It does seem greedy and selfish on the face of it, but footballers still have bills to pay. These bills tend to reflect the amount of money they earn. They are already probably losing money from extras that aren't being paid.
It has also been highlighted the loss in taxes if you take 20% or more off them.
Many are also making donations off their own back.
Doing something just because it is what looks right to the majority isn't always the best thing.
And, in reality, all players are stealing a living.
Would be nice if as a result of this, the TV and sponsorship money was reviewed and clubs were forced to renegotiate, same with players wages, but the football bubble has survived financial crises before so I’m sure it will again, sadly
I would definitely do the same at my job if my massively wealthy boss suggested a pay cut. Especially if I had enough leverage to have a say in the matter.
Let's not pretend here.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 minutes ago
It does seem greedy and selfish on the face of it, but footballers still have bills to pay. These bills tend to reflect the amount of money they earn. They are already probably losing money from extras that aren't being paid.
It has also been highlighted the loss in taxes if you take 20% or more off them.
Many are also making donations off their own back.
Doing something just because it is what looks right to the majority isn't always the best thing.
And, in reality, all players are stealing a living.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im sorry, I disagree. I can't believe for one second with the money they earn, they would require 100% of their wages to meet their financial and domestic household bills. It's not as if they are just getting by, due to their expensive and luxury lifestyle. They have more than enough in savings and in wage to survive, much like the.rest.of us in the pandemic. Why shouldn't they feel some financial stress like the rest of the world. Pathetic!
You would think that after all their expenses are paid out, they would have a hefty & eye watering amount left over.
Thats the point here, they will have more than enough left over after a 30% pay cut to get by, during the time being.
Forget that, like everyone else, they have bills to pay. If anyone who says they would do the same if.in the their postion, that's just ridiculous, greedy and you need a bit of reality beat into you!
I find it impossible that they are living week.to week, relying on their next wage coming in, because they have bills 🤨
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
The only beneficiaries of players cutting their salaries are the clubs, most of whom are owned by billionaires.
Would much rather footballers donate where they want to. There are plenty of individual examples who have and I imagine plenty do anonymously.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 21 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you expect the billionaire owners to take the blunt due to their wealth but cannot expect players to take the blunt too?
Stop.comparing players wealth to owners wealth.
They both earn stupid money and pplayers should be taking the blunt just like the onwer should too.
Where did I mention owners wealth?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 seconds ago
Where did I mention owners wealth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where will these players be getting their full wage from?
Thin air?
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line?
£200k p.w? 100k? 5k? 500?
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 seconds ago
Where did I mention owners wealth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where will these players be getting their full wage from?
Thin air?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their employers.
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line?
£200k p.w? 100k? 5k? 500?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think common sense should be applied.
If there are obvious reasons why those in extremly high paid positions in the club, i.e managers and players should take a pay cut to lessen the financial stress, then they should.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 seconds ago
Where did I mention owners wealth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where will these players be getting their full wage from?
Thin air?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their employers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their employer would be the owner 😒
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line?
£200k p.w? 100k? 5k? 500?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think common sense should be applied.
If there are obvious reasons why those in extremly high paid positions in the club, i.e managers and players should take a pay cut to lessen the financial stress, then they should.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are picking and choosing which players have to give up part of their wages?
Presumably the ones who pay most back in taxes.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line?
£200k p.w? 100k? 5k? 500?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think common sense should be applied.
If there are obvious reasons why those in extremly high paid positions in the club, i.e managers and players should take a pay cut to lessen the financial stress, then they should.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are picking and choosing which players have to give up part of their wages?
Presumably the ones who pay most back in taxes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, an equal percentage across the board.
You would think players would be living within their budget in their owm normal lives, so an equal cut to their wages so it would have the same/equal affect on their lifestyles.
It's like someone earning £500 a week and someone earning £1000 a week.
Both would have different lifestyles ans expenses, living within their own different means.
You apply a 30% cut to both people and it has an equal affect to their lifestyles.
So a player on £500 a week with a £1000 a month mortgage, repayments on a relatively expensive car, plus all the other bills should lose £600 a month just because some others in his field earn £350k a month?
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
So a player on £500 a week with a £1000 a month mortgage, repayments on a relatively expensive car, plus all the other bills should lose £600 a month just because some others in his field earn £350k a month?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must not have made my point clear, or you're just not understanding.
1. Since when was 30% of £1000, £600?
2. Again if you read my point, someone earning £500 a week would not be living the same lifestyle as someone on £1000. I.e expensive cars, houses.
3. If someone on a.much lesser wage was living the same lifestyle and someone.on a much higher wage, then they are an idiot.
4. Persons bills are reflective of their income. Not everyone has and are living the same.lifestyles. Like i said, their wage reflects their lifestyle and bills.
1 - who said it was?
2 - Who said they were?
3 - Maybe, but they could afford it on their wages.
4 - Yet you want to treat everyone the same and cut wages of the lowest paid by the same percent as those on the highest wage?
2 - Oh, and if they could afford it why not? When I was 18, 19 I would spend my whole weekly wage no problem. However, when I got to about 22 and earnt more I started spending half my wage and saving half. So my lifestyle was the same but my wages were greater.
must not have made my point clear, or you're just not understanding.
1. Since when was 30% of £1000, £600?
++¥¥
Since when was 30% of £2000 not £600?
What about pop stars, golfers, company directors, tennis players, F1 stars etc. that earn more than your average footballer?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 44 seconds ago
2 - Oh, and if they could afford it why not? When I was 18, 19 I would spend my whole weekly wage no problem. However, when I got to about 22 and earnt more I started spending half my wage and saving half. So my lifestyle was the same but my wages were greater.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we can obviously tell that you believe the players should feel no effect at all and be paid their wage in full, as tthisis not their fault and why should they.
So.do you also agree that any players contract expiring in June, should also be allowed to leave in June, as this is not their fault too, and why shouldn't they?
I do think players whose contracts end in June should be allowed to leave, yes.
Sign in if you want to comment
Greedy, self-centred & arrogant players
Page 1 of 6
6
posted on 7/4/20
It does seem greedy and selfish on the face of it, but footballers still have bills to pay. These bills tend to reflect the amount of money they earn. They are already probably losing money from extras that aren't being paid.
It has also been highlighted the loss in taxes if you take 20% or more off them.
Many are also making donations off their own back.
Doing something just because it is what looks right to the majority isn't always the best thing.
And, in reality, all players are stealing a living.
posted on 7/4/20
Would be nice if as a result of this, the TV and sponsorship money was reviewed and clubs were forced to renegotiate, same with players wages, but the football bubble has survived financial crises before so I’m sure it will again, sadly
posted on 7/4/20
I would definitely do the same at my job if my massively wealthy boss suggested a pay cut. Especially if I had enough leverage to have a say in the matter.
Let's not pretend here.
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 minutes ago
It does seem greedy and selfish on the face of it, but footballers still have bills to pay. These bills tend to reflect the amount of money they earn. They are already probably losing money from extras that aren't being paid.
It has also been highlighted the loss in taxes if you take 20% or more off them.
Many are also making donations off their own back.
Doing something just because it is what looks right to the majority isn't always the best thing.
And, in reality, all players are stealing a living.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im sorry, I disagree. I can't believe for one second with the money they earn, they would require 100% of their wages to meet their financial and domestic household bills. It's not as if they are just getting by, due to their expensive and luxury lifestyle. They have more than enough in savings and in wage to survive, much like the.rest.of us in the pandemic. Why shouldn't they feel some financial stress like the rest of the world. Pathetic!
You would think that after all their expenses are paid out, they would have a hefty & eye watering amount left over.
Thats the point here, they will have more than enough left over after a 30% pay cut to get by, during the time being.
Forget that, like everyone else, they have bills to pay. If anyone who says they would do the same if.in the their postion, that's just ridiculous, greedy and you need a bit of reality beat into you!
posted on 7/4/20
I find it impossible that they are living week.to week, relying on their next wage coming in, because they have bills 🤨
posted on 7/4/20
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
posted on 7/4/20
The only beneficiaries of players cutting their salaries are the clubs, most of whom are owned by billionaires.
Would much rather footballers donate where they want to. There are plenty of individual examples who have and I imagine plenty do anonymously.
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 21 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you expect the billionaire owners to take the blunt due to their wealth but cannot expect players to take the blunt too?
Stop.comparing players wealth to owners wealth.
They both earn stupid money and pplayers should be taking the blunt just like the onwer should too.
posted on 7/4/20
Where did I mention owners wealth?
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 seconds ago
Where did I mention owners wealth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where will these players be getting their full wage from?
Thin air?
posted on 7/4/20
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line?
£200k p.w? 100k? 5k? 500?
posted on 7/4/20
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 seconds ago
Where did I mention owners wealth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where will these players be getting their full wage from?
Thin air?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their employers.
posted on 7/4/20
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line?
£200k p.w? 100k? 5k? 500?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think common sense should be applied.
If there are obvious reasons why those in extremly high paid positions in the club, i.e managers and players should take a pay cut to lessen the financial stress, then they should.
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 seconds ago
Where did I mention owners wealth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where will these players be getting their full wage from?
Thin air?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their employers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their employer would be the owner 😒
posted on 7/4/20
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line?
£200k p.w? 100k? 5k? 500?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think common sense should be applied.
If there are obvious reasons why those in extremly high paid positions in the club, i.e managers and players should take a pay cut to lessen the financial stress, then they should.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are picking and choosing which players have to give up part of their wages?
Presumably the ones who pay most back in taxes.
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Afc8919 (U21433)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don't live cheque to cheque, I am not giving up 30% of my wages. Why should I?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in the real world, just like many small businesses, football clubs are feeling the financial burdern, due to obvious reasons.
Altho owners are extremely wealthy, not having the expected money flowing in as what they would, normally, those on extremely wealthy incomes should, atleast be asked to take a cut to help burden the finances.
Your point is also hypocritical.
You obviously expect the club owners to go through a period of financial stress by continuing to pay their players on full wage, but yet you can't ask the players to go through a period of financial stress?
Also, players contracts and wages are reflective on what revenues, sponsorships and other money the club would NORMALLY be earning. Obviously they are not getting these finances during this pandemic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line?
£200k p.w? 100k? 5k? 500?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think common sense should be applied.
If there are obvious reasons why those in extremly high paid positions in the club, i.e managers and players should take a pay cut to lessen the financial stress, then they should.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are picking and choosing which players have to give up part of their wages?
Presumably the ones who pay most back in taxes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, an equal percentage across the board.
You would think players would be living within their budget in their owm normal lives, so an equal cut to their wages so it would have the same/equal affect on their lifestyles.
It's like someone earning £500 a week and someone earning £1000 a week.
Both would have different lifestyles ans expenses, living within their own different means.
You apply a 30% cut to both people and it has an equal affect to their lifestyles.
posted on 7/4/20
So a player on £500 a week with a £1000 a month mortgage, repayments on a relatively expensive car, plus all the other bills should lose £600 a month just because some others in his field earn £350k a month?
posted on 7/4/20
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
So a player on £500 a week with a £1000 a month mortgage, repayments on a relatively expensive car, plus all the other bills should lose £600 a month just because some others in his field earn £350k a month?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must not have made my point clear, or you're just not understanding.
1. Since when was 30% of £1000, £600?
2. Again if you read my point, someone earning £500 a week would not be living the same lifestyle as someone on £1000. I.e expensive cars, houses.
3. If someone on a.much lesser wage was living the same lifestyle and someone.on a much higher wage, then they are an idiot.
4. Persons bills are reflective of their income. Not everyone has and are living the same.lifestyles. Like i said, their wage reflects their lifestyle and bills.
posted on 7/4/20
1 - who said it was?
2 - Who said they were?
3 - Maybe, but they could afford it on their wages.
4 - Yet you want to treat everyone the same and cut wages of the lowest paid by the same percent as those on the highest wage?
posted on 7/4/20
2 - Oh, and if they could afford it why not? When I was 18, 19 I would spend my whole weekly wage no problem. However, when I got to about 22 and earnt more I started spending half my wage and saving half. So my lifestyle was the same but my wages were greater.
posted on 7/4/20
must not have made my point clear, or you're just not understanding.
1. Since when was 30% of £1000, £600?
++¥¥
Since when was 30% of £2000 not £600?
What about pop stars, golfers, company directors, tennis players, F1 stars etc. that earn more than your average footballer?
posted on 7/4/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 44 seconds ago
2 - Oh, and if they could afford it why not? When I was 18, 19 I would spend my whole weekly wage no problem. However, when I got to about 22 and earnt more I started spending half my wage and saving half. So my lifestyle was the same but my wages were greater.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we can obviously tell that you believe the players should feel no effect at all and be paid their wage in full, as tthisis not their fault and why should they.
So.do you also agree that any players contract expiring in June, should also be allowed to leave in June, as this is not their fault too, and why shouldn't they?
posted on 7/4/20
I do think players whose contracts end in June should be allowed to leave, yes.
Page 1 of 6
6