Should we have a wage cap?

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Without a doubt. Can someone who thinks we shouldn't have a wage cap explain?

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

Money isn't shared fairly though. It makes it impossible for a club to build from the bottom and realisticly challenge in the Premier League. The only team that has done is Wigan and they are fighting relegation every year. Unless another billionaire comes out and buys a smaller club then it is always going to be the same top 6 clubs.

How is money not fairly shared?

League 2 do not get the same amount of tv money as PL sides.

For some reason relegated PL clubs get parachute payments.

Just 2 examples.

Why should League 2 teams get the same amount of tv money? Firstly they are on TV less and secondly when they are on TV they generate lower ratings than Premier League sides so why would they be entitled to the same payment?

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

Money isn't shared fairly though. It makes it impossible for a club to build from the bottom and realisticly challenge in the Premier League. The only team that has done is Wigan and they are fighting relegation every year. Unless another billionaire comes out and buys a smaller club then it is always going to be the same top 6 clubs.

How is money not fairly shared?

League 2 do not get the same amount of tv money as PL sides.

For some reason relegated PL clubs get parachute payments.

Just 2 examples.

Why should League 2 teams get the same amount of tv money? Firstly they are on TV less and secondly when they are on TV they generate lower ratings than Premier League sides so why would they be entitled to the same payment?

I think James meant some of the payment, not an equal amount.

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Without a doubt. Can someone who thinks we shouldn't have a wage cap explain?

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

Money isn't shared fairly though. It makes it impossible for a club to build from the bottom and realisticly challenge in the Premier League. The only team that has done is Wigan and they are fighting relegation every year. Unless another billionaire comes out and buys a smaller club then it is always going to be the same top 6 clubs.

How is money not fairly shared?

League 2 do not get the same amount of tv money as PL sides.

For some reason relegated PL clubs get parachute payments.

Just 2 examples.

Why should League 2 teams get the same amount of tv money? Firstly they are on TV less and secondly when they are on TV they generate lower ratings than Premier League sides so why would they be entitled to the same payment?

To make everything even.

A certain tv company should be allowed to show 46 games per season. All 92 league teams should be shown and tv money given equally. All these tv companies should bid and highest wins. So if a USA based tv company wins it and don't show it in England, then tough luck.

(polskaGOLA) wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Money isn't shared fairly though. It makes it impossible for a club to build from the bottom and realisticly challenge in the Premier League. The only team that has done is Wigan and they are fighting relegation every year. Unless another billionaire comes out and buys a smaller club then it is always going to be the same top 6 clubs.

How is money not fairly shared?

League 2 do not get the same amount of tv money as PL sides.

For some reason relegated PL clubs get parachute payments.

Just 2 examples.

Why should League 2 teams get the same amount of tv money? Firstly they are on TV less and secondly when they are on TV they generate lower ratings than Premier League sides so why would they be entitled to the same payment?

I think James meant some of the payment, not an equal amount.

Nope, I meant equal amount, read my post before this.

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James ♠ wrote:

Money isn't shared fairly though. It makes it impossible for a club to build from the bottom and realisticly challenge in the Premier League. The only team that has done is Wigan and they are fighting relegation every year. Unless another billionaire comes out and buys a smaller club then it is always going to be the same top 6 clubs.

How is money not fairly shared?

League 2 do not get the same amount of tv money as PL sides.

For some reason relegated PL clubs get parachute payments.

Just 2 examples.

Why should League 2 teams get the same amount of tv money? Firstly they are on TV less and secondly when they are on TV they generate lower ratings than Premier League sides so why would they be entitled to the same payment?

To make everything even.

A certain tv company should be allowed to show 46 games per season. All 92 league teams should be shown and tv money given equally. All these tv companies should bid and highest wins. So if a USA based tv company wins it and don't show it in England, then tough luck.

Again though, why should teams be paid the same amount of money?

1 earns the TV company less than the other, they should be paid depending on what level of income they generate.

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

How is money not fairly shared?

League 2 do not get the same amount of tv money as PL sides.

For some reason relegated PL clubs get parachute payments.

Just 2 examples.

Why should League 2 teams get the same amount of tv money? Firstly they are on TV less and secondly when they are on TV they generate lower ratings than Premier League sides so why would they be entitled to the same payment?

To make everything even.

A certain tv company should be allowed to show 46 games per season. All 92 league teams should be shown and tv money given equally. All these tv companies should bid and highest wins. So if a USA based tv company wins it and don't show it in England, then tough luck.

Again though, why should teams be paid the same amount of money?

1 earns the TV company less than the other, they should be paid depending on what level of income they generate.

To make it equal for all league clubs.

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Without a doubt. Can someone who thinks we shouldn't have a wage cap explain?

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

League 2 do not get the same amount of tv money as PL sides.

For some reason relegated PL clubs get parachute payments.

Just 2 examples.

Why should League 2 teams get the same amount of tv money? Firstly they are on TV less and secondly when they are on TV they generate lower ratings than Premier League sides so why would they be entitled to the same payment?

To make everything even.

A certain tv company should be allowed to show 46 games per season. All 92 league teams should be shown and tv money given equally. All these tv companies should bid and highest wins. So if a USA based tv company wins it and don't show it in England, then tough luck.

Again though, why should teams be paid the same amount of money?

1 earns the TV company less than the other, they should be paid depending on what level of income they generate.

To make it equal for all league clubs.

Why should all league clubs be equal? The teams who have earn more do so because they have earned it through either winning trophies or achieving a large fanbase.

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

Why should League 2 teams get the same amount of tv money? Firstly they are on TV less and secondly when they are on TV they generate lower ratings than Premier League sides so why would they be entitled to the same payment?

To make everything even.

A certain tv company should be allowed to show 46 games per season. All 92 league teams should be shown and tv money given equally. All these tv companies should bid and highest wins. So if a USA based tv company wins it and don't show it in England, then tough luck.

Again though, why should teams be paid the same amount of money?

1 earns the TV company less than the other, they should be paid depending on what level of income they generate.

To make it equal for all league clubs.

Why should all league clubs be equal? The teams who have earn more do so because they have earned it through either winning trophies or achieving a large fanbase.

Football clubs should be run without outside influences. Meaning attendances and merchandise sale only and as you said winning trophies.

But if people want games on tv still then the money should be given equally so it doesn't impact the game as much.

Football is a business James, people don't want to admit it but it essentially is, and in business you pay for what something is worth. Premiership clubs are worth more to TV companies, so they should recieve more.

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Without a doubt. Can someone who thinks we shouldn't have a wage cap explain?

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Money is very fairly shared.

Let's look at Torres. Chelsea bought him for 50m, Liverpool bought Carroll for 35m, and soon enough Newcastle will spend some if not all of that 35m, then another club will spend the money it gets from selling a player, and so on, and so forth.

Money trickles it's way down throughout the game from the big clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man United etc. too smaller clubs like Aston Villa, Newcastle, Valencia etc. as they are buying from clubs, who then buys replacements, almost an endless process. Smaller clubs get a smaller share of the money because their players aren't valued as highly, but if they got 1 of the 50 million pounds paid for Torres, they have benefited from one club buying a player.

Not a wage cap but they should lower wages .

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Without a doubt. Can someone who thinks we shouldn't have a wage cap explain?

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Yes. It's economics, don't let feelings get in the way of that.

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

To make everything even.

A certain tv company should be allowed to show 46 games per season. All 92 league teams should be shown and tv money given equally. All these tv companies should bid and highest wins. So if a USA based tv company wins it and don't show it in England, then tough luck.

Again though, why should teams be paid the same amount of money?

1 earns the TV company less than the other, they should be paid depending on what level of income they generate.

To make it equal for all league clubs.

Why should all league clubs be equal? The teams who have earn more do so because they have earned it through either winning trophies or achieving a large fanbase.

Football clubs should be run without outside influences. Meaning attendances and merchandise sale only and as you said winning trophies.

But if people want games on tv still then the money should be given equally so it doesn't impact the game as much.

That's impossible, people will always want to watch a better standard of football, so more people will pay more to see it, so they will get more money because they will be more in demand.

No, only because it wouldn't work in the first place! Too many logistical problems, premier league chiefs would never sign off on it, foreign countries with lax spending rules would gobble up everyone, would probably be good for british players though

Fine Shagger wrote:Football is a business James, people don't want to admit it but it essentially is, and in business you pay for what something is worth. Premiership clubs are worth more to TV companies, so they should recieve more.

Football should be a hobby. Whether you support it, play for it or run it.

The fact a certain club brings in more money for a tv company or not is irrelevant. This is about our sport being made more fair.

Zzonked wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:

Again though, why should teams be paid the same amount of money?

1 earns the TV company less than the other, they should be paid depending on what level of income they generate.

To make it equal for all league clubs.

Why should all league clubs be equal? The teams who have earn more do so because they have earned it through either winning trophies or achieving a large fanbase.

Football clubs should be run without outside influences. Meaning attendances and merchandise sale only and as you said winning trophies.

But if people want games on tv still then the money should be given equally so it doesn't impact the game as much.

That's impossible, people will always want to watch a better standard of football, so more people will pay more to see it, so they will get more money because they will be more in demand.

Well they just have to sell it to subscription company only and not a pay per view company.

Santa Cruz wrote:Not a wage cap but they should lower wages .

Which is almost impossible because football is it's own economy. If the inflation never got out of hand then we wouldn't be bothered at all.

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Without a doubt. Can someone who thinks we shouldn't have a wage cap explain?

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Tens of thousands of people aren't going to turn out to watch them do their job. So yes, definitely.

The soldier thing is such a ridiculously bad argument, it makes no sense. Jobs don't pay by how hard they are.

James ♠ wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:Football is a business James, people don't want to admit it but it essentially is, and in business you pay for what something is worth. Premiership clubs are worth more to TV companies, so they should recieve more.

Football should be a hobby. Whether you support it, play for it or run it.

The fact a certain club brings in more money for a tv company or not is irrelevant. This is about our sport being made more fair.

Ideally yes, but in practice it's too late for that.

It's just supply and demand now. If League 2 sides started to earn the same TV revenue as Premiership sides the Premiership sides would rightfully say fuck that, stop being included in a collective deal and sell the rights to their matches individually.

luke. wrote:Money is very fairly shared.

Let's look at Torres. Chelsea bought him for 50m, Liverpool bought Carroll for 35m, and soon enough Newcastle will spend some if not all of that 35m, then another club will spend the money it gets from selling a player, and so on, and so forth.

Money trickles it's way down throughout the game from the big clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man United etc. too smaller clubs like Aston Villa, Newcastle, Valencia etc. as they are buying from clubs, who then buys replacements, almost an endless process. Smaller clubs get a smaller share of the money because their players aren't valued as highly, but if they got 1 of the 50 million pounds paid for Torres, they have benefited from one club buying a player.

Not every team has an Andy Carrol or Torres though, revenue sharing is the ultimate way of making sure cash is spread out, ie. someone buys a man utd shirt and wigan gets a cut off it, sounds super leftist, but works in the US.

Fine Shagger wrote:

James wrote:

Fine Shagger wrote:Football is a business James, people don't want to admit it but it essentially is, and in business you pay for what something is worth. Premiership clubs are worth more to TV companies, so they should recieve more.

Football should be a hobby. Whether you support it, play for it or run it.

The fact a certain club brings in more money for a tv company or not is irrelevant. This is about our sport being made more fair.

Ideally yes, but in practice it's too late for that.

It's just supply and demand now. If League 2 sides started to earn the same TV revenue as Premiership sides the Premiership sides would rightfully say fuck that, stop being included in a collective deal and sell the rights to their matches individually.

Well if the FA had some bottle, they would say go and make your own league then.

Think about it, not many clubs are going to leave. Infact, it will be the top 6-10 teams that leave, the rest will stay in a fair English system. These 6-10 clubs will either make a crap league between themselves or will make a league with other overseas teams which will kill the regular fan of them clubs.

They will soon be calling back here when that happens.

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Without a doubt. Can someone who thinks we shouldn't have a wage cap explain?

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Football clubs a run with loads of money, people all over the world pay loads of money to enjoy the sport, the footballers themselves are going to get paid alot of money because of this. Besides, how many doctors and soldiers are their in the world? Loads. Not all of them can be put them on footballers wages can they?

dena wrote:

luke. wrote:Money is very fairly shared.

Let's look at Torres. Chelsea bought him for 50m, Liverpool bought Carroll for 35m, and soon enough Newcastle will spend some if not all of that 35m, then another club will spend the money it gets from selling a player, and so on, and so forth.

Money trickles it's way down throughout the game from the big clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man United etc. too smaller clubs like Aston Villa, Newcastle, Valencia etc. as they are buying from clubs, who then buys replacements, almost an endless process. Smaller clubs get a smaller share of the money because their players aren't valued as highly, but if they got 1 of the 50 million pounds paid for Torres, they have benefited from one club buying a player.

Not every team has an Andy Carrol or Torres though, revenue sharing is the ultimate way of making sure cash is spread out, ie. someone buys a man utd shirt and wigan gets a cut off it, sounds super leftist, but works in the US.

I wasn't really going off player calibre, just using a recent example, Newcastle will spend that money on another player, then the club that is selling said player will buy a replacement.

The lower down the scale the lower the calibre of player I suppose.

Also, I don't like that idea.. means I would be paying Liverpool If I bought a Torres shirt

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

Moving the goalposts when the game's started.

The game makes so much money from TV, why shouldn't the players get a proportionate reward?

But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Tens of thousands of people aren't going to turn out to watch them do their job. So yes, definitely.

The soldier thing is such a ridiculously bad argument, it makes no sense. Jobs don't pay by how hard they are.

But surely fighting and risking your life to try and keep the peace deserves more money than kicking a ball? I know football is a business and entertainment and we pay lots of money just like we do with our computers and consoles but the money made is stupid. Sky killed football. Only internationals should ever be televised seeing as all the country support the same team. Club football is something for actual fans who earn money at work and pay the club to watch the match. But instead you get people watching the games for free on the internet when everyone else pays for it with hard earned cash.

luke. wrote:

dena wrote:

luke. wrote:Money is very fairly shared.

Let's look at Torres. Chelsea bought him for 50m, Liverpool bought Carroll for 35m, and soon enough Newcastle will spend some if not all of that 35m, then another club will spend the money it gets from selling a player, and so on, and so forth.

Money trickles it's way down throughout the game from the big clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man United etc. too smaller clubs like Aston Villa, Newcastle, Valencia etc. as they are buying from clubs, who then buys replacements, almost an endless process. Smaller clubs get a smaller share of the money because their players aren't valued as highly, but if they got 1 of the 50 million pounds paid for Torres, they have benefited from one club buying a player.

Not every team has an Andy Carrol or Torres though, revenue sharing is the ultimate way of making sure cash is spread out, ie. someone buys a man utd shirt and wigan gets a cut off it, sounds super leftist, but works in the US.

I wasn't really going off player calibre, just using a recent example, Newcastle will spend that money on another player, then the club that is selling said player will buy a replacement.

The lower down the scale the lower the calibre of player I suppose.

Also, I don't like that idea.. means I would be paying Liverpool If I bought a Torres shirt

Fans hate it, I do too, but its usually like 1%, each club gets 1% and the club who's merchandise was bought, chelsea in this case gets 81%, referring to carrol and torres I meant not everyone had that type of player they can sell for revenue

dena wrote:

luke. wrote:

dena wrote:

luke. wrote:Money is very fairly shared.

Let's look at Torres. Chelsea bought him for 50m, Liverpool bought Carroll for 35m, and soon enough Newcastle will spend some if not all of that 35m, then another club will spend the money it gets from selling a player, and so on, and so forth.

Money trickles it's way down throughout the game from the big clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man United etc. too smaller clubs like Aston Villa, Newcastle, Valencia etc. as they are buying from clubs, who then buys replacements, almost an endless process. Smaller clubs get a smaller share of the money because their players aren't valued as highly, but if they got 1 of the 50 million pounds paid for Torres, they have benefited from one club buying a player.

Not every team has an Andy Carrol or Torres though, revenue sharing is the ultimate way of making sure cash is spread out, ie. someone buys a man utd shirt and wigan gets a cut off it, sounds super leftist, but works in the US.

I wasn't really going off player calibre, just using a recent example, Newcastle will spend that money on another player, then the club that is selling said player will buy a replacement.

The lower down the scale the lower the calibre of player I suppose.

Also, I don't like that idea.. means I would be paying Liverpool If I bought a Torres shirt

Fans hate it, I do too, but its usually like 1%, each club gets 1% and the club who's merchandise was bought, chelsea in this case gets 81%, referring to carrol and torres I meant not everyone had that type of player they can sell for revenue

I suppose it's fair, but fans will obviously hate it because they're paying money to another club. Kind of a sacrifice, maybe not the right word.

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:
But why should they earn what some people earn in a lifetime in only a matter of weeks/months.

I might as well pull an Ali Dia stunt and injure myself before I can play any games...

Because they have a talent which can generate large amounts of money. Clubs will always get loads of money from shirt sales and TV. Isn't so isn't it only fair that the players get paid a good share of this money?

Oh so being able to kick a ball about and do fancy things with it is worth a better salary than people who save lifes, fight for their country or keep order in the community?

Tens of thousands of people aren't going to turn out to watch them do their job. So yes, definitely.

The soldier thing is such a ridiculously bad argument, it makes no sense. Jobs don't pay by how hard they are.

But surely fighting and risking your life to try and keep the peace deserves more money than kicking a ball? I know football is a business and entertainment and we pay lots of money just like we do with our computers and consoles but the money made is stupid. Sky killed football. Only internationals should ever be televised seeing as all the country support the same team. Club football is something for actual fans who earn money at work and pay the club to watch the match. But instead you get people watching the games for free on the internet when everyone else pays for it with hard earned cash.

It's not really stupid, it's logical. Equilibrium wage of footballers is higher than that of soldiers because they earn more for their employers.