I didn't get too bogged down in actual numbers - more comparative now to what we had vs. what we have now. Once you start trying to reconcile back to accounts or bigger known spend numbers, it all becomes wildly speculative and even more inaccurate. It's more about trying to gauge what spend might have been spent on players, where they now sit within the wage structure and, assuming that we keeping a budget similar to last year, how many more players we could bring in if those assumptions are accurate. Having an estimated wage for players who were at other clubs before can give an guess as to where our signings are at now.
As I say, it's all guess work, but my post-it note calculations using these numbers suggest that our wages are already pretty high and we aren't going to get a massive intake of players. I will gleefully enjoy it if I am wrong and we do get 4 or 5 players, but I doubt it.
In the 19 accounts it states 40 non playing staff? I'd have thought 2 million would cover that. Does catering and stewarding go down as wages? As I guess they're all employed by external contractors, are they put down as different costs?
I would have thought that £6 million for us was pretty accurate though.
You're confusing non-playing and non-football. There is an army of people employed around the playing side and in the academy who are not in the first team playing budget as used for comparative purposes.
There were 40 non-football in 2019 but 96 on the football side.
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
Appreciate is a relatively short career, and these guys are the best, but if you cant set yourself up for life on £30k a week (£12.5m over 8 year "top flight" career), there's gotta be something wrong
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
I remember Alan Sugar (I think) justifying paying Gazza £10k a week by saying that he knows that when Gazza is on the team sheet for a home game, the extra revenue for that day apparently covered the layout. So I can understand it as it was back then, but now we have so many not even first team player on well over £100k, I think it's just got a bit out of hand
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
I remember Alan Sugar (I think) justifying paying Gazza £10k a week by saying that he knows that when Gazza is on the team sheet for a home game, the extra revenue for that day apparently covered the layout. So I can understand it as it was back then, but now we have so many not even first team player on well over £100k, I think it's just got a bit out of hand
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
I remember Alan Sugar (I think) justifying paying Gazza £10k a week by saying that he knows that when Gazza is on the team sheet for a home game, the extra revenue for that day apparently covered the layout. So I can understand it as it was back then, but now we have so many not even first team player on well over £100k, I think it's just got a bit out of hand
What would you do with the money otherwise?
I am specifically talking about the "super clubs"
The same as other companies do with their net profits I spose. Distribute it among the share holders so they see a return / Reinvest it / Pay it back to the customers (fans) through cheaper season tickets 🤷♂️
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
I remember Alan Sugar (I think) justifying paying Gazza £10k a week by saying that he knows that when Gazza is on the team sheet for a home game, the extra revenue for that day apparently covered the layout. So I can understand it as it was back then, but now we have so many not even first team player on well over £100k, I think it's just got a bit out of hand
What would you do with the money otherwise?
I am specifically talking about the "super clubs"
The same as other companies do with their net profits I spose. Distribute it among the share holders so they see a return / Reinvest it / Pay it back to the customers (fans) through cheaper season tickets 🤷♂️
Apart from transfer fees there isn't much that they can reinvest in though?
I am not sure giving more money to the glaziers or kroenke is high up on anyone wish list?
Its not the top clubs paying it that's the real problem. They either generate the income or someone puts it in. The problem is people gambling with money they haven't got.
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
Because their "economic value" as you call it is solely a result of elite football being captured by
- an obscenely rich oligarch, reportedly at Putin's behest - an Emirate - another Emirate - a couple of Spanish clubs who have been obscenely funded by taxpayers, regardless of whom those taxpayers support - a ridiculous global TV focus on the Premier League, widening the TV revenue gap between FAPL and all other European clubs
then their 'economic value' would be at max. a third of what it is today, to the benefit of the game overall. As I said in the opening post, my Czech neighbour alerted me to this, and he had already looked at Charlton's figures - and he has seen the best of the recent Charlton live at Wembley - and simply could not imagine that they might be accurate, given what is known about salaries at the top Czech clubs -and what he had seen of Charlton!
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
Because their "economic value" as you call it is solely a result of elite football being captured by
- an obscenely rich oligarch, reportedly at Putin's behest - an Emirate - another Emirate - a couple of Spanish clubs who have been obscenely funded by taxpayers, regardless of whom those taxpayers support - a ridiculous global TV focus on the Premier League, widening the TV revenue gap between FAPL and all other European clubs
then their 'economic value' would be at max. a third of what it is today, to the benefit of the game overall. As I said in the opening post, my Czech neighbour alerted me to this, and he had already looked at Charlton's figures - and he has seen the best of the recent Charlton live at Wembley - and simply could not imagine that they might be accurate, given what is known about salaries at the top Czech clubs -and what he had seen of Charlton!
Yes but they are undisputed facts that we can't change.
In the existing frame work the wages of the top players aren't a problem are they? For the clubs we are talking about.
Which is my point.
If anyone pays, I don't know, Chris Woods a salary that reflects what Lukaku is on that's their fault not Chelsea’s. Ben Watson's salary is no more related to Kante's than mine is to Robert Kardashian.
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
I remember Alan Sugar (I think) justifying paying Gazza £10k a week by saying that he knows that when Gazza is on the team sheet for a home game, the extra revenue for that day apparently covered the layout. So I can understand it as it was back then, but now we have so many not even first team player on well over £100k, I think it's just got a bit out of hand
What would you do with the money otherwise?
I am specifically talking about the "super clubs"
The same as other companies do with their net profits I spose. Distribute it among the share holders so they see a return / Reinvest it / Pay it back to the customers (fans) through cheaper season tickets 🤷♂️
Apart from transfer fees there isn't much that they can reinvest in though?
I am not sure giving more money to the glaziers or kroenke is high up on anyone wish list?
Its not the top clubs paying it that's the real problem. They either generate the income or someone puts it in. The problem is people gambling with money they haven't got.
Reinvestment can be made in various ways - Development of the ground and training facilities is the easiest examples. Anything to make the club a viable investment for the next person. I just don't agree that the best thing to do with profits, it there are any, is to throw at the players.
I think fans need to realise that the only way their Clubs are going to remain in existence, is if they're viable businesses. The Glaziers and Kroenke haven't done too bad by their Clubs have they, looking at the salaries they're paying their players.
Appreciate is a relatively short career, and these guys are the best, but if you cant set yourself up for life on £30k a week (£12.5m over 8 year "top flight" career), there's gotta be something wrong
You would have thought so - and for the vast, vast majority of people £7m 'ish net should last a lifetime. The issue with retired footballers is that they will probably have lived to their means whilst playing and have very few transferrable skills outside of football after they finish and even if they saved £5m of that it would have to last them the best part of 50 years!
Don't get me wrong - the above doesn't mean I feel sorry for them!
Appreciate is a relatively short career, and these guys are the best, but if you cant set yourself up for life on £30k a week (£12.5m over 8 year "top flight" career), there's gotta be something wrong
You would have thought so - and for the vast, vast majority of people £7m 'ish net should last a lifetime. The issue with retired footballers is that they will probably have lived to their means whilst playing and have very few transferrable skills outside of football after they finish and even if they saved £5m of that it would have to last them the best part of 50 years!
Don't get me wrong - the above doesn't mean I feel sorry for them!
I do recognise that point Bob, but I don't think that's got anything to do with their former emoyees. There's plenty of people that don't live within their means, but it doesn't mean their employer should be paying them more to cover it.
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
Because their "economic value" as you call it is solely a result of elite football being captured by
- an obscenely rich oligarch, reportedly at Putin's behest - an Emirate - another Emirate - a couple of Spanish clubs who have been obscenely funded by taxpayers, regardless of whom those taxpayers support - a ridiculous global TV focus on the Premier League, widening the TV revenue gap between FAPL and all other European clubs
then their 'economic value' would be at max. a third of what it is today, to the benefit of the game overall. As I said in the opening post, my Czech neighbour alerted me to this, and he had already looked at Charlton's figures - and he has seen the best of the recent Charlton live at Wembley - and simply could not imagine that they might be accurate, given what is known about salaries at the top Czech clubs -and what he had seen of Charlton!
Yes but they are undisputed facts that we can't change.
In the existing frame work the wages of the top players aren't a problem are they? For the clubs we are talking about.
Which is my point.
If anyone pays, I don't know, Chris Woods a salary that reflects what Lukaku is on that's their fault not Chelsea’s. Ben Watson's salary is no more related to Kante's than mine is to Robert Kardashian.
Nope , I don't agree. It's generally accepted that the Championship is a financial basket case. All kinds of mediocre players are paid amounts that look ridiculous to European onlookers, and that's because too many relegated players are still on either their FAPL salaries or still way above their "economic value" in say Germany, and because the parachute payments encourage owners to continue to splash on wages, and in turn encourage other chairmen to splash recklessly, and then do dodgy things with their stadia to get round the pathetic FFP rules. That's the trouble with English football right there. The salary levels trickle down but the revenue from TV does not trickle down by anything like the same amount. So yes, Ben Watson's salary does have a relationship with those of FAPL players. If they all earned thirdd of what they do now, Watson's would also be lower than it is now, but probably not pro rata lower, which would be healthy.
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
This. They all need to be on less.
Why shouldn't the top players earn their economic value? Its been widely reported this summer that Messi earnt barca more than they paid him.
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
Because their "economic value" as you call it is solely a result of elite football being captured by
- an obscenely rich oligarch, reportedly at Putin's behest - an Emirate - another Emirate - a couple of Spanish clubs who have been obscenely funded by taxpayers, regardless of whom those taxpayers support - a ridiculous global TV focus on the Premier League, widening the TV revenue gap between FAPL and all other European clubs
then their 'economic value' would be at max. a third of what it is today, to the benefit of the game overall. As I said in the opening post, my Czech neighbour alerted me to this, and he had already looked at Charlton's figures - and he has seen the best of the recent Charlton live at Wembley - and simply could not imagine that they might be accurate, given what is known about salaries at the top Czech clubs -and what he had seen of Charlton!
Yes but they are undisputed facts that we can't change.
In the existing frame work the wages of the top players aren't a problem are they? For the clubs we are talking about.
Which is my point.
If anyone pays, I don't know, Chris Woods a salary that reflects what Lukaku is on that's their fault not Chelsea’s. Ben Watson's salary is no more related to Kante's than mine is to Robert Kardashian.
Nope , I don't agree. It's generally accepted that the Championship is a financial basket case. All kinds of mediocre players are paid amounts that look ridiculous to European onlookers, and that's because too many relegated players are still on either their FAPL salaries or still way above their "economic value" in say Germany, and because the parachute payments encourage owners to continue to splash on wages, and in turn encourage other chairmen to splash recklessly, and then do dodgy things with their stadia to get round the pathetic FFP rules. That's the trouble with English football right there. The salary levels trickle down but the revenue from TV does not trickle down by anything like the same amount. So yes, Ben Watson's salary does have a relationship with those of FAPL players. If they all earned thirdd of what they do now, Watson's would also be lower than it is now, but probably not pro rata lower, which would be healthy.
That's bad managment though. It's not comparable at all. In almost no other industry do people pay silly salaries to people that provide zero, or actually negative, economic value. The companies that do, don't do it for long because there ends up being no company.
You could actually make an argument that players below the championship shouldn't get paid anything, as a basic wage.
Appreciate is a relatively short career, and these guys are the best, but if you cant set yourself up for life on £30k a week (£12.5m over 8 year "top flight" career), there's gotta be something wrong
You would have thought so - and for the vast, vast majority of people £7m 'ish net should last a lifetime. The issue with retired footballers is that they will probably have lived to their means whilst playing and have very few transferrable skills outside of football after they finish and even if they saved £5m of that it would have to last them the best part of 50 years!
Don't get me wrong - the above doesn't mean I feel sorry for them!
I do recognise that point Bob, but I don't think that's got anything to do with their former emoyees. There's plenty of people that don't live within their means, but it doesn't mean their employer should be paying them more to cover it.
Work expands to meet the time available - lifestyles expand to meet the funds available. I'm not saying employers should pay more for a more lavish lifestyle - rather the money the employer pays them results in them able to live a more lavish lifestyle.
Some players are sensible and invest their money wisely so as to have sufficient income for a very good lifestyle for the rest of their lives, even if they never earned another penny. I know some who have done that very, very well - one in particular who is on the list of Premier League earners (not £250k a week but a very good wage!). I know others who are boracic at the point they retire from football after earning very good money.
Football is a business at the end of the day and top players at top clubs who actually bring in revenue for their club in terms of adding to the fanbase or selling merchandise then they deserve whatever they get. How many players in the championship, league one and downwards do that? I would say none ! These are the wages that I find hard to justify. 5, 10, 20, 30k a week and not particularly good players in terms of bringing value. As an example look at our wages on players, how many of them in terms of individuals put bums on seats
Messi when he did his crying press conference when leaving Barca ! If he was that upset he could easily have said pay me £1 a week and I will stay for my love of the club. Not like he needs the money is it plus his endorsement income is off the scale without his club wages
Messi when he did his crying press conference when leaving Barca ! If he was that upset he could easily have said pay me £1 a week and I will stay for my love of the club. Not like he needs the money is it plus his endorsement income is off the scale without his club wages
Apparently he offered that but couldn't under Spanish law take more than a 50% pay cut.
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
Why though? It happens in other sports, take NBA for example. The superstars earn 'supermax' contracts because they're the guys who win games, the guys who sell jerseys and the guys the fans go to see. The lesser known players earn considerably less as they're just there to make up the squad numbers. I think it's similar in the MLS, they have players earning fortunes and others earning really low wages. Zlatan and Beckham earned fortunes because the fans bought shirts and went to see them, they didn't go to see Joe Bloggs.
The likes of Kante, Lukaku, Mount should be earning big money, the likes of Drinkwater and Rahman should not.
Figures like this don't actually bother me, the genuinely world class players deserve it and he's one of, if not the best in his position in the world. PL winner, CL winner, world cup winner.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week Fred 120k a week Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea Drinkwater 120k a week
But then don't players on £90K to £120k, justify it it by saying Kante is on 3 times as much? Be a bit crazy if Kante was on what he's on and the majority of his team mates were on £30k to £50k
Why though? It happens in other sports, take NBA for example. The superstars earn 'supermax' contracts because they're the guys who win games, the guys who sell jerseys and the guys the fans go to see. The lesser known players earn considerably less as they're just there to make up the squad numbers. I think it's similar in the MLS, they have players earning fortunes and others earning really low wages. Zlatan and Beckham earned fortunes because the fans bought shirts and went to see them, they didn't go to see Joe Bloggs.
The likes of Kante, Lukaku, Mount should be earning big money, the likes of Drinkwater and Rahman should not.
Same with all US sports - pitchers in MLB and QBs in NFL are by far the top earners.
Comments
As I say, it's all guess work, but my post-it note calculations using these numbers suggest that our wages are already pretty high and we aren't going to get a massive intake of players. I will gleefully enjoy it if I am wrong and we do get 4 or 5 players, but I doubt it.
There were 40 non-football in 2019 but 96 on the football side.
It's when you see average PL players on 100k+ a week or championship players on 30k a week that takes the piss.
Phil Jones 110k a week
Fred 120k a week
Baba Rahman (who?) 91k a week at Chelsea
Drinkwater 120k a week
To be fair to that list Fred plays 8 or 9 times out of 10 for man United. I don't think Phil Jones has played since he signed his new contract.
Kante's salary should have no effect on Drinkwater's, let alone players at other clubs, salary.
I am specifically talking about the "super clubs"
I am not sure giving more money to the glaziers or kroenke is high up on anyone wish list?
Its not the top clubs paying it that's the real problem. They either generate the income or someone puts it in. The problem is people gambling with money they haven't got.
- an obscenely rich oligarch, reportedly at Putin's behest
- an Emirate
- another Emirate
- a couple of Spanish clubs who have been obscenely funded by taxpayers, regardless of whom those taxpayers support
- a ridiculous global TV focus on the Premier League, widening the TV revenue gap between FAPL and all other European clubs
then their 'economic value' would be at max. a third of what it is today, to the benefit of the game overall. As I said in the opening post, my Czech neighbour alerted me to this, and he had already looked at Charlton's figures - and he has seen the best of the recent Charlton live at Wembley - and simply could not imagine that they might be accurate, given what is known about salaries at the top Czech clubs -and what he had seen of Charlton!
In the existing frame work the wages of the top players aren't a problem are they? For the clubs we are talking about.
Which is my point.
If anyone pays, I don't know, Chris Woods a salary that reflects what Lukaku is on that's their fault not Chelsea’s. Ben Watson's salary is no more related to Kante's than mine is to Robert Kardashian.
I think fans need to realise that the only way their Clubs are going to remain in existence, is if they're viable businesses. The Glaziers and Kroenke haven't done too bad by their Clubs have they, looking at the salaries they're paying their players.
Don't get me wrong - the above doesn't mean I feel sorry for them!
You could actually make an argument that players below the championship shouldn't get paid anything, as a basic wage.
Some players are sensible and invest their money wisely so as to have sufficient income for a very good lifestyle for the rest of their lives, even if they never earned another penny. I know some who have done that very, very well - one in particular who is on the list of Premier League earners (not £250k a week but a very good wage!). I know others who are boracic at the point they retire from football after earning very good money.
Messi when he did his crying press conference when leaving Barca ! If he was that upset he could easily have said pay me £1 a week and I will stay for my love of the club. Not like he needs the money is it plus his endorsement income is off the scale without his club wages
Apparently he offered that but couldn't under Spanish law take more than a 50% pay cut.
Just been looking at this -
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/22/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city
The likes of Kante, Lukaku, Mount should be earning big money, the likes of Drinkwater and Rahman should not.
Same with all US sports - pitchers in MLB and QBs in NFL are by far the top earners.