[overkill]

Good news for those of you feeling the pinch from interest rate rises and spiralling house costs, footballers in the prem are set to earn one billion in wages next year, and one piece of fil...., sorry agent, says that wages of over £200,000 a week are 'totally justified'. This is of course at the same time as it's revealed that wages in Italy, the next highest earners, have in fact fallen over the last five seasons, and that no other leauges top flight earnings comes to more than just over half of what UK footballers earn!

Supply and demand? I think not. Is the Spanish leauge inferior to ours? Please say yes, I need a good laugh. Yet, they're not earning anywhere near as much as our, fat, lazy, useless, etc, etc. Gates are falling, the national team is useless, we see far too much rubbish football in the top flight now, yet we are supposed to be convinced that these 'top' footballers are worth more in a week than a heart specialist will earn in a year.

I just cannot see how these wages are justified. Someone explain to me, strictly economically speaking, how someone selling an inferior product to someone else can keep paying their workers (Huh! Thats a laugh. ) more? A LOT more.

TV money, that could be better spent on reducing season ticket prices, is set to end up in the pockets of players already grossly overpaid.

Ask me again? Why do we put up with it?

[metropolis]

Originally Posted by overkill

Is the Spanish leauge inferior to ours? Please say yes, I need a good laugh.

yes

[KevD]

Its the fans paying these wages, and while gates are falling, at the minute they are not falling enough to affect the clubs. However, over the next few years, I can see attendances dropping down significantly.
I really think that a salary cap is needed now, not only would this stop these wages going up and up but also could create a slightly more competitive league. Would be difficult to implement, all the major nations would have to do it, but it is used and works in most others major sports.

Ask me again? Why do we put up with it?

I dont, cant afford to anymore. Spent 15 years going to nearly every Spurs home game, but just cant afford it now

[johnscarlet]

My career ends at 35 . I've just been offered a job by another company doubling my salary and giving me a bonus for joining them . Am I going to take it ? Yes I am , why not ?








They are really not doing anything anybody else wouldn't . Its just the amounts are different . If it was not been payed to the players , whose pocket would it be going in ? It wouldn't be staying in ours , thats for sure

[overkill]

Originally Posted by johnscarlet

My career ends at 35 . I've just been offered a job by another company doubling my salary and giving me a bonus for joining them . Am I going to take it ? Yes I am , why not ?








They are really not doing anything anybody else wouldn't . Its just the amounts are different . If it was not been payed to the players , whose pocket would it be going in ? It wouldn't be staying in ours , thats for sure

So, if you know the people you are working for, which in this case is the fans, can no longer afford the already massively high wages you are being paid, you would still demand more? Only someone looking to end up on the dole does that.

As KevD says, the way it's going, that's exactly what's going to happen.

I would also like to point out, unlike footballers, we aren't all mind numbingly greedy.

Sorry, but demanding even higher wages when you are already earning more than a normal, balanced human being would earn in two years, in a week, is just plain unadulterated greed.

And no, going on the fact that other leauges players don't earn as much, and that they aren't all falling over themselves to play in England, your premise isn't correct. They are not doing what 'anyone else' would.

[KevD]

Originally Posted by johnscarlet

My career ends at 35 . I've just been offered a job by another company doubling my salary and giving me a bonus for joining them . Am I going to take it ? Yes I am , why not ?

They are really not doing anything anybody else wouldn't . Its just the amounts are different . If it was not been payed to the players , whose pocket would it be going in ? It wouldn't be staying in ours , thats for sure

Not really the same. If that company were raising the cost of their good/service just to employ you it might be, but this doesnt happen in many other areas.

I dont blame the players, the money is offered they will take. I also think the idea a footballers career is over when they stop playing, this is possibly the case in the lower leagues but not the Prem. There are always jobs in the backroom staff and coaching, at the club in media capacity, if they think they are too big a star to anything else, then that shows the problem.

You dont think prices may be lower if so many stars were not on excessive salaries??

[overkill]

Originally Posted by KevD

Not really the same. If that company were raising the cost of their good/service just to employ you it might be, but this doesnt happen in many other areas.

I dont blame the players, the money is offered they will take. I also think the idea a footballers career is over when they stop playing, this is possibly the case in the lower leagues but not the Prem. There are always jobs in the backroom staff and coaching, at the club in media capacity, if they think they are too big a star to anything else, then that shows the problem.

You dont think prices may be lower if so many stars were not on excessive salaries??

I do. It's funny, we all berated the unions (we still do) in just about every other area of life if they demand more money for the workforce they represent, and moan that it will cause inflation, then a load of greedy layabouts posing as footballers demand wages that would bust the inflation barrier into a million pieces, and we all say 'well they aren't doing anything anyone else wouldn't'. Blimey, talk about double standards............

Agreed Kev, that old 'we only have a short career' chestnut is a thing from an age that died in the 80's with the 'job for life'. No-one has a job for life now, so why should footballers feel any different? When a footballer even in the lower divisions is earning some ludicrous amount of money a year, the whole notion of footballers needing 'to earn as much as they can in a short time' is a sick joke. Add to that, that unlike the 'days of yore' footballers are given a full education and training programme in case they don't make it, and it becomes even more laughable when they whine about having no 'career alternatives'. Well, I've got news for them - welcome to the real World!

Again Kev, spot on. If wages weren't so ludicrous, gate prices would fall. When players are earning more than the club can pay unless TV bails them out, there is no way that they can afford to cut prices without taking some hurt.

[KevD]

The only reason I say I dont blame the players is, beacuase in their situation I would probably do the same! But then its easy for the players to hide behind agents doing the work, but they are grown men and know whats going on.

Not long ago I was reading about Dennis Irwin and how when his contracts were up he would just go to meeting with the Manager and Chairman and just agree the deal themselves, no agent.

[MedMick]

Originally Posted by overkill

Gates are falling, the national team is useless

Gates are not falling, Average gates went up last year (2 reasons for that i know, but they still went up). National team is useless, correct, but they have been for years. Businesses for years have headhunted staff by paying them more than their last company, why should football be any different? I put up with pants football at Arsenal for years because of wage caps. As far as im concerned, good luck to the players, lifes too short to be jealous of someone elses earning potential. If Arsenal dont cough up the dough for Thierry Henry, then someone else will(as long as he doesnt meet Kenyon in a london hotel behind Arsenal's back!)

[Sonic67]

I don't like it but it's a unique sort of job. If 30,000 people (or more) were prepared to pay £30 (or more) to watch me do my job I'd want a lot of money too.

[BrianC]

I'm not convinced that the fan who actually attends matches makes that much of a financial contribution any more. Clubs seem to be more dependant on TV money and extra sponsership that TV coverage brings. If the arm chair fan starts voting with his wallet and the TV people start pulling funding then we'll see a major crash.

[domtheone]

Yep.

If there were no more TV money, i'd like to see what would hapen then.

Certainly cause a shake up.

[BrianC]

Oh and another thing, wage caps will never work as there are just too many ways round them and too much incentive to curcumvent them. Plus the prem rewards cheaters, so why bother sticking to the rules if all you'll get is a fine? Caps on the number of players within a team would be far easier to implement, anmd would result in a glut of players on the market driving down average prices.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by BrianC

I'm not convinced that the fan who actually attends matches makes that much of a financial contribution any more. Clubs seem to be more dependant on TV money and extra sponsership that TV coverage brings.

Mr Murdoch contributes much more to the club's coffers than the turnstiles so ultimately the wages are paid for by Sky subscribers.

What I find annoying is that I have to pay for Sky Sports as the Test Matches are now only available on Sky and 90% of my subscription will be diverted into the footballer's bulging bank account despite the fact that I only ever watch a couple of games a year as whilst our favourite Australian also funds cricket, his contributions probably amounts to John Terry's annual wages.

[TopMeTom]

The whole money situation is out of control, part of the reason I gave up going to football a few years ago.
Time you've paid for ticket, couple of beers, program,burger, you was looking at around a nifty for 90 minutes!!That's a whole month of sky!
Plus the players are overpaid ponc## who are out of touch with reality..
Madness....

[la gran siete]

The idea that a wtrking life ends at 35 is laughable absurd. I f only the rest of us could do that I wouldnt have wanted to anyway.Players can train to do something else. In the old days they ran pubs or took up coaching.

Fans really ought to start voting with their feet ie boycott their clubs until they bring ticket prices down to Juventus levels ie 14 quid or so. I'd also like to see a situation where Sky / virgin customers only pay for what they watch. I pay for Sky sports , I only watch rugby and tennis and yet i know the vast part of my subs goes to football players . This is clearly wrong. I would cancel it altogether by my MIL likes the tennis so i am stuck with it.And ,err ,no the Tv licence is different.
I personally feel we are reaching saturation point with the amount available. Never a day goes by when some muppet or rather starts blathering away about some player or other Please take him to the yawn factory. Maybe the media needs regulating . Only allow the same amount of coverage as for Rugby for eg.

as for market forces then let me state the market is not a wild horse ,it can be tetherd, controlled and regulated. The amount paid by Sky should be filtered down the leagues so as to support the small clubs that are struggling. Wage caps? YES without a doubt. Transgressors should have points deducted. That will make them think twice

OOOhh I'd be a bastard if I was sports minister, A Pol Pot without the barbarity

[city fan]

I don't think you can blame the players. It's all supply and demand after all. The Bosman ruling was obviously the thing that made it for the players.

With the difference between the Premier league and the Championship so huge in terms of cash, is it any wonder that the price of player goes up, clubs are willing to spend larger sums on perhaps and average player if it thinks it will avoid relegation. (in terms of offering him wages.)

You cannot blame the Premier League for negotiating such a good deal from Sky and Setanta. With that deal done it was a given that players wages would rocket. You cannot regulate to stop this. As said before clubs would find a million ways round it.

The only things that will reduce the players wages is a reduction in money from Sky, but whilst we all suscribe to Sky sports and they have the monopoly (Setanta excepted, however I believe they will flop, can't see many paying an extra £15 month on top of extortiante Sky subs) things won't change.

For me the damage has been done. If a game is on Sky and especially HD I've made the decision last year to not go to Eastlands and watch it on Sky. The atmosphere is now crap, it's an expensive do, and it's usually freezing. I can just see in future, all corporate fans in grounds, no atmosphere and the majority of real fans watching in pubs or at home all being priced out by the clubs having to pay the player wages!

[overkill]

Originally Posted by MedMick

Gates are not falling, Average gates went up last year (2 reasons for that i know, but they still went up). National team is useless, correct, but they have been for years. Businesses for years have headhunted staff by paying them more than their last company, why should football be any different? I put up with pants football at Arsenal for years because of wage caps. As far as im concerned, good luck to the players, lifes too short to be jealous of someone elses earning potential. If Arsenal dont cough up the dough for Thierry Henry, then someone else will(as long as he doesnt meet Kenyon in a london hotel behind Arsenal's back!)

No, gates are falling. A breakdown recently showed that Utd and Arsenals gate are up because of stadium changes which dramatically boost the overall figure, but elsewhere gates are down. And yes, those two clubs average attendances do distort the whole picture.

The National team has not been 'useless for years'. It reached the S/F of the EC as recently as 96' the S/F of the WC in 1990. Even in 2002 we went to the WC with high hopes. Only to be dashed again.........

Companies only pay wages they can afford, not wages they, and their customers can't. The situation is therefore totally incomparable. As Ian says, without Sky money these disgusting wages would collapse as the clubs are living, thanks to the players greed, way beyond their means. Does no-one pay any attention to whats happening elsewhere in the Leauge?

It seems to me that only when a big club joins one of the little clubs in serious financial problems that a receiver won't help with, that they will understand just how bad things have become. Primarily due to inflated wage claims.

Arsenal played 'pants' football because they had crap managers. Graham kept the wage cap, and produced a winning team that for six years played great football. The wage cap had nothing to with poor football. I cannot understand this reasoning? Clubs all across the premiership are producing absolute rubbish week in week out, so how has having no wage cap helped on that score? Arsenal themselves have produced some real tosh in the last two seasons, so that completely destroys that argument......... Wage caps can be got around?! Well duh! But that doesn't stop them being an effective tool if used properly. It seems to me fans put up all sorts of arguments against it to protect their own interests, not because it 'won't work'.

By that logic then Henry should not be thinking of going abroad rather to another English club. Because if he does, he will have to take a wage cut. Not everyone is totally obsessed with money.

I agree life is too short, but does that excuse players squeezing their fans to the bone as clubs try to compensate for the revenue flow in their direction by raising gate prices and fleecing the fans with overpriced merchandise?

No, it doesn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

@city fan. On the last issue, it has nothing to do with supply and demand. The TV companies are in a monopoly situation which allows them to go spend mental - even if the product doesn't warrant it. Monopolies totally distort supply and demand as there effectively is no market.

[Nebby]

What's the problem?

The report into football finance was prepared by Deloitte, and it believes that the situation is sustainable. Specifically it reports that the wages to turnover ratio of 62% is stable as TV money continues to rise.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by overkill

The National team has not been 'useless for years'. It reached the S/F of the EC as recently as 96' the S/F of the WC in 1990. Even in 2002 we went to the WC with high hopes. Only to be dashed again.........

Semi finals of the World Cup was two years before the Premiership started if I remember right. Since then we've never done better than quarter finals. Maybe there's something in that. We go into every World Cup with high hopes usually down to Sven, the media and players talking up chances.

[MedMick]

Apologies to Man city fans, but Im going to pinch your Alan Ball song RIP.

Overkill is a football genius.

Why say one word when a couple of hundred will do. Arsenal playing "tosh" football over the last couple of years, I dont think so. You clearly do not appreciate what Arsene is trying to acheive. Everyone who goes to Arsenal with me agrees, finishing is the problem not "tosh" football. I love watching our beautiful game, why have you got to be so pessimistic about everything football? You dont watch penalty shoot outs, your mortgage rising is down to premiership players. Didnt you listen to your financial advisor when he said that interest rates go up aswell as down? Or were you being greedy when you perhaps mortgaged yourself to the hilt. You havent blamed Merchant Bankers yet. Or are you a Merchant banker, i think I already know the answer to that.....

Lets be more positive about football in this country, we have got more world cup stars playing in our league than anywhere else. Enjoy our Prem league while it lasts, it might not be the best league in the world, but I love it.

[city fan]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Semi finals of the World Cup was two years before the Premiership started if I remember right. Since then we've never done better than quarter finals. Maybe there's something in that. We go into every World Cup with high hopes usually down to Sven, the media and players talking up chances.

There is a great article in the Times today, with Graham Taylor basically saying this. He says England are only good enough to reach a qtr final. There is something definately in that, and if fans expectations were lower, and therefore less pressure,who knows we may even do better.

Me for one have given up all hope of doing well in a tournement. Come on Engalnd prove me wrong!

And to medmick, I agree Arsenal played some of the best football last season, no other team actually made me say wow that was brilliant, with their passing and one touch stuff. Fabregas's vision is fantastic, in fact he reminds me of Ali Bernabia (remember him at City) with his vison and touch. Not quite as good yet, but gettting there

[Steven]

Musings:

The extraordinary TV income for the Premiership from season 2007/08 has been widely published

On the one hand players have a right to maximise their income in a comparatively short career

On the other hand, greed is in human nature it seems

As one random example, to sign for life at a club you "love" apparently costs you to the tune of £100,000+ per week in order to show your mutual feeling!

[BrianC]

Originally Posted by overkill

Wage caps can be got around?! Well duh! But that doesn't stop them being an effective tool if used properly. It seems to me fans put up all sorts of arguments against it to protect their own interests, not because it 'won't work'.

@city fan. On the last issue, it has nothing to do with supply and demand. The TV companies are in a monopoly situation which allows them to go spend mental - even if the product doesn't warrant it. Monopolies totally distort supply and demand as there effectively is no market.

Wage caps only worked at Arsenal for one reason and one reason only, they where put in by the club for the benefit of the club. I'm also not convinced that certain key members of the Arsenal squad didn't have "special payments" over that period to keep them in the squad.

Using your example say Arsenal got into financial trouble and the Prem League stepped in and introduced wage caps of the back of it, would any of the other cash rich clubs benefit from a wage cap, especially the Aston Villas, Newcastle, West Ham that rely on inflated wages to attract super stars (the Owens, Henrys of this world)? I think not. This with the financial reward for getting/staying in Europe and you will have clubs cheating, not may be cheating.

Couple the motive to cheat with the completely incompetent or corrupt (depending on how you want to look at them) League associations who seem to have no ability to really punish clubs when they are caught cheating, why bother sticking to the rules when nobody else will and if you get caught the reward far out weighs the fine?

Even making a massive assumption that the league will monitor the situation with appropriate punishments how on earth would they audit the money that flows to players, their agents, family and other hangers on before clubs start to make it even more complicated ? Magical football pixies? The league can't even audit match attendance properly let alone perform complex fraud accounting on 600+ players and their support networks.

As for your statement that I don't like wage caps because it doesn't suit my club thats just plain laughable. We might have cash now but it doesn't mean I think we should be signing anybody who would distort our current good wage ceiling. When we signed Carew there was unrest within the team because other senior players (wrongly) believed that Carew had come in on £38K per week and this was far in excess of what the other senior members of the team were on. Now tell me that a sudden tripling of my clubs wage bill to an average of £80K or even £100K would benefit us on the pitch, if anything a wage cap (set at say £40K) would benefit my club, I just think its totally unworkable. On a par with saying we should nationalise the league and implement limits on the number of overseas players.

I don't understand your last paragraph, I have to be reading it wrong as I can't grasp (my fault) what you mean? I personally thought that the reason for massive hikes in TV revenue was down to Setanta entering the bidding and forcing up the price coupled with more matches being shown. Two (four if you consider BBC and ITV) TV competing companies would make it a duopoly not a monopoly, and a monopoly would result in lower TV money as they would be the only outlet.

[Steven]

This brought a smile to my face

[overkill]

Originally Posted by BrianC

Wage caps only worked at Arsenal for one reason and one reason only, they where put in by the club for the benefit of the club. I'm also not convinced that certain key members of the Arsenal squad didn't have "special payments" over that period to keep them in the squad.

Using your example say Arsenal got into financial trouble and the Prem League stepped in and introduced wage caps of the back of it, would any of the other cash rich clubs benefit from a wage cap, especially the Aston Villas, Newcastle, West Ham that rely on inflated wages to attract super stars (the Owens, Henrys of this world)? I think not. This with the financial reward for getting/staying in Europe and you will have clubs cheating, not may be cheating.

Couple the motive to cheat with the completely incompetent or corrupt (depending on how you want to look at them) League associations who seem to have no ability to really punish clubs when they are caught cheating, why bother sticking to the rules when nobody else will and if you get caught the reward far out weighs the fine?

Even making a massive assumption that the league will monitor the situation with appropriate punishments how on earth would they audit the money that flows to players, their agents, family and other hangers on before clubs start to make it even more complicated ? Magical football pixies? The league can't even audit match attendance properly let alone perform complex fraud accounting on 600+ players and their support networks.

As for your statement that I don't like wage caps because it doesn't suit my club thats just plain laughable. We might have cash now but it doesn't mean I think we should be signing anybody who would distort our current good wage ceiling. When we signed Carew there was unrest within the team because other senior players (wrongly) believed that Carew had come in on £38K per week and this was far in excess of what the other senior members of the team were on. Now tell me that a sudden tripling of my clubs wage bill to an average of £80K or even £100K would benefit us on the pitch, if anything a wage cap (set at say £40K) would benefit my club, I just think its totally unworkable. On a par with saying we should nationalise the league and implement limits on the number of overseas players.

I don't understand your last paragraph, I have to be reading it wrong as I can't grasp (my fault) what you mean? I personally thought that the reason for massive hikes in TV revenue was down to Setanta entering the bidding and forcing up the price coupled with more matches being shown. Two (four if you consider BBC and ITV) TV competing companies would make it a duopoly not a monopoly, and a monopoly would result in lower TV money as they would be the only outlet.

Nothing in that massive missive says anything that in any way refutes what I've said. Sorry Brian it just doesn't. I respect your views, but there is always a 'if it's the best for Villa', then it's fine with me.

We know that during the days of the maximum wage there was 'under the table payments', but we also know these were hardly likely to stop players from moving club to club should they so wish. Using the Arsenal example is also frankly laughable, as the players at the time commented that the restrictions on wages was one reason they felt that Arsenal had to build a team based around youth - as they couldn't attract big names. Is this a bad thing? Oh yes of course it is...........

Surprise, we deny it than there it is............... When we had the minimum wage all clubs had equal ability to pay players at the same level, not some more than others, and that was clearly reflected as soon as the wage cap was ended, and surprise, the money, players and cash flowed into ever decreasing hands. If the big clubs had been paying, as they still had even then a cash advantage, bigger under the table payments, they would have seen the stars gravitate towards them before it was ended. They didn't. The ironic thing is that the main reason for scrapping the maximum wage was to stop players going abroad. Yet it failed even to do that.......

On the next point easy, stop agents from getting involved, which, according to the ideas floated at UEFA, would go hand in hand with an wage cap. The leauge is perfectly capable of auditing the match attendances. They choose not to as all benefit if they don't. If an organisation cannot keep tabs on all it's workforces salary then they need to give it up. Being sarcastic doesn't alter the fact that UEFA concluded in a report a few years back that an across board cap was workable, that it could be monitored if third parties were removed from the equation, and that if wages continue to spiral they will become unworkable. Literally. But hey, what would they know eh?!

On the last part, everyone regards Setantas bid as a 'red herring', their survival in this game as (extremely) short term, and as having little effect on Sky. At all. Again this is well documented.

Oh and Medmick, I said they played some real tosh over the last few seasons. Did you enjoy the rubbish served up against Pompey, both games, Villa home and away, PSV home and away? No, neither did I. I may love the club but I don't watch them through rose tinted glasses with little cannons on them. I still love what Arsene is trying to do, and the way he's trying to do it. Ie by not spending barrowloads of dough and paying monster wages! As for the stuff about the prem, oh brother..............

Boy you are a funny guy, a 'Merchant banker' eh. Pathetic. Really pathetic.

Again, these are just my views, and it worries me that people are so hostile towards any criticism of the way things are going. We went this way once before, daft wages, clubs thinking the party would go on forever, and then within a decade the party was over - with a bang.

All I'm saying is that this cannot go on forever either. Sorry if thats seen as heretical. Not.

[Steven]

Its unfortunate we do not take youth development seriously in this country

? - that's for the idea of a draft, not the virtues of the British academy system

[BrianC]

Originally Posted by overkill

Nothing in that massive missive says anything that in any way refutes what I've said. Sorry Brian it just doesn't. I respect your views, but there is always a 'if it's the best for Villa', then it's fine with me.

Massive missive? Don't look at your own posts eh? Sorry to be blunt but "best for villa?", utter tosh, see my response above. I'll recap it here again - a wage cap if such a thing was workable would actually benefit Villa as we are a low paying (by top ten prem standards) club. A wage cap would only hurt those who are already paying high wages, need to pay high wages to get even average players to go and can afford to keep paying high wages. Newcastle, Chelsea three years ago and more recently West Ham are the more obvious ones that spring to mind. Suddenly increasing our wages bill would have an adverse affect on the club, Lerner is small fry compared to the Russian and can't afford to bank roll the club until we become self sufficient in the same manor as the Russian.

Originally Posted by overkill

We know that during the days of the maximum wage there was 'under the table payments', but we also know these were hardly likely to stop players from moving club to club should they so wish. Using the Arsenal example is also frankly laughable, as the players at the time commented that the restrictions on wages was one reason they felt that Arsenal had to build a team based around youth - as they couldn't attract big names. Is this a bad thing? Oh yes of course it is...........

All you have done is agree that "under the table payments" happened, making a mockery of wage caps. I'm not and have not disagreed that wage caps are a good idea in a perfect world, but then communism always looked pretty good on paper to me as long as you didn't look at what happens when it actually gets implemented.

Originally Posted by overkill

Surprise, we deny it than there it is............... When we had the minimum wage all clubs had equal ability to pay players at the same level, not some more than others, and that was clearly reflected as soon as the wage cap was ended, and surprise, the money, players and cash flowed into ever decreasing hands. If the big clubs had been paying, as they still had even then a cash advantage, bigger under the table payments, they would have seen the stars gravitate towards them before it was ended. They didn't. The ironic thing is that the main reason for scrapping the maximum wage was to stop players going abroad. Yet it failed even to do that.......

You are talking about two different wage caps here and different things apply to each of them as they affected clubs differently. The first you referred to was a self imposed one by Arsenal. Now you refer to the previous £20 limit was across the board that was in a different era again. As somebody who wasn't around when that £20 limit was in place all of what I have read suggests that the majority of big clubs creamed in the profit while the players made normal everyday money. Not really fair when then a career did end in your thirties. Now its gone too far the other way - but you might as well start your own red cell and try and get Lenin out of storage now if you believe that clubs would just hand back the cash to the fan if wage caps ever did get successfully implemented. The only way to get cash back to the fan is through a big crash.

The top paying league for players has varied, the EPL is at the top at the moment, but it hasn't always and won't always be either.

Originally Posted by overkill

On the next point easy, stop agents from getting involved, which, according to the ideas floated at UEFA, would go hand in hand with an wage cap. The leauge is perfectly capable of auditing the match attendances. They choose not to as all benefit if they don't. If an organisation cannot keep tabs on all it's workforces salary then they need to give it up. Being sarcastic doesn't alter the fact that UEFA concluded in a report a few years back that an across board cap was workable, that it could be monitored if third parties were removed from the equation, and that if wages continue to spiral they will become unworkable. Literally. But hey, what would they know eh?!

Getting rid of agents? Lovely idea but even more unworkable than wage caps, blue sky thinking at its best. Would need a major crash and a total clean out of Cashleys to work, not something I'd have though UEFA would welcome. Still, not many agents about when your "under the table payments" happened? Doesn't give me much confidence that cheating still won't happen.

I'll give you an example that UEFA wouldn't be able to audit even if they paid the players wages directly (the only way they could keep tabs on players without auditing them through out the year) - sponsorship. Nike sponsor Rooney and Man U, say £10K a week for Rooney and £100K a week for Man U. Man U suddenly get hit with the wages cap and have to reduce Rooney's wages from £125k to £80K, why not reduce their sponsorship money by £45K a week and get Nike to pay it all to Rooney instead? A bit simplistic I'll admit but its still a valid basic outline for the scam. UEFA would still have to audit the clubs and the players incomings and outgoings in detail. The clubs have even more to gain than agents do by cheating the system.

Originally Posted by overkill

On the last part, everyone regards Setantas bid as a 'red herring', their survival in this game as (extremely) short term, and as having little effect on Sky. At all. Again this is well documented.

As I said, I didn't understand your monopoly comment (which you've still not explained) as its Setanta that pushed up TV money and thus wages again. If it was just Sky bidding, why didn't the price drop? Clubs need Sky more than Sky needs them.

[Spacecat]

you pay your money you make your choice

if u dont wanna pay then dont, when more people feel that way then prices will fall until then find other means.

I dont subscribe to SKy or setanta yet i can watch ANY match I want via other means.

I dont know why people are so obsessed with footballers wages , what about those city trading idiots who get millions of pounds bonuses, or Managing directors of companies who RUIN the companies they are in charge of and then get multimillion pound payoffs. etc etc

At least with football i can make a choice of whether i want to buy into it or not , unlike our Beloved government who spend BILLIONS of our TAXES on worthless consultants/MATES who royally **** up every thing they touch . Such as the NHS IT system that is going to end up costing £12 BILLION!!!!! and still doesnt work!!

Why doesnt anyone complain about that YOU have no choice YOUR money is being spent

[RMCF]

Money is the reason that football is becoming poorer, and will ultimately be the death of it.

Average players are having silly sums thrown at them cos teams are desperate to try to achieve any success, and are prepared to take stupid risks.

Sky TV revolutionised football in England, but it too will be a factor in its end. Because of the astronomical sums Sky are pumping into football, the real fan is being priced out of the game. And this can't happen cos the real fan is needed in the bad times.

Do you think all the suits and corporate hangers-on will be there in the bad times on those cold winter nights? Someone posted that stadiums will be filled with corporate fans. This is untrue cos these people have no real love for the teams/game. I have been at many games and seen too many on TV where there are loads of empty seats where tickets were given out to customers/buyers etc and the people just couldn't be arsed to turn up to the game cos they really don't care about it.

And despite what some are saying, yes professional footballers are greedy beyond belief. I realise that some will say I'd do the same in their position, but the modern footballer at any sort of level is now sorted for life, yet they continue to want more.

Fed up listening to people like John Terry telling me how much he loves Chelsea, yet he won't sign a new contract unless he gets £120,000 per week. How is that love for your club? Holding them to ransom.

We also have Beckham at Madrid, now harping on about how he will miss the big European nights in the CL. Well why the hell did you agree to go to the MLS!!! Anything to do with them offering you £250,000 per week??

Becks is reportedly worth £60million at least. He was earning £100k per week at Madrid. So try to convince me that it simply wasn't greed that took him to the US. He has his money made and won't be able to spend what he has in the bank, but he still wanted more. He was prepared to 'retire' to a crap league just to get more money.

I like Becks as a person but I really hope he never gets those 100 England caps that he covets so much - it will teach him there are some things you can't buy. If he had stayed in Spain or even returned to England he would get them no problem and be remembered as one of Englands greats.