• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Ricey

Scott Forbes No.1 Fan⭐
Staff member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
33,887
Location
Braintree
Just read in the papers that Wayne Rooney is about to sign a contract worth £300,000 a week! That is an incredible amount and absolutely ridiculous. At what point are the. FA, FIFA, UEFA or whoever going to say "hmmm, this is actually getting a bit silly now maybe we should limit this".

I know there is a lot of money in football and they can kind of justify spending that because the revenue coming in gives them the ability to shell out heaps of money. It's an increase in the times and things being more expensive a mars bar 15 years ago cost 30p now you'd be lucky to get one for under 65p so you could just say football is going with the times.

How long before a player is earning £1 million a week? 5 maybe 10 years time? That's the worrying thought and you will still here a quiet voice in the corner from FA, FIFA, UEFA etc saying "I think we need a wage cap". Well nows the time to do it before it get really silly.
 

Massimo Giovanni

Old Timer⭐
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
8,559
Location
Siena
It is all screwed at the top and obscene. It is reasons like the wages that I don't and won't go to prem games. If enough people decide to go to Bury, Wigan etc then it will change BUT not in my lifetime.
 

Ricey

Scott Forbes No.1 Fan⭐
Staff member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
33,887
Location
Braintree
It is all screwed at the top and obscene. It is reasons like the wages that I don't and won't go to prem games. If enough people decide to go to Bury, Wigan etc then it will change BUT not in my lifetime.

Problem is we don't get the coverage. Ok with Sky now getting the football league sponsorship means more lower league games on the TV to show good football isn't just played in the prem. But when they could of had our game on the TV but choose to have an all prem tie of Chelsea vs Stoke, that's why people won't go to games like ours because we don't get enough coverage for people to see us and say "I wouldn't mind going to watch Southend play".
 

Massimo Giovanni

Old Timer⭐
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
8,559
Location
Siena
TV money is part of the problem but the coverage of empty stadiums would change things. Do you remember the worries that too much tv football would cut attendances? The losers have been the lower leagues. Like to many things in today's society people want easy, fast, safe entertainment and the big 8/10 teams win most times at home so it is a "glory" that appeals to the masses.
 

OldBlueLady

Junior Blues Coordinator⭐
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
48,077
Location
Benfleet
It's all wrong...the likes of Stanley Matthews, and Matt Busby and the Busby Babes for that matter, must be turning in their graves.:sad:
 

chapperzUK

Guest
Sad part is that £300k isn't the highest. I'm pretty sure Eto'o was on a fair amount (well arguably unfair but you get my point) while in Russia. Monaco will be paying their players a lot too especially with it being a tax haven.

I think that FIFA thought the Financial Fair Play would limit the amount of backing required from external sources (i.e. owner) and stop wages rising.

I've been saying for a while now that wages need to be capped and I'm pretty sure there were a load of others too. Not just a cap on wages but a cap on bonuses too. For example, bonuses for things such as appearances, goals and clean sheets can not be higher than say 30% of a player's basic wage. That is just a top of the head figure, but would stop clubs giving someone the highest wage and then a huge appearance bonus so it appears they aren't on much but playing regularly would massively increase it.

P.S. I'm just glad this wasn't in Shrimpers Chit-Chat section!!
 

Ricey

Scott Forbes No.1 Fan⭐
Staff member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
33,887
Location
Braintree
Sad part is that £300k isn't the highest. I'm pretty sure Eto'o was on a fair amount (well arguably unfair but you get my point) while in Russia. Monaco will be paying their players a lot too especially with it being a tax haven.

I think that FIFA thought the Financial Fair Play would limit the amount of backing required from external sources (i.e. owner) and stop wages rising.

I've been saying for a while now that wages need to be capped and I'm pretty sure there were a load of others too. Not just a cap on wages but a cap on bonuses too. For example, bonuses for things such as appearances, goals and clean sheets can not be higher than say 30% of a player's basic wage. That is just a top of the head figure, but would stop clubs giving someone the highest wage and then a huge appearance bonus so it appears they aren't on much but playing regularly would massively increase it.

P.S. I'm just glad this wasn't in Shrimpers Chit-Chat section!!

You wouldn't be able to find it amongst the 100 million hull threads and threads telling us we are on football focus today.
 

Massimo Giovanni

Old Timer⭐
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
8,559
Location
Siena
Question? If you were an Afghan, Somali, Syrian who saw sat tv and football coverage stating these appalling sums of money while your family suffered misery, disease, hunger etc for a wee fraction of the player money would that not make you hate western standards and ponder on the world order? Capitalism to this extent is morally wrong and should be unacceptable.
 

chapperzUK

Guest
It is morally wrong to earn alot of money?

We are talking about the top few percent in a worldwide sport/business. Take out the top 6 teams (Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Spurs and Man Utd) and I doubt there are many players who will break the £60k mark (i.e. a fifth of what Rooney might earn).

These players weren't given their ability, they had to work hard for it. I was reading an article that said that to produce top players, they will need to put in around 10,000 hours of training and that is before they are old enough to earn a professional contract. People like Ronaldo deserve to earn top dollar, but what is that? Is it right for us to turn around to him and say "well done, you are the best player on the planet and have worked hard every day in training since you were a kid to become this good, but you can only earn this much"? Also, if you got given a 4 year contract at work earning around £10m salary, would you say no?

Also, a fair amount of footballers give money to charity and this is never seen in newspapers as, lets be honest, it wouldn't sell papers.
 

Yorkshire Blue

Super Moderator⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
36,132
Location
London
If you don't like the money they are being paid stop subscribing to Sky, stop subscribing to BT, stop banking with Barclays, stop drinking Carlsberg in preference to other brands (you should probably stop drinking Carlsberg anyway).

The wages are being set by the market that you contribute to. You think they are worth that money because you pay for those subscriptions and products. If people stop paying for those products their wages will drop. Until then it's better that the money people chose to pay goes to the players rather than the chairmen.

And why is it that actors can be paid huge amounts but not footballers? Where is the outrage about Channing Tatum or Hugh Jackman earning earning over $1m a week?
 

Ricey

Scott Forbes No.1 Fan⭐
Staff member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
33,887
Location
Braintree
It is morally wrong to earn alot of money?

We are talking about the top few percent in a worldwide sport/business. Take out the top 6 teams (Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Spurs and Man Utd) and I doubt there are many players who will break the £60k mark (i.e. a fifth of what Rooney might earn).

These players weren't given their ability, they had to work hard for it. I was reading an article that said that to produce top players, they will need to put in around 10,000 hours of training and that is before they are old enough to earn a professional contract. People like Ronaldo deserve to earn top dollar, but what is that? Is it right for us to turn around to him and say "well done, you are the best player on the planet and have worked hard every day in training since you were a kid to become this good, but you can only earn this much"? Also, if you got given a 4 year contract at work earning around £10m salary, would you say no?

Also, a fair amount of footballers give money to charity and this is never seen in newspapers as, lets be honest, it wouldn't sell papers.

That's their managers/advisors that tell them to do that though. Look at the money Huddlestone raised for Cancer research that was all through people sponsoring him. Correct me if I am wrong but he didn't donate any of his wages towards that! I earn **** all but still manage to give money to charity every year. If I earnt that amount of money £300,000 a week at least £100,000 of that a week would go to charity. That £300,000 a week doesn't include his bonuses and sponsor deals.
 

Ricey

Scott Forbes No.1 Fan⭐
Staff member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
33,887
Location
Braintree
If you don't like the money they are being paid stop subscribing to Sky, stop subscribing to BT, stop banking with Barclays, stop drinking Carlsberg in preference to other brands (you should probably stop drinking Carlsberg anyway).

The wages are being set by the market that you contribute to. You think they are worth that money because you pay for those subscriptions and products. If people stop paying for those products their wages will drop. Until then it's better that the money people chose to pay goes to the players rather than the chairmen.

And why is it that actors can be paid huge amounts but not footballers? Where is the outrage about Channing Tatum or Hugh Jackman earning earning over $1m a week?

I don't agree with that either but it's like I said in the original post it's about the revenue created by that. If no one went to see Wolverine then Hugh Jackman wouldn't earn millions to play the role of a superhero.
 

Jam_Man

Life President
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
25,545
Location
Southend
Problem is we don't get the coverage. Ok with Sky now getting the football league sponsorship means more lower league games on the TV to show good football isn't just played in the prem. But when they could of had our game on the TV but choose to have an all prem tie of Chelsea vs Stoke, that's why people won't go to games like ours because we don't get enough coverage for people to see us and say "I wouldn't mind going to watch Southend play".

Full house today, would it have been if it was on the TV?

I don't agree with that either but it's like I said in the original post it's about the revenue created by that. If no one went to see Wolverine then Hugh Jackman wouldn't earn millions to play the role of a superhero.


Man Utd have millions of supporters who want to watch Wayne Rooney., if no one went he wouldnt earn millions either.

People earn big money because there is a demand for it, if they werent worth it they wouldnt get it.

TV money is part of the problem but the coverage of empty stadiums would change things. Do you remember the worries that too much tv football would cut attendances? The losers have been the lower leagues. Like to many things in today's society people want easy, fast, safe entertainment and the big 8/10 teams win most times at home so it is a "glory" that appeals to the masses.

Our crowds are bigger now than they were pre-Sky TV.

In my opinion the Sky TV revolution raised the profile of football as a whole and made people want to go to watch games in the flesh, and some of those chose to watch lower league sides.
 

BrettieAngell

THE ROCK GOD
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
19,642
Location
Southend
Rooney only signed a new contract what 2 years ago (?) after throwing a tantrum and threatening to leave, I don't see what he has done since then to warrant another new contract and even more money.
 

Jam_Man

Life President
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
25,545
Location
Southend
Rooney only signed a new contract what 2 years ago (?) after throwing a tantrum and threatening to leave, I don't see what he has done since then to warrant another new contract and even more money.


Not a lot, he has been poor and Van Persie has shown that he really isnt that good, certainly not £200,000 a year anyway.

I personally dont know why Man Utd want to throw money at him myself, probably because they have very little actual quality in the squad now.
 

Pubey

Guest
I find it pretty hard to get angry about other people's wages - especially those who don't affect me in any way. If Man Utd decide to pay Rooney that much money then that's fine by me.
 

Pubey

Guest
Not a lot, he has been poor and Van Persie has shown that he really isnt that good, certainly not £200,000 a year anyway.

I personally dont know why Man Utd want to throw money at him myself, probably because they have very little actual quality in the squad now.

People say that Rooney was overshadowed last season by RVP, but he started 22 PL games, scoring 12 and setting up 10 goals. Personally I think those statistics are fantastic. A forward with a record of more than 1 goal ever 2 starts, and sets up almost as many goals as he scores is exceptional. United had a pretty poor team but Rooney and RVP managed to secure them a relatively easy PL title.
 

Jam_Man

Life President
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
25,545
Location
Southend
People say that Rooney was overshadowed last season by RVP, but he started 22 PL games, scoring 12 and setting up 10 goals. Personally I think those statistics are fantastic. A forward with a record of more than 1 goal ever 2 starts, and sets up almost as many goals as he scores is exceptional. United had a pretty poor team but Rooney and RVP managed to secure them a relatively easy PL title.

He is of course a good player but he isnt as good as Van Persie, and certainly not worth 200k + in my opinion when compared to other players in that bracket.

He is however one of their biggest names and certainly one of their few players who have any quality.
 

Pubey

Guest
He is of course a good player but he isnt as good as Van Persie, and certainly not worth 200k + in my opinion when compared to other players in that bracket.

He is however one of their biggest names and certainly one of their few players who have any quality.

I agree he's not as good as RVP, however he's 2 years younger and less injury-prone. I can understand why United would want him to be their talisman for the next 3/4 years and make him their highest earner. I could see him becoming club captain too if/when Vidic goes.
 
Top