Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Moses can fill in for him anyway and will potentially become even better
Kalou gave us years, he's at peak age and wants to play more than we will let him. His moving on is entirely justified and I wish him the greatest success. I would have kept him if he were happy to sit on our bench, but he wasn't.
"A 3 year deal on £80,000 a week was a fair offer for Kalou."
Football makes me sick sometimes.
It's about 1.5million a year after tax.
Obviously a lot of money, I always think that it sounds like so much more per week though.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Rough estimate Gazza, and it wasn't that far off really.
Also, wouldn't the contract be 'up to' 80k a week including appearances, goals bonuses?
What's 'wrong' with that is that it's a lot of cash for a footballer who was not capable of nailing down a first 11 spot at a top team.
Actually, what's really 'wrong' with it is that it isn't a lot of cash for said footballer.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
@Gazza - I just find the wages footballers receive to be sickening. They don't provide anything to our community other than mild entertainment.
Plumbers, joiners, nurses and people we actually need should be on that wage.
Sure Kalou is a better footballer than anyone on here and has honed his craft over the years, fair play to him, but it isn't a necessary skill and certainly isn't something which warrants that amount of money.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I must agree with you both. While it is quite immoral how much money footballers earn , the reality is as Gazza says: pure capitalism – demand and supply. How else can you justify clubs fighting over convicted murderers and criminals to play for them – again – capitalism, supply and demand.
It is quite interesting selection process as well – if you think about it - maybe about 10- 15% ( if that) people make it to the professional level , out of that - even less – 5 -10% will make it to the top level ( let say prem and perhaps clubs in championship) – then we know ( last year studies) , that about 83-84 % will be bankrupt within 3 years of finishing active careers…….and not much to fall back on.
So – since clubs are willing to pay these exuberant wages , why should footballers not accept it? Not really sure why would footballers have any moral responsibilities to support communities ( and if so which communities are we referring to? as the club they play for? Where they were brought up? )– being footballer does not qualify as morally driven job ( well – in my books at least) unlike clergy , politics and bankers.
Don’t take me wrong – I do agree with you as it will take me about half of my productive years to earn this type of money – but morality and money do not mix in real capitalism.
The best thing about Kalou was that he was always available to play in good condition even though he hardly played a full 90 minutes. So we need another athlete like him, which hopefully Moses can be. He played 37 of Wigans 38 Premier league games last season, so if he can keep that sort of fitness up we will be looking good.
no! i just wish malouda would follow him and decent replacements followed!
TCW I know that but football works on principles of basic economics. It isn't a "problem" of football, it is a "problem" of capitalism.
------------
Football does NOT follow the basic principles of economics! Without huge amounts of money invested constantly, football would go under. It's unsustainable and illogical. The basic principles of economics provide that such an industry would be bankrupt.
Football works on the principles of football. People are willing to throw huge amounts of money at projects which are at their worst vanity projects and at their best the endeavours of the love and labour of their owners.
It is only supply and demand to the extent that there is so much outside investment. If you make a club run only on its income then you don't get such inflated wages.
But that's the way it is and there's nothing for us to do about it. Clubs are realising that ticket prices don't provide enough income and so are targeting other revenue streams - but they're still reacting to the requirements of their assets (the players), not acquiring assets based on their means so a supply analogy doesn't quite fit.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
well you guys contribute to their wages don't you, even at chelsea, at arsenal we certainly do and most clubs in england.
If we all had a massive problem with it, we'd cancel our season tickets and murdoch subscriptions.
He scores as much as Torres.
Some should feel very bad about the treatment they gave him
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Kalou
Page 1 of 1
posted on 7/8/12
He wanted to go
posted on 7/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/8/12
Moses can fill in for him anyway and will potentially become even better
posted on 7/8/12
Yes
posted on 7/8/12
Kalou gave us years, he's at peak age and wants to play more than we will let him. His moving on is entirely justified and I wish him the greatest success. I would have kept him if he were happy to sit on our bench, but he wasn't.
posted on 7/8/12
"A 3 year deal on £80,000 a week was a fair offer for Kalou."
Football makes me sick sometimes.
posted on 7/8/12
It's about 1.5million a year after tax.
Obviously a lot of money, I always think that it sounds like so much more per week though.
posted on 7/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/8/12
Rough estimate Gazza, and it wasn't that far off really.
Also, wouldn't the contract be 'up to' 80k a week including appearances, goals bonuses?
What's 'wrong' with that is that it's a lot of cash for a footballer who was not capable of nailing down a first 11 spot at a top team.
Actually, what's really 'wrong' with it is that it isn't a lot of cash for said footballer.
posted on 7/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/8/12
@Gazza - I just find the wages footballers receive to be sickening. They don't provide anything to our community other than mild entertainment.
Plumbers, joiners, nurses and people we actually need should be on that wage.
Sure Kalou is a better footballer than anyone on here and has honed his craft over the years, fair play to him, but it isn't a necessary skill and certainly isn't something which warrants that amount of money.
posted on 7/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/8/12
I must agree with you both. While it is quite immoral how much money footballers earn , the reality is as Gazza says: pure capitalism – demand and supply. How else can you justify clubs fighting over convicted murderers and criminals to play for them – again – capitalism, supply and demand.
It is quite interesting selection process as well – if you think about it - maybe about 10- 15% ( if that) people make it to the professional level , out of that - even less – 5 -10% will make it to the top level ( let say prem and perhaps clubs in championship) – then we know ( last year studies) , that about 83-84 % will be bankrupt within 3 years of finishing active careers…….and not much to fall back on.
So – since clubs are willing to pay these exuberant wages , why should footballers not accept it? Not really sure why would footballers have any moral responsibilities to support communities ( and if so which communities are we referring to? as the club they play for? Where they were brought up? )– being footballer does not qualify as morally driven job ( well – in my books at least) unlike clergy , politics and bankers.
Don’t take me wrong – I do agree with you as it will take me about half of my productive years to earn this type of money – but morality and money do not mix in real capitalism.
posted on 7/8/12
The best thing about Kalou was that he was always available to play in good condition even though he hardly played a full 90 minutes. So we need another athlete like him, which hopefully Moses can be. He played 37 of Wigans 38 Premier league games last season, so if he can keep that sort of fitness up we will be looking good.
posted on 7/8/12
no! i just wish malouda would follow him and decent replacements followed!
posted on 7/8/12
TCW I know that but football works on principles of basic economics. It isn't a "problem" of football, it is a "problem" of capitalism.
------------
Football does NOT follow the basic principles of economics! Without huge amounts of money invested constantly, football would go under. It's unsustainable and illogical. The basic principles of economics provide that such an industry would be bankrupt.
Football works on the principles of football. People are willing to throw huge amounts of money at projects which are at their worst vanity projects and at their best the endeavours of the love and labour of their owners.
It is only supply and demand to the extent that there is so much outside investment. If you make a club run only on its income then you don't get such inflated wages.
But that's the way it is and there's nothing for us to do about it. Clubs are realising that ticket prices don't provide enough income and so are targeting other revenue streams - but they're still reacting to the requirements of their assets (the players), not acquiring assets based on their means so a supply analogy doesn't quite fit.
posted on 7/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/8/12
well you guys contribute to their wages don't you, even at chelsea, at arsenal we certainly do and most clubs in england.
If we all had a massive problem with it, we'd cancel our season tickets and murdoch subscriptions.
posted on 7/8/12
He scores as much as Torres.
Some should feel very bad about the treatment they gave him
Page 1 of 1