ealingfox Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 Looks like we are going to have to run Jermaine out of town in a good old-fashioned angry mob to get this sorted. Gentlemen, light your torches and grab your pitchforks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 Why don't we all dress like ghosts and spook him out of town, we could also put a big burning cross on his front lawn as well in the shape of a 'T' telling to get out of Town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 The idea that someone should take a paycut of between 50-75% just to play first team fotball and to help out the club that put them on that salary is not realistic. I don't many are saying he should, but if the bloke wants to leave for whatever the reason may be. No opportunities, doesn't feel wanted, wants to settle etc etc. Then that person should be prepared to walk away with less than what's in his contract, because at the end of the day he wants to go for his own reasons. If that's the case, that he does want to go, then to try and hold the club to ransom is a bit low (if that is indeed what is being done). I'm sure it's all just negotiating, a game of chicken to see who will blink first by his agent. He'll walk away with a bit of cash, we'll save money and get a fee etc in the end. Why don't we all dress like ghosts and spook him out of town, we could also put a big burning cross on his front lawn as well in the shape of a 'T' telling to get out of Town. We got rid of Wa*ne Br*wn years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 Think about the numbers Dan. How many coaches are there at a club? If they leave football, which the vast majority will, then there is very little in the way of jobs for them to fall back on at the age of 30+. If clubs had stood up to players salary demands years ago we wouldn't be in this mess. You raise valid points but even if it is a short career, it's not like they'll struggle for money in future if they're sensible. It may only be about what, a third as long as someone's career on average but it can often be a good 20 times as big a pay per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5waller5 Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 The way I see it, Neville was handling finances and our transfer deals despite having little experience & Sven produced a list of names and told him to get on with it. Neville has made mistakes but he's in the wrong job IMO, he was always going to. Sven's the main fault for me. I see this the same way as you .... AN was handling finances. He hadn't got a clue what he was doing and seemed a very strange appointment at the time. We can go in circles all day long with who's fault it is ..... But if the owners say - We're behind sven and here's the chequebook - get what he wants. And Sven is told - get who you want, within reason the chequebook is open - all you have to concentrate on is getting us promotion...... Then it's the guy in the middle who's negotiating the contracts that's done a magnificently poor job at negotiating. In my opinion, he was imply out of his depth ... football agents are some of the sharpest negotiators on the planet ..... he just couldn't match them and paid too much. 10% sven, 10% owners (but it's their cash so that's their choice), 80% AN, for me at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 I see this the same way as you .... AN was handling finances. He hadn't got a clue what he was doing and seemed a very strange appointment at the time. We can go in circles all day long with who's fault it is ..... But if the owners say - We're behind sven and here's the chequebook - get what he wants. And Sven is told - get who you want, within reason the chequebook is open - all you have to concentrate on is getting us promotion...... Then it's the guy in the middle who's negotiating the contracts that's done a magnificently poor job at negotiating. In my opinion, he was imply out of his depth ... football agents are some of the sharpest negotiators on the planet ..... he just couldn't match them and paid too much. 10% sven, 10% owners (but it's their cash so that's their choice), 80% AN, for me at least. So you think Neville negotiated all the contracts and fees and at no point told Sven, the board, or the owners the costs involved? Any of them could have at any stage overruled him, they didn't. Not only that, but even if he was being out negotiated, they did nothing to stop him from continuing to do it. Yet in your eyes he takes the lions share of the blame. Have we paid out silly money since Pearson came back? Are we overpaying in fees and wages? If as some make out on here the manager and the board have nothing to do with it then what's going on? Has he improved? Has he been bollocked? Or do we have a manager in charge who is interested in what money gets spent on who, getting value for money etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bausor Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 sven was more of coach than a manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterg59 Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 I think that is why when the FFP rules are tested in the European Court they will be found to be a restriction on trade.If someone wants to invest in an company that is loss making in the hpoe that it will become profitable that should be allowed just as our owners hope to get to the prem to in order to make big money.I think I smell another Bosman situation most owners do not invest in the clubs they loan money which then has to be repaid if the business plan fails and take all the profit if it succeeds. this is what should be sorted out in my opinion .on a par with casino banking virtually no downside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 sven was more of coach than a manager I'd dispute either. The bloke's a conman. Babs is spot on. Whilst it's directly Neville who appears to have caused a lot of the problems, no-one stopped what appears to be a bloke out of his depth from causing these problems. It's like allowing an apprentice in a finance department to attend a meeting with some businessmen, who's fault really is it when the said company ends up being fvcked over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 You raise valid points but even if it is a short career, it's not like they'll struggle for money in future if they're sensible. It may only be about what, a third as long as someone's career on average but it can often be a good 20 times as big a pay per year. Most of them aren't sensible though, if your peer group are all driving around in Bentleys it must be hard for an 18 year old to not follow. The vast majority of players aren't earning 20 times the national average, co* have apparently cut their wage bill to 1m per annum. Football wouldn't be receiving the riches it does if it wasn't for the players, as a union member my default setting is that the workers should receive the majority of a companies turnover, difficult to defend that though especially when some players are earning 50k+ a week. I'd expect the players who we want rid of to be willing to take a payoff that is equal to what we owe minus what they will earn at their new club. As Babs said earlier it's probably a bargaining position to ask for the lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 Most of them aren't sensible though, if your peer group are all driving around in Bentleys it must be hard for an 18 year old to not follow. The vast majority of players aren't earning 20 times the national average, co* have apparently cut their wage bill to 1m per annum. Football wouldn't be receiving the riches it does if it wasn't for the players, as a union member my default setting is that the workers should receive the majority of a companies turnover, difficult to defend that though especially when some players are earning 50k+ a week. I'd expect the players who we want rid of to be willing to take a payoff that is equal to what we owe minus what they will earn at their new club. As Babs said earlier it's probably a bargaining position to ask for the lot. I agree with that. In theory it would make a lot of sense to us as fans but the way the game is run, they thrive off the hype around players which can often be (as wrong as it is) generated by their high fee/wages. Mind you I'd definitely much rather it went to the players than the suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 I agree with that. In theory it would make a lot of sense to us as fans but the way the game is run, they thrive off the hype around players which can often be (as wrong as it is) generated by their high fee/wages. Mind you I'd definitely much rather it went to the players than the suits. I'd rather it be used to give fans cheap tickets, shirts and food... rather than £35 match tickets, £50 dish cloths and £4 salmonella burgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RizLCFC Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 Bolton have been cut from 8/1 to 2/1 to sign Jordan Rhodes, if they get him then it may end the Beckford deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad the Fox Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 Most of them aren't sensible though, if your peer group are all driving around in Bentleys it must be hard for an 18 year old to not follow. The vast majority of players aren't earning 20 times the national average, co* have apparently cut their wage bill to 1m per annum. Football wouldn't be receiving the riches it does if it wasn't for the players, as a union member my default setting is that the workers should receive the majority of a companies turnover, difficult to defend that though especially when some players are earning 50k+ a week. I'd expect the players who we want rid of to be willing to take a payoff that is equal to what we owe minus what they will earn at their new club. As Babs said earlier it's probably a bargaining position to ask for the lot. If they didn't have obscene amounts of money then their peer group would all be in the same boat. I would also dock their wages of say 20% and pay it into a retirement fund for them to draw upon retirement as well as ensuring the youngsters got proper schooling. The PFA should be more active in preparing footballers for retirement, offering education and trade skills so they don't fall out the game onto the scrap heap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 I'd rather it be used to give fans cheap tickets, shirts and food... rather than £35 match tickets, £50 dish cloths and £4 salmonella burgers. Oh definitely but I've grown to accept the fact it just won't happen any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 That wage cap comes from the employer, that is their policy. If you were to say no footballer no matter who he is and who he works for is not allowed to earn more than x amount of money then that is a different matter. Wage caps, where they exist in sport, work by an employer accepting the wage cap as a condition of registration into the competition. That is perfectly legal. It's illegal when you impose wage caps on professions / workers in professions where it was not a condition of entry. Of course, any effective wage cap would have to be introduced Europe-wide and if it were there would be grounds for the relevant competitivity laws to be tweaked anyway. A wage cap would have huge support in most European countries because wages are not generally higher than 20K per week in top flights all over the continent. If the cap were set at, say, 30K per week then even the vast majority of Premier League / La Liga / Serie A / French league / Bundesliga players would remain unaffected. And the wage roof would pass by totally unnoticed in places like Bulgaria, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Poland, Portugal, Scandinavia etc; except for the fact that it would allow the likes of Ajax, Benfica and Celtic to stand a chance of competing at the top level again. Where, precisely, would the starss go? If they did form a Super League, then they'd be playing in a league of about fifteen clubs. There'd be no FA Cup, no Champions League and their away days would be so unthinkably far away that they would only attract fans from the country they were playing in. Homegrown fans would be left at home. If those fans started finding new clubs to watch it could be disastrous for the big boys and spectacular for what's left of the league. And a wage cap wouldn't affect the huge amounts earned in sponsorships either. There'd be no shortage of cash flying about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 So you think Neville negotiated all the contracts and fees and at no point told Sven, the board, or the owners the costs involved? Any of them could have at any stage overruled him, they didn't. Not only that, but even if he was being out negotiated, they did nothing to stop him from continuing to do it. Yet in your eyes he takes the lions share of the blame. Have we paid out silly money since Pearson came back? Are we overpaying in fees and wages? If as some make out on here the manager and the board have nothing to do with it then what's going on? Has he improved? Has he been bollocked? Or do we have a manager in charge who is interested in what money gets spent on who, getting value for money etc. Just one question please Babylon. Are you sleeping with Neville? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 Hasn't Beckford left yet what a farce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 I am not sympathising, but just because they earn a lot of money, why should they give it away? Because they want to play football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 "Actually, because I'm a footballer I'm just gonna turn down what I'm entitled to". Dear me. No-one else would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 Because they want to play football? I agree Kitch as oppose to the "pull the ladder up jack" style footballers we currently breed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 I'd dispute either. The bloke's a conman.This is such a load of shit. It's like people believe Sven was handed his success on a silver platter.He built his reputation in Sweden and Portugal, winning trophies on not only a domestic but a continental scale. He was disappointing with England and Ivory Coast (albeit not a complete disaster), adored by the Man City fans and brought us a few months of great football at City, followed by some really turgid stuff that still had us pushing the play-offs with a team of strangers. The Thais didn't have the nuts to see through the investment they'd made the previous summer and panicked/saved the club depending on your viewpoint. But either way, Fernandes aside, we were lumbered with the mega wages Sven had brought in until the end of the season. Gelling a side takes time. After 13 games of 2011/2, Sven had us 2 points off the play-offs. After 13 games of 2012/3, Watford sat 16th, 6 points off the play-offs with a not dissimilar set of circumstances. They finished 3rd, losing out on the final day. Us in 2011/2 and Watford on 2012/3 each had a load of new players coming in with decent reps, many of whom were clearly at the top end of the division in terms of quality. But pulling a side together takes time. I'm no apologist for Sven's spending. Regardless of who sanctioned the transfers and wages of Mills and Beckford, along with the salaries of Danns, Gallagher and Wellens, calling Sven a conman is at best disingenuous and at worst slander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 "Actually, because I'm a footballer I'm just gonna turn down what I'm entitled to". Dear me. No-one else would do it. That's because no one else is passionate about their job. Not in the same way anyway. It annoys me when people compare sport to other jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 That's because no one else is passionate about their job. Not in the same way anyway. It annoys me when people compare sport to other jobs. No-one? Or just the ones where you can flaw an argument? (This is no dig at you btw)Anyone that says they'd do the exact opposite of Beckford if you were in his situation is lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 10 July 2013 Share Posted 10 July 2013 This is such a load of shit. It's like people believe Sven was handed his success on a silver platter. He built his reputation in Sweden and Portugal, winning trophies on not only a domestic but a continental scale. Jesus, it was ****ing 1982 when he was winning stuff in Sweden, I wasn't even born when he won those trophies. Shall we bring in George Graham and Howard Wilkinson for a try?, they won league titles after Sven won things on merit. Football has completely passed him by, it's astonishing some people can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.