Vent: Wayne Rooney

wary

Skinto_7 wrote: »

Its all about opinions as they say!! In mines, i just cant believe any England fan would think they are better off without Rooney.

Even when he's clearly not firing on all 4 cylinders?

Skinto_7

wary wrote: »

Even when he's clearly not firing on all 4 cylinders?

Id take a Rooney firing on one cylinder ahead of an Andy Carroll or Wellbeck firing on all 4.

Along with Stevie G and Joe Hart, he is the only world class player you have, and for me world class players playing at 75% of their ability are still an easy pick ahead of decent players playing at full tilt.

vyle

Dqvvx wrote: »

Footballers are overpaid.

There should be a cap on earnings of £100,000 per match.

As somebody who loathes football so much that I've essentially ignored all news until this euro thingy is over (had no idea england played last night) I disagree.

The reason being the simple economics of football. The money isn't coming out of the public purse, it's paid for by sponsorships, merchandise sales, etc.

The fans have turned football into such a money spinner that clubs need top players, and if everyone's pay was limited, would anybody be motivated to change sides? Everyone in football would be at the top of their pay scale, and there would be no financial reason to trade talent. It'd cause stagnation.

Now, if you really don't want them to be paid so much, the only way is to take the money out of football, which involves a worldwide boycott on watching it, going to games, buying merchandise...anything that generates the clubs money so they have to tighten their budgets. Will that ever happen? Of course not.

wary

I haven’t thought through the practicalities or the economics of having a global cap of players’ wages, so we’ll talk in terms of a general principle.

With respect to your claim that it would cause stagnation in the transfer market, players do change clubs for reasons other than a pay increase. Sometimes it is to increase their chances of success; sometimes it is forced upon them. But why would a less volatile transfer market and more stable squads necessarily be bad for football? It may help to bridge the gap between rich & poor clubs as the former are less able to poach the star players from the latter with the temptation of higher wages.

I don’t see why legislation that caps player wages would involve having to take money out of football although if these meant a decrease in ticket prices, maybe it wouldn’t be a bad thing. One would hope that the same level of sponsorships etc would still come in, but the clubs would use the money they save on the reduced wage bill to balance their books rather than living beyond their means.

antrobus

wary wrote: »

I haven’t thought through the practicalities or the economics of having a global cap of players’ wages, so we’ll talk in terms of a general principle....

They have a salary cap in the NFL. Different sport, I know, but it seems to work.

Plus the UEFA 'financial fair play' rules may well have much the same effect.

prowla

Before, the club directors used to pocket the money; now the players who do the performance get well paid.

It's just people power, same as with musicians, film stars, and so-on.

wary

prowla wrote: »

Before, the club directors used to pocket the money; now the players who do the performance get well paid.

It's just people power, same as with musicians, film stars, and so-on.

Indeed, and good luck to them. They’re out to get what they can, just like everyone else, and if the money is there then it should go primarily to them.

It’s just that when you look at the number of clubs that go into administration or are at least significantly in debt, I’m not convinced that the money is genuinely there in all cases. Rather, clubs end up living beyond their means in order to compete.

Maybe what is required is legislation aimed at clubs rather than at players.

System

The salary cap works in the NFL as there is nowhere else for them to go, therefore its applied across the board to every team. A player can't go to another NFL league to earn more money as there is no other proper league out there. In addition they still get huge wages.

A salary cap would only work if every football federation adopted it and that would never happen. I realise some players do play for the love of the game but for many players its all about money. I don't see them playing for £10k a week in the UK when they can get £200K a week somewhere else.

In addition I don't think a salary cap is fair. The recent TV deal shows that there is massive money in football. At the end of the day football is about the talent of the players on show so if anyone should be making money out of the sport it should be the players.

In an ideal world it would go back to the fans but everyone knows in reality that if a salary cap was put in place it would only benefit the owners of the clubs.

I don't believe the financial fair play will work either as all the big clubs e.g. Barcelona, Real Madrid etc are massive loss making machines. I think its very unlikely that UEFA would allow a champions league to happen without the big teams and best players in it. Therefore I suspect that in practice there will be very little difference.

System

wary wrote: »

Indeed, and good luck to them. They’re out to get what they can, just like everyone else, and if the money is there then it should go primarily to them.

It’s just that when you look at the number of clubs that go into administration or are at least significantly in debt, I’m not convinced that the money is genuinely there in all cases. Rather, clubs end up living beyond their means in order to compete.

Maybe what is required is legislation aimed at clubs rather than at players.

I agree with this. Legislation should be aimed at clubs to stop them going into administration. Financial Fair Play is aimed at protecting the big clubs and making sure they are the biggest. City got taken over and has turned us into a major power and that has frightened the established big teams. They are deliberately trying to stop this happening again.

Personally I think this is unfair as for instance if I was Bill Gates and was a Barnsley fan I wouldn't be able to do what City have done and turn Barnsley into a major footballing power. As long as the owners can financially support the teams then they should be allowed to do that. Its clubs like Portsmouth that need watching where the club spends money it can't afford.

wary

It annoys me that clubs can rack up big debts and then largely write them off and carry on mostly as before. I don’t think the 10-point penalty is anything like a sufficient deterrent, and I wouldn’t be too sorry if any club that enters administration is expelled from the league ... if they want to carry on then they can start at or near the bottom as if they’re a new entrant. That might make clubs seriously consider whether it is worth the risk of spending money they don’t have in order to achieve an artificial level of success.