I think all pay over £100k should be disclosable, not just in football. If markets are to function properly, which is a mantra of the right, I don't see how you can have secret prices. It would be too much bureaucracy below £100k, but footballers are an obvious example of where there us no need for secrecy and the rewards are such as to compensate for loss of privacy. At present the minority six figure salaries are used as a stick to beat the public sector, but the debate lacks context.
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
The Hillsborough Family Support Group are against tthe introduction of Safe Standing as are Liverpool FC.
I've never really understood that stance. Their campaign, as far as I understand it, has always been based on proving the culpability of the police. Surely declaring themselves to be against terracing weakens their position in terms of how much responsibility the police should take for the Hillsborough Disaster.
I think all pay over £100k should be disclosable, not just in football. If markets are to function properly, which is a mantra of the right, I don't see how you can have secret prices. It would be too much bureaucracy below £100k, but footballers are an obvious example of where there us no need for secrecy and the rewards are such as to compensate for loss of privacy. At present the minority six figure salaries are used as a stick to beat the public sector, but the debate lacks context.
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
But, Airman, wasn't it the Labour Govt. that brought into being the Human Rights Act that enshrined the EU Human Rights Convention into UK law? Article 8 provides for an individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. And surely that right to privacy would be a mantra of the left?
Presumably an individual's pay slip will be "correspondence" and so should remain private?
Or is it only "ordinary hard-working families" (to use the two Edwards' favourite condescending platitude) that should be allowed to benefit from such legislation?
In any event, as you'll know, footballers' contracts - particularly at the top end - are (or were last time I saw one) very strange beasts indeed including all sorts of odd payments for flights home (for foreign players), win bonuses, loyalty bonuses, signing on fees, automatic annual increases, cars, houses, etc, etc. So it would be less than straightforward to work out (certainly before the football contract year started) quite what a player was actually earning. And should the disclosure of pay over £100k be before or after the deduction of a footballer's agent's cut?
What would be more relevant is ensuring they pay tax on their earnings. For some reason this seems accepted. But when Jimmy Carr does something it's a national outcry. Can't understand this.
I think all pay over £100k should be disclosable, not just in football. If markets are to function properly, which is a mantra of the right, I don't see how you can have secret prices. It would be too much bureaucracy below £100k, but footballers are an obvious example of where there us no need for secrecy and the rewards are such as to compensate for loss of privacy. At present the minority six figure salaries are used as a stick to beat the public sector, but the debate lacks context.
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
But, Airman, wasn't it the Labour Govt. that brought into being the Human Rights Act that enshrined the EU Human Rights Convention into UK law? Article 8 provides for an individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. And surely that right to privacy would be a mantra of the left?
Presumably an individual's pay slip will be "correspondence" and so should remain private?
Or is it only "ordinary hard-working families" (to use the two Edwards' favourite condescending platitude) that should be allowed to benefit from such legislation?
In any event, as you'll know, footballers' contracts - particularly at the top end - are (or were last time I saw one) very strange beasts indeed including all sorts of odd payments for flights home (for foreign players), win bonuses, loyalty bonuses, signing on fees, automatic annual increases, cars, houses, etc, etc. So it would be less than straightforward to work out (certainly before the football contract year started) quite what a player was actually earning. And should the disclosure of pay over £100k be before or after the deduction of a footballer's agent's cut?
Did you know that in Norway and Sweden (for certain, and probably Denmark and Finland too) everyone's personal tax return is on line for everyone else to freely view? And I am quite sure all these countries are signatories to the HR Convention (I expect Scandinavians wrote it!)
Furthermore, while I am not sure of the exact legal situation, is not the pay of directors of UK plc companies stated in the accounts?
So the principal is hardly an outlandish infringement of human rights.
I certainly agree there are technical problems, as you outline.
But otherwise I agree with Airman.
However the think-tank lost it in my eyes by suggesting that the FA should be subject to the Freedom of Information law. That's ridiculous. Only State bodies, or those with substantial State subsidies for operations, can come under FOI. If they had suggested an effective football regulator, that would have been far more appropriate.
The Hillsborough Family Support Group are against tthe introduction of Safe Standing as are Liverpool FC.
I've never really understood that stance. Their campaign, as far as I understand it, has always been based on proving the culpability of the police. Surely declaring themselves to be against terracing weakens their position in terms of how much responsibility the police should take for the Hillsborough Disaster.
Added to this the number of Liverpool fans that (like a large majority of fans) continue to stand in front of their seats home and away!
I think all pay over £100k should be disclosable, not just in football. If markets are to function properly, which is a mantra of the right, I don't see how you can have secret prices. It would be too much bureaucracy below £100k, but footballers are an obvious example of where there us no need for secrecy and the rewards are such as to compensate for loss of privacy. At present the minority six figure salaries are used as a stick to beat the public sector, but the debate lacks context.
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
But, Airman, wasn't it the Labour Govt. that brought into being the Human Rights Act that enshrined the EU Human Rights Convention into UK law? Article 8 provides for an individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. And surely that right to privacy would be a mantra of the left?
Presumably an individual's pay slip will be "correspondence" and so should remain private?
Or is it only "ordinary hard-working families" (to use the two Edwards' favourite condescending platitude) that should be allowed to benefit from such legislation?
In any event, as you'll know, footballers' contracts - particularly at the top end - are (or were last time I saw one) very strange beasts indeed including all sorts of odd payments for flights home (for foreign players), win bonuses, loyalty bonuses, signing on fees, automatic annual increases, cars, houses, etc, etc. So it would be less than straightforward to work out (certainly before the football contract year started) quite what a player was actually earning. And should the disclosure of pay over £100k be before or after the deduction of a footballer's agent's cut?
The coalition government brought in disclosure of earnings in the public sector over £58k in 2010, so I don't think the Human Rights Act has much to do with anything.
As for the claptrap about "hard-working families", as this link from the right-wing Spectator magazine shows it is principally a Tory mantra, but I agree it's spread beyond them and it's moronic whatever party is using it.
I think all pay over £100k should be disclosable, not just in football. If markets are to function properly, which is a mantra of the right, I don't see how you can have secret prices. It would be too much bureaucracy below £100k, but footballers are an obvious example of where there us no need for secrecy and the rewards are such as to compensate for loss of privacy. At present the minority six figure salaries are used as a stick to beat the public sector, but the debate lacks context.
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
But, Airman, wasn't it the Labour Govt. that brought into being the Human Rights Act that enshrined the EU Human Rights Convention into UK law? Article 8 provides for an individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. And surely that right to privacy would be a mantra of the left?
Presumably an individual's pay slip will be "correspondence" and so should remain private?
Or is it only "ordinary hard-working families" (to use the two Edwards' favourite condescending platitude) that should be allowed to benefit from such legislation?
In any event, as you'll know, footballers' contracts - particularly at the top end - are (or were last time I saw one) very strange beasts indeed including all sorts of odd payments for flights home (for foreign players), win bonuses, loyalty bonuses, signing on fees, automatic annual increases, cars, houses, etc, etc. So it would be less than straightforward to work out (certainly before the football contract year started) quite what a player was actually earning. And should the disclosure of pay over £100k be before or after the deduction of a footballer's agent's cut?
Did you know that in Norway and Sweden (for certain, and probably Denmark and Finland too) everyone's personal tax return is on line for everyone else to freely view? And I am quite sure all these countries are signatories to the HR Convention (I expect Scandinavians wrote it!)
Furthermore, while I am not sure of the exact legal situation, is not the pay of directors of UK plc companies stated in the accounts?
So the principal is hardly an outlandish infringement of human rights.
I certainly agree there are technical problems, as you outline.
But otherwise I agree with Airman.
However the think-tank lost it in my eyes by suggesting that the FA should be subject to the Freedom of Information law. That's ridiculous. Only State bodies, or those with substantial State subsidies for operations, can come under FOI. If they had suggested an effective football regulator, that would have been far more appropriate.
No I didn't.
But the cut-out is: "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and (my emphasis) is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
So a State could probably quite readily impose a law that required full disclosure of tax returns BUT only if it were the same for everyone. But I'd suggest that where it becomes difficult is when a Govt, wants to pick on a particular sector for especial treatment. As for company directors, I think it's only emoluments over £200k and then only using phrases like "highest paid director" rather than naming names.
Personally I'm still of the view that someone's pay package is a matter for them, their employer, HMRC and no one else. (Unless individuals are happy to disclose their own information of course.)
I think all pay over £100k should be disclosable, not just in football. If markets are to function properly, which is a mantra of the right, I don't see how you can have secret prices. It would be too much bureaucracy below £100k, but footballers are an obvious example of where there us no need for secrecy and the rewards are such as to compensate for loss of privacy. At present the minority six figure salaries are used as a stick to beat the public sector, but the debate lacks context.
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
But, Airman, wasn't it the Labour Govt. that brought into being the Human Rights Act that enshrined the EU Human Rights Convention into UK law? Article 8 provides for an individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. And surely that right to privacy would be a mantra of the left?
Presumably an individual's pay slip will be "correspondence" and so should remain private?
Or is it only "ordinary hard-working families" (to use the two Edwards' favourite condescending platitude) that should be allowed to benefit from such legislation?
In any event, as you'll know, footballers' contracts - particularly at the top end - are (or were last time I saw one) very strange beasts indeed including all sorts of odd payments for flights home (for foreign players), win bonuses, loyalty bonuses, signing on fees, automatic annual increases, cars, houses, etc, etc. So it would be less than straightforward to work out (certainly before the football contract year started) quite what a player was actually earning. And should the disclosure of pay over £100k be before or after the deduction of a footballer's agent's cut?
Did you know that in Norway and Sweden (for certain, and probably Denmark and Finland too) everyone's personal tax return is on line for everyone else to freely view? And I am quite sure all these countries are signatories to the HR Convention (I expect Scandinavians wrote it!)
Furthermore, while I am not sure of the exact legal situation, is not the pay of directors of UK plc companies stated in the accounts?
So the principal is hardly an outlandish infringement of human rights.
I certainly agree there are technical problems, as you outline.
But otherwise I agree with Airman.
However the think-tank lost it in my eyes by suggesting that the FA should be subject to the Freedom of Information law. That's ridiculous. Only State bodies, or those with substantial State subsidies for operations, can come under FOI. If they had suggested an effective football regulator, that would have been far more appropriate.
No I didn't.
But the cut-out is: "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and (my emphasis) is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
So a State could probably quite readily impose a law that required full disclosure of tax returns BUT only if it were the same for everyone. But I'd suggest that where it becomes difficult is when a Govt, wants to pick on a particular sector for especial treatment. As for company directors, I think it's only emoluments over £200k and then only using phrases like "highest paid director" rather than naming names.
Personally I'm still of the view that someone's pay package is a matter for them, their employer, HMRC and no one else. (Unless individuals are happy to disclose their own information of course.)
Did you know that in Norway and Sweden (for certain, and probably Denmark and Finland too) everyone's personal tax return is on line for everyone else to freely view? And I am quite sure all these countries are signatories to the HR Convention (I expect Scandinavians wrote it!)
It was drafted by the Council of Europe, chaired and led by Sir David Maxwell-Fyffe, Nuremburg prosecutor (famous for his cross-examination of Goring),Tory MP and later Home Secretary (the one who refused clemency to Derek Bentley).
I got around a bit last Saturday. Before the game, at the trust stall outside the North Stand I must've had a good 10 minute chat with FA Chairman Greg Dyke (yeah, name dropping and all that), and he said he would like to go to see the kinds of seats/standing areas such as exist in Germany, to investigate, but he told me that whilst Hillsborough inquests were still going on he would not be moving in any particular way on this. All this moved on to artificial pitches. Mr Dyke asked me how many artificial pitches were nearby, all I could think to say was up at the Meridian. All of the factors in favour, such as 24 hour use, appealed to Mr Dyke, and we briefly talked of the Saracens Rugby situation, and if football would still be football. Mr Dyke was completely disparaging about the ones that used to be at Luton, Oldham, Preston, QPR (were there others?). As far as the Chairman of the FA seemed to me, he has not closed the door on either safe standing, or artificial surfaces. Just to be cheeky I asked Mr Dyke if he had ever actually read the Laws of Football. He was honest enough to say he hadn't, which I suspect 99.99% of all fans, players, managers, PE Teachers, commentators and pundits also haven't. I smilingly tut tutted, and said well it is the foundation of the whole shebang, maybe everybody involved should be urged to do so. Mr Dyke then generously offered that he had only just realised that refs could award a throw in to the other side if a player stole distance up the touchline.
I think all pay over £100k should be disclosable, not just in football. If markets are to function properly, which is a mantra of the right, I don't see how you can have secret prices. It would be too much bureaucracy below £100k, but footballers are an obvious example of where there us no need for secrecy and the rewards are such as to compensate for loss of privacy. At present the minority six figure salaries are used as a stick to beat the public sector, but the debate lacks context.
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
But, Airman, wasn't it the Labour Govt. that brought into being the Human Rights Act that enshrined the EU Human Rights Convention into UK law? Article 8 provides for an individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. And surely that right to privacy would be a mantra of the left?
Presumably an individual's pay slip will be "correspondence" and so should remain private?
Or is it only "ordinary hard-working families" (to use the two Edwards' favourite condescending platitude) that should be allowed to benefit from such legislation?
In any event, as you'll know, footballers' contracts - particularly at the top end - are (or were last time I saw one) very strange beasts indeed including all sorts of odd payments for flights home (for foreign players), win bonuses, loyalty bonuses, signing on fees, automatic annual increases, cars, houses, etc, etc. So it would be less than straightforward to work out (certainly before the football contract year started) quite what a player was actually earning. And should the disclosure of pay over £100k be before or after the deduction of a footballer's agent's cut?
I tend to agree with this. The whole purpose of publishing public sector salaries over £100k (and the BBC's I believe) was to assure accountability to the public. There's an entirely different form of governance in place in business and in football, notwithstanding the extent of its efficacy - if you've no accountability to the public why should you share your salary with them?
We might be shocked either way at footballers' salaries, but they really aren't any business of ours. The total wage bill at a football club might be if it offers a risk to the club's solvency - and perhaps if the principle of supporter=stakeholder is recognised, formally or informally - but otherwise they are a business as any other in this regard.
I do, however, believe the costs of transfers should be a matter of record at the appropriate governing body. They may already be for all I know, although I doubt accuracy and granularity. Disclosure would be a policy decision for them.
I think all pay over £100k should be disclosable, not just in football. If markets are to function properly, which is a mantra of the right, I don't see how you can have secret prices. It would be too much bureaucracy below £100k, but footballers are an obvious example of where there us no need for secrecy and the rewards are such as to compensate for loss of privacy. At present the minority six figure salaries are used as a stick to beat the public sector, but the debate lacks context.
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
But, Airman, wasn't it the Labour Govt. that brought into being the Human Rights Act that enshrined the EU Human Rights Convention into UK law? Article 8 provides for an individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. And surely that right to privacy would be a mantra of the left?
Presumably an individual's pay slip will be "correspondence" and so should remain private?
Or is it only "ordinary hard-working families" (to use the two Edwards' favourite condescending platitude) that should be allowed to benefit from such legislation?
In any event, as you'll know, footballers' contracts - particularly at the top end - are (or were last time I saw one) very strange beasts indeed including all sorts of odd payments for flights home (for foreign players), win bonuses, loyalty bonuses, signing on fees, automatic annual increases, cars, houses, etc, etc. So it would be less than straightforward to work out (certainly before the football contract year started) quite what a player was actually earning. And should the disclosure of pay over £100k be before or after the deduction of a footballer's agent's cut?
I tend to agree with this. The whole purpose of publishing public sector salaries over £100k (and the BBC's I believe) was to assure accountability to the public. There's an entirely different form of governance in place in business and in football, notwithstanding the extent of its efficacy - if you've no accountability to the public why should you share your salary with them?
We might be shocked either way at footballers' salaries, but they really aren't any business of ours. The total wage bill at a football club might be if it offers a risk to the club's solvency - and perhaps if the principle of supporter=stakeholder is recognised, formally or informally - but otherwise they are a business as any other in this regard.
I do, however, believe the costs of transfers should be a matter of record at the appropriate governing body. They may already be for all I know, although I doubt accuracy and granularity. Disclosure would be a policy decision for them.
Accountability is one way of looking at it; scapegoating is another. I wouldn't defend all public sector pay by any means, but I do despair of people who complain about highly qualified senior officers in position of major responsibility in local authorities being paid (low) six figure sums, and it's rooted in the lack of transparency in the private sector.
Many of those people could command much bigger salaries in business, but because there is no context there is a widespread public view - especially in poorer areas - that nobody in local government should earn more than £50k, despite the fact that the market would not provide the necessary skills at that price.
As for whether footballers' salaries are any business of ours, clubs might find it a whole lot easier to justify their business practices and gain the respect of supporters if fans knew what they have to pay quite ordinary players. For example, there was some shock at the idea of Yann being paid £8k a week - but the context is other players getting £5k for doing nothing at all.
I got around a bit last Saturday. Before the game, at the trust stall outside the North Stand I must've had a good 10 minute chat with FA Chairman Greg Dyke (yeah, name dropping and all that), and he said he would like to go to see the kinds of seats/standing areas such as exist in Germany, to investigate, but he told me that whilst Hillsborough inquests were still going on he would not be moving in any particular way on this. All this moved on to artificial pitches. Mr Dyke asked me how many artificial pitches were nearby, all I could think to say was up at the Meridian. All of the factors in favour, such as 24 hour use, appealed to Mr Dyke, and we briefly talked of the Saracens Rugby situation, and if football would still be football. Mr Dyke was completely disparaging about the ones that used to be at Luton, Oldham, Preston, QPR (were there others?). As far as the Chairman of the FA seemed to me, he has not closed the door on either safe standing, or artificial surfaces. Just to be cheeky I asked Mr Dyke if he had ever actually read the Laws of Football. He was honest enough to say he hadn't, which I suspect 99.99% of all fans, players, managers, PE Teachers, commentators and pundits also haven't. I smilingly tut tutted, and said well it is the foundation of the whole shebang, maybe everybody involved should be urged to do so. Mr Dyke then generously offered that he had only just realised that refs could award a throw in to the other side if a player stole distance up the touchline.
That's what I remember of my conversation.
pic show's Seth( well the back of him) Greg Dyke, and Clive Efford shadow sports minister at thhe trust stall.
I also told him that Longlane FC had 3 3g pitches and that they had not lost a days playing this year, 3 games a day on there pitches all weekend. Probably the only pitches that have been able to do this, as they had had there pitches relaid with the appropriate drainage. Unlike the rest of the Kent league sides who have had to say the least a difficult time of it, since Mid December. Blackheath Rugby club ( old Villacourt have a couple of 3g as well) but it is aleays booked, and with this weather no chance?
Comments
I also think all transfer fees and contingent payments should be published centrally to stop clubs misleading supporters via unattributed briefing.
No chance of any of the above happening, however, as there are too many vested interests in the way. The "free market" is only for other people.
Presumably an individual's pay slip will be "correspondence" and so should remain private?
Or is it only "ordinary hard-working families" (to use the two Edwards' favourite condescending platitude) that should be allowed to benefit from such legislation?
In any event, as you'll know, footballers' contracts - particularly at the top end - are (or were last time I saw one) very strange beasts indeed including all sorts of odd payments for flights home (for foreign players), win bonuses, loyalty bonuses, signing on fees, automatic annual increases, cars, houses, etc, etc. So it would be less than straightforward to work out (certainly before the football contract year started) quite what a player was actually earning. And should the disclosure of pay over £100k be before or after the deduction of a footballer's agent's cut?
Furthermore, while I am not sure of the exact legal situation, is not the pay of directors of UK plc companies stated in the accounts?
So the principal is hardly an outlandish infringement of human rights.
I certainly agree there are technical problems, as you outline.
But otherwise I agree with Airman.
However the think-tank lost it in my eyes by suggesting that the FA should be subject to the Freedom of Information law. That's ridiculous. Only State bodies, or those with substantial State subsidies for operations, can come under FOI. If they had suggested an effective football regulator, that would have been far more appropriate.
As for the claptrap about "hard-working families", as this link from the right-wing Spectator magazine shows it is principally a Tory mantra, but I agree it's spread beyond them and it's moronic whatever party is using it.
But the cut-out is: "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and (my emphasis) is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
So a State could probably quite readily impose a law that required full disclosure of tax returns BUT only if it were the same for everyone. But I'd suggest that where it becomes difficult is when a Govt, wants to pick on a particular sector for especial treatment. As for company directors, I think it's only emoluments over £200k and then only using phrases like "highest paid director" rather than naming names.
Personally I'm still of the view that someone's pay package is a matter for them, their employer, HMRC and no one else. (Unless individuals are happy to disclose their own information of course.)
Before the game, at the trust stall outside the North Stand I must've had a good 10 minute chat with FA Chairman Greg Dyke (yeah, name dropping and all that), and he said he would like to go to see the kinds of seats/standing areas such as exist in Germany, to investigate, but he told me that whilst Hillsborough inquests were still going on he would not be moving in any particular way on this.
All this moved on to artificial pitches. Mr Dyke asked me how many artificial pitches were nearby, all I could think to say was up at the Meridian. All of the factors in favour, such as 24 hour use, appealed to Mr Dyke, and we briefly talked of the Saracens Rugby situation, and if football would still be football. Mr Dyke was completely disparaging about the ones that used to be at Luton, Oldham, Preston, QPR (were there others?). As far as the Chairman of the FA seemed to me, he has not closed the door on either safe standing, or artificial surfaces.
Just to be cheeky I asked Mr Dyke if he had ever actually read the Laws of Football. He was honest enough to say he hadn't, which I suspect 99.99% of all fans, players, managers, PE Teachers, commentators and pundits also haven't. I smilingly tut tutted, and said well it is the foundation of the whole shebang, maybe everybody involved should be urged to do so. Mr Dyke then generously offered that he had only just realised that refs could award a throw in to the other side if a player stole distance up the touchline.
That's what I remember of my conversation.
We might be shocked either way at footballers' salaries, but they really aren't any business of ours. The total wage bill at a football club might be if it offers a risk to the club's solvency - and perhaps if the principle of supporter=stakeholder is recognised, formally or informally - but otherwise they are a business as any other in this regard.
I do, however, believe the costs of transfers should be a matter of record at the appropriate governing body. They may already be for all I know, although I doubt accuracy and granularity. Disclosure would be a policy decision for them.
Many of those people could command much bigger salaries in business, but because there is no context there is a widespread public view - especially in poorer areas - that nobody in local government should earn more than £50k, despite the fact that the market would not provide the necessary skills at that price.
As for whether footballers' salaries are any business of ours, clubs might find it a whole lot easier to justify their business practices and gain the respect of supporters if fans knew what they have to pay quite ordinary players. For example, there was some shock at the idea of Yann being paid £8k a week - but the context is other players getting £5k for doing nothing at all.
I also told him that Longlane FC had 3 3g pitches and that they had not lost a days playing this year, 3 games a day on there pitches all weekend.
Probably the only pitches that have been able to do this, as they had had there pitches relaid with the appropriate drainage. Unlike the rest of the Kent league sides who have had to say the least a difficult time of it, since Mid December. Blackheath Rugby club ( old Villacourt have a couple of 3g as well) but it is aleays booked, and with this weather no chance?