assets value. In other countries the debt is a lot lower than the assets.

FZR400RRSP · 11-03-2010, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnG

I can see a lot more clubs "doing a Leeds" in the next couple of years.

Depends.
If you mean clubs 'merely' getting into financial difficulties, then yes.
But I would class 'doing a Leeds' as being a high-flying team, doing well in the EPL and competing in the CL.
The only team I can forsee having problems of this magnitude again is Liverpool.
If they fail to make the CL this year, it could be the start of a slippery slope for them, a la Leeds.
I can't see any others (Man U/Chelsea/Arsenal/Tottenham/Man City) emulating Leeds.

**Steven** · 11-03-2010, 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnG

Because 56% of the total debt in European football is in the Premier League. And the worrying thing for the financial experts is that the level of debt in the premier league is not far off the assets value. In other countries the debt is a lot lower than the assets.

I was taught a while ago businesses should not fund long term growth with short term money

Unfortunately when the Premier League is in the unique position of guaranteed income; i.e. the TV money, clubs have found it irresistible to chase the rainbow

Dony · 11-03-2010, 2:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

I was taught a while ago businesses should not fund long term growth with short term money

Unfortunately when the Premier League is in the unique position of guaranteed income; i.e. the TV money, clubs have found it irresistible to chase the rainbow

This is why football clubs operate a different model compared to any other conventional business. They aren't concerned with the long term....instant success is what's expected.