Drinkwater Cupping Ears at Fans After Goal

[Strokes]

On that basis unless you are a top 4 club. Then we are all irrelevant. Our club is living of the back of the premier league success.

Based on the fact that dd got released by a top 4 club. Ie deemed not good enough.

Without my several 1000 pound over the years. Not just 30 quid. We have no club. Meaning he has no job.

Why can't people see that.

We pay wages. The tv money is a bonus. Not a given.

There would be no tv money if we didn't buy sky subscriptions either, the management should advise him against it in the future. What a numpty

[Bayfox]

There would be no tv money if we didn't buy sky subscriptions either, the management should advise him against it in the future. What a numpty

Not sure if thats meant to be serious or not.

However and i know the owners clearly don't have a business plan.

But our wage bill should be based on guarenteed income. Ie season tickets which they sell upfront. Even if payment is staggered. Not some tv deal which actually in reality gives **** all. Unless like us we move about 8 games a season to get viewing figures of around 250k. Not the millions the big games get.

Did we learn nothing from the collapse of on digital and satanta. Sky won't bail the fl out forever. They want a european super league or the continued believe the premiership is the best in the world.

[Strokes]

Not sure if thats meant to be serious or not.

However and i know the owners clearly don't have a business plan.

But our wage bill should be based on guarenteed income. Ie season tickets which they sell upfront. Even if payment is staggered. Not some tv deal which actually in reality gives **** all. Unless like us we move about 8 games a season to get viewing figures of around 250k. Not the millions the big games get.

Did we learn nothing from the collapse of on digital and satanta. Sky won't bail the fl out forever. They want a european super league or the continued believe the premiership is the best in the world.

I think you misunderstood me, I was agreeing with you. We pay his wages through buying tickets and tv subscriptions, I think dd is being a bit silly and will alienate himself further with his childish response.

[Dan]

Really don't blame him with some of the shit he gets given by our fans. 

 

He really doesn't get it that bad. I can name five players who've (rightly or wrongly) had more stick than him at LCFC. He needs to grow the fvck up and so do a lot of our pleb fans.

[Jordan]

On that basis unless you are a top 4 club. Then we are all irrelevant. Our club is living of the back of the premier league success.

Based on the fact that dd got released by a top 4 club. Ie deemed not good enough.

Without my several 1000 pound over the years. Not just 30 quid. We have no club. Meaning he has no job.

Why can't people see that.

We pay wages. The tv money is a bonus. Not a given.

 

 

I think you misunderstood me, I was agreeing with you. We pay his wages through buying tickets and tv subscriptions, I think dd is being a bit silly and will alienate himself further with his childish response.

Fans really need to stop saying and writing this.

 

In 2011/12, Leicester City paid £27.7m in player salaries. In that same season, gate receipts were £6.02m, merchandise sale income was £1.37m, and catering/conference income was £880k. That's only £8.27m. If you want to add television revenue as stuff that "we pay for" (which is a tenuous claim at best), I'll let you tack on another £6m to make the grand total of "wages" that we, the apparent fan-bosses of Leicester City Football Club, "paid" in that season £14.27m--equivalent to 51.5% of the wage bill.

 

Gate receipt had increased about 6% in 2011/12 compared to the previous season, yet the club's payroll increased by 67%--if fans pay player wages, how is this at all possible?

 

If you want to talk about TV money and all that, let's take a quick look at the mother of all TV-money driven leagues: the Premier League. Do you really think that, say, Chelsea and Man City fans are the ones paying their players' wages?

 

As for sponsors, I'm not so sure this should be a point of pride. Of course, corporate sponsors are only paying because the fans provide them an audience, but this doesn't make you a boss--it makes you part of a targeted demographic. Corporate money goes to the television networks and the clubs, but your money goes to Coca-Cola, SkyBet, Papa John's, etc. This argument becomes a little more ridiculous in Leicester City's case when you consider whom their biggest sponsors are (when was the last time you shopped at a King Power store?).

 

"We pay their wages" is in many ways a false statement. It either shows ignorance of how clubs at our size and level (along with bigger clubs/Premier League clubs) operate, or it's just used to claim license to openly criticize players and management. Fans don't really pay the wages of referees (or, any money that would originate from the fans would have passed through several channels to the point where claiming that we pay ref wages would make little sense). However, fans constantly give the refs grief for being shit--and much more grief than they give the players.

 

Instead of claiming that license, I suggest fans try this: Support the team. Behave with the same common decency that would be expected of you in the other 166 hours of the week when you're not in the stadium. If you would like to express your displeasure with a player playing or acting like a cnut, don't be a cnut yourself when doing so. Forget about the who-pays-whom thing when you're at the ground. And when you're not at the ground, take some time to think about how much that match ticket is worth to you and how much enjoyment, entertainment, and social value you get out of that ticket.

 

And, as for the likes of Danny Drinkwater: Grow the **** up.

[Danno]

Sell him and replace him with Craig off corrie

[XLM]

Surely this isn't worthy of a topic and a debate?

So he cups his ears at our fans when he scored..

He scored 1 more goal than every other city player that game.

So what if he doesn't really like the fans..

Although he's not setting the league on fire, he's still had a number of good games, and obviously a few bad ones, like every other player at every other club in the world.

I've said this once, and i'll say it again.. Who really gives a shit how he celebrates - he can windmill filbert the fox and teabag Vichai for all I care as long as he does the business (and by business, I mean score goals/play well). 

[dayday]

Fans really need to stop saying and writing this.

In 2011/12, Leicester City paid £27.7m in player salaries. In that same season, gate receipts were £6.02m, merchandise sale income was £1.37m, and catering/conference income was £880k. That's only £8.27m. If you want to add television revenue as stuff that "we pay for" (which is a tenuous claim at best), I'll let you tack on another £6m to make the grand total of "wages" that we, the apparent fan-bosses of Leicester City Football Club, "paid" in that season £14.27m--equivalent to 51.5% of the wage bill.

Gate receipt had increased about 6% in 2011/12 compared to the previous season, yet the club's payroll increased by 67%--if fans pay player wages, how is this at all possible?

If you want to talk about TV money and all that, let's take a quick look at the mother of all TV-money driven leagues: the Premier League. Do you really think that, say, Chelsea and Man City fans are the ones paying their players' wages?

As for sponsors, I'm not so sure this should be a point of pride. Of course, corporate sponsors are only paying because the fans provide them an audience, but this doesn't make you a boss--it makes you part of a targeted demographic. Corporate money goes to the television networks and the clubs, but your money goes to Coca-Cola, SkyBet, Papa John's, etc. This argument becomes a little more ridiculous in Leicester City's case when you consider whom their biggest sponsors are (when was the last time you shopped at a King Power store?).

"We pay their wages" is in many ways a false statement. It either shows ignorance of how clubs at our size and level (along with bigger clubs/Premier League clubs) operate, or it's just used to claim license to openly criticize players and management. Fans don't really pay the wages of referees (or, any money that would originate from the fans would have passed through several channels to the point where claiming that we pay ref wages would make little sense). However, fans constantly give the refs grief for being shit--and much more grief than they give the players.

Instead of claiming that license, I suggest fans try this: Support the team. Behave with the same common decency that would be expected of you in the other 166 hours of the week when you're not in the stadium. If you would like to express your displeasure with a player playing or acting like a cnut, don't be a cnut yourself when doing so. Forget about the who-pays-whom thing when you're at the ground. And when you're not at the ground, take some time to think about how much that match ticket is worth to you and how much enjoyment, entertainment, and social value you get out of that ticket.

And, as for the likes of Danny Drinkwater: Grow the **** up.

You are giving 2011/12 season as your example which we all know Sven went berserk by giving big contracts,I guess wages is still an issue but nothing like 27 million these days and will continue to fall when the likes of Konchesky leave,so the percentage will be a lot more in line...so to say we don't pay the players wages is bull

[gazlcfc27]

Fans really need to stop saying and writing this.

 

In 2011/12, Leicester City paid £27.7m in player salaries. In that same season, gate receipts were £6.02m, merchandise sale income was £1.37m, and catering/conference income was £880k. That's only £8.27m. If you want to add television revenue as stuff that "we pay for" (which is a tenuous claim at best), I'll let you tack on another £6m to make the grand total of "wages" that we, the apparent fan-bosses of Leicester City Football Club, "paid" in that season £14.27m--equivalent to 51.5% of the wage bill.

 

Gate receipt had increased about 6% in 2011/12 compared to the previous season, yet the club's payroll increased by 67%--if fans pay player wages, how is this at all possible?

 

If you want to talk about TV money and all that, let's take a quick look at the mother of all TV-money driven leagues: the Premier League. Do you really think that, say, Chelsea and Man City fans are the ones paying their players' wages?

 

As for sponsors, I'm not so sure this should be a point of pride. Of course, corporate sponsors are only paying because the fans provide them an audience, but this doesn't make you a boss--it makes you part of a targeted demographic. Corporate money goes to the television networks and the clubs, but your money goes to Coca-Cola, SkyBet, Papa John's, etc. This argument becomes a little more ridiculous in Leicester City's case when you consider whom their biggest sponsors are (when was the last time you shopped at a King Power store?).

 

"We pay their wages" is in many ways a false statement. It either shows ignorance of how clubs at our size and level (along with bigger clubs/Premier League clubs) operate, or it's just used to claim license to openly criticize players and management. Fans don't really pay the wages of referees (or, any money that would originate from the fans would have passed through several channels to the point where claiming that we pay ref wages would make little sense). However, fans constantly give the refs grief for being shit--and much more grief than they give the players.

 

Instead of claiming that license, I suggest fans try this: Support the team. Behave with the same common decency that would be expected of you in the other 166 hours of the week when you're not in the stadium. If you would like to express your displeasure with a player playing or acting like a cnut, don't be a cnut yourself when doing so. Forget about the who-pays-whom thing when you're at the ground. And when you're not at the ground, take some time to think about how much that match ticket is worth to you and how much enjoyment, entertainment, and social value you get out of that ticket.

 

And, as for the likes of Danny Drinkwater: Grow the **** up.

Your right my friend I think we all know that our ticket purchase is a drop in the ocean to TV money and sponsorship money.But your forgetting one huge thing,perhaps the biggest thing that a fan brings to the table.If we fans were too all stay at home, I don't think sky would want a anything to do with a soulless game.

[Dan]

Fans really need to stop saying and writing this.

 

In 2011/12, Leicester City paid £27.7m in player salaries. In that same season, gate receipts were £6.02m, merchandise sale income was £1.37m, and catering/conference income was £880k. That's only £8.27m. If you want to add television revenue as stuff that "we pay for" (which is a tenuous claim at best), I'll let you tack on another £6m to make the grand total of "wages" that we, the apparent fan-bosses of Leicester City Football Club, "paid" in that season £14.27m--equivalent to 51.5% of the wage bill.

 

Gate receipt had increased about 6% in 2011/12 compared to the previous season, yet the club's payroll increased by 67%--if fans pay player wages, how is this at all possible?

 

If you want to talk about TV money and all that, let's take a quick look at the mother of all TV-money driven leagues: the Premier League. Do you really think that, say, Chelsea and Man City fans are the ones paying their players' wages?

 

As for sponsors, I'm not so sure this should be a point of pride. Of course, corporate sponsors are only paying because the fans provide them an audience, but this doesn't make you a boss--it makes you part of a targeted demographic. Corporate money goes to the television networks and the clubs, but your money goes to Coca-Cola, SkyBet, Papa John's, etc. This argument becomes a little more ridiculous in Leicester City's case when you consider whom their biggest sponsors are (when was the last time you shopped at a King Power store?).

 

"We pay their wages" is in many ways a false statement. It either shows ignorance of how clubs at our size and level (along with bigger clubs/Premier League clubs) operate, or it's just used to claim license to openly criticize players and management. Fans don't really pay the wages of referees (or, any money that would originate from the fans would have passed through several channels to the point where claiming that we pay ref wages would make little sense). However, fans constantly give the refs grief for being shit--and much more grief than they give the players.

 

Instead of claiming that license, I suggest fans try this: Support the team. Behave with the same common decency that would be expected of you in the other 166 hours of the week when you're not in the stadium. If you would like to express your displeasure with a player playing or acting like a cnut, don't be a cnut yourself when doing so. Forget about the who-pays-whom thing when you're at the ground. And when you're not at the ground, take some time to think about how much that match ticket is worth to you and how much enjoyment, entertainment, and social value you get out of that ticket.

 

And, as for the likes of Danny Drinkwater: Grow the **** up.

 

A lot of time for this to be fair although I still think this fans v players thing is an absolute embarrassment from all parties.

 

I just cannot get my head round why people would spend a lot of money, travel for hours, to go to the game and look for constant negatives. No idea what enjoyment anyone gets from it.

[Dan]

Your right my friend I think we all know that our ticket purchase is a drop in the ocean to TV money and sponsorship money.But your forgetting one huge thing,perhaps the biggest thing that a fan brings to the table.If we fans were too all stay at home, I don't think sky would want a anything to do with a soulless game.

 

Could fool me. They've transformed the 'soul' into a money obsessed, deadline day obsessed bunch of glory hunters.

[svensson]

Your right my friend I think we all know that our ticket purchase is a drop in the ocean to TV money and sponsorship money.But your forgetting one huge thing,perhaps the biggest thing that a fan brings to the table.If we fans were too all stay at home, I don't think sky would want a anything to do with a soulless game.

There will always be fans, to think otherwise is folly. You are just an easily replaceable number to them.

[svensson]

A lot of time for this to be fair although I still think this fans v players thing is an absolute embarrassment from all parties.

I just cannot get my head round why people would spend a lot of money, travel for hours, to go to the game and look for constant negatives. No idea what enjoyment anyone gets from it.

100% agree. I swear you have been hacked with all this common sense!

[Meltonfossefox]

Talent aside, in my opinion he gets grief because he can sometimes be lazy, coming from a youth setup like united I can't help but feel he thinks he shouldn't get any grief. No doubt with a free flowing game he can pass and move the ball but he's not a trenches player.... But he needs to stop this thing with the fans because it will on get worse if he doesnt

[Bettsj2]

This thead is daft.

If you went to a pub and they pissed in your pint. Come on guys, think about it. This comparisons are not in the real world.

Drinkwater got some shit and reacted to it.

All this, if he dont like it he can fvck off is ridiculous. If YOU dont like it, YOU fvck off. Dont bring money into it as thats nothing to do with it and dont think that paying for a ticket gives you the right to abuse a player because it doesnt. Shouting, 'you're fvcking shit Drinkwater, fvck off you fvcking twat' or similar that i've heard aimed at players (not just Drinkwater) is not being critical its being abusive and that isnt acceptable and deserves a response from the player.

Football is an emotional game but not just for the fans. Football is a players life. Some fans need to remember that.

[Bayfox]

A lot of time for this to be fair although I still think this fans v players thing is an absolute embarrassment from all parties.

I just cannot get my head round why people would spend a lot of money, travel for hours, to go to the game and look for constant negatives. No idea what enjoyment anyone gets from it.

I can't work out why someone so average can earn a living for passing a ball sideways.

I'm not looking for negatives. I'm stating the bleeding obvious.

I back my team for the whole 90mins then after a game come on a forum and vent any fustration.

Problem?

[Bettsj2]

I can't work out why someone so average can earn a living for passing a ball sideways.

I'm not looking for negatives. I'm stating the bleeding obvious.

I back my team for the whole 90mins then after a game come on a forum and vent any fustration.

Problem?

Zero problem. Its the way it should be.

Drinkwater must have qualities beyond what we see or he wouldnt be a professional footballer. It is quite painful to watch when he plays negatively, however when he's aggressive and moving forward he looks the business. We just dont see that side of him enough.

[Bluetintedspecs]

This thead is daft.

If you went to a pub and they pissed in your pint. Come on guys, think about it. This comparisons are not in the real world.

All this, if he dont like it he can fvck off is ridiculous. If YOU dont like it, YOU fvck off. Dont bring money into it as thats nothing to do with it and dont think that paying for a ticket gives you the right to abuse a player because it doesnt. Shouting, 'you're fvcking shit Drinkwater, fvck off you fvcking twat' or similar that i've heard aimed at players (not just Drinkwater) is not being critical its being abusive and that isnt acceptable and deserves a response from the player.

Football is an emotional game but not just for the fans. Football is a players life. Some fans need to remember that.

I've never heard him get any real stick

You totally invalidated your point right there!

[Bob Weasel Fox]

I've never heard him get any real stick

You totally invalidated your point right there!

I've never heard him get stick before either BTS

[Dan]

I can't work out why someone so average can earn a living for passing a ball sideways.

I'm not looking for negatives. I'm stating the bleeding obvious.

I back my team for the whole 90mins then after a game come on a forum and vent any fustration.

Problem?

 

None at all. I vent most of my negativity on here (although not completely doom & gloom) and stick on the teams side for 90 in the ground.

 

Drinkwater's not ideal by any means but both 'sides' (the fact there are sides is embarrassing) are at fault.

[Kitchandro]

Fans really need to stop saying and writing this.

 

In 2011/12, Leicester City paid £27.7m in player salaries. In that same season, gate receipts were £6.02m, merchandise sale income was £1.37m, and catering/conference income was £880k. That's only £8.27m. If you want to add television revenue as stuff that "we pay for" (which is a tenuous claim at best), I'll let you tack on another £6m to make the grand total of "wages" that we, the apparent fan-bosses of Leicester City Football Club, "paid" in that season £14.27m--equivalent to 51.5% of the wage bill.

 

Gate receipt had increased about 6% in 2011/12 compared to the previous season, yet the club's payroll increased by 67%--if fans pay player wages, how is this at all possible?

 

If you want to talk about TV money and all that, let's take a quick look at the mother of all TV-money driven leagues: the Premier League. Do you really think that, say, Chelsea and Man City fans are the ones paying their players' wages?

 

As for sponsors, I'm not so sure this should be a point of pride. Of course, corporate sponsors are only paying because the fans provide them an audience, but this doesn't make you a boss--it makes you part of a targeted demographic. Corporate money goes to the television networks and the clubs, but your money goes to Coca-Cola, SkyBet, Papa John's, etc. This argument becomes a little more ridiculous in Leicester City's case when you consider whom their biggest sponsors are (when was the last time you shopped at a King Power store?).

 

"We pay their wages" is in many ways a false statement. It either shows ignorance of how clubs at our size and level (along with bigger clubs/Premier League clubs) operate, or it's just used to claim license to openly criticize players and management. Fans don't really pay the wages of referees (or, any money that would originate from the fans would have passed through several channels to the point where claiming that we pay ref wages would make little sense). However, fans constantly give the refs grief for being shit--and much more grief than they give the players.

 

Instead of claiming that license, I suggest fans try this: Support the team. Behave with the same common decency that would be expected of you in the other 166 hours of the week when you're not in the stadium. If you would like to express your displeasure with a player playing or acting like a cnut, don't be a cnut yourself when doing so. Forget about the who-pays-whom thing when you're at the ground. And when you're not at the ground, take some time to think about how much that match ticket is worth to you and how much enjoyment, entertainment, and social value you get out of that ticket.

 

And, as for the likes of Danny Drinkwater: Grow the **** up.

 

We certainly contribute to their wages, isn't that enough?

 

The fact of the matter is that without football fans they wouldn't get paid anything at all. We make their job possible.

 

Of course we're not simply handing our money over to them as individuals. But we're giving money to the club and the club is giving money to them.

 

So really, you're being pedantic, you know what people are getting at and it is valid point.

 

It's not a good reason to hurl abuse or be negative, but it is a reason to expect a certain amount of , quality effort and respect from the players.

[Bayfox]

We certainly contribute to their wages, isn't that enough?

The fact of the matter is that without football fans they wouldn't get paid anything at all. We make their job possible.

Of course we're not simply handing our money over to them as individuals. But we're giving money to the club and the club is giving money to them.

So really, you're being pedantic, you know what people are getting at and it is valid point.

It's not a good reason to hurl abuse or be negative, but it is a reason to expect a certain amount of , quality effort and respect from the players.

Good post.

I can only assume he is posting on tops behalf. Almost justifying the fact we spend more than we get in. If he actually read my post we shouldn't be paying more in wages than our season ticket income. That way everthing else is a bonus. Just good business sense.

His figures if anything prove we pay wages. Clearly the rest of the club operations don't generate much. Much profit that is.

[Dan]

We certainly contribute to their wages, isn't that enough?

 

The fact of the matter is that without football fans they wouldn't get paid anything at all. We make their job possible.

 

Of course we're not simply handing our money over to them as individuals. But we're giving money to the club and the club is giving money to them.

 

So really, you're being pedantic, you know what people are getting at and it is valid point.

 

It's not a good reason to hurl abuse or be negative, but it is a reason to expect a certain amount of , quality effort and respect from the players.

 

Also a good post.

[Jordan]

We certainly contribute to their wages, isn't that enough?

 

The fact of the matter is that without football fans they wouldn't get paid anything at all. We make their job possible.

 

Of course we're not simply handing our money over to them as individuals. But we're giving money to the club and the club is giving money to them.

 

So really, you're being pedantic, you know what people are getting at and it is valid point.

 

It's not a good reason to hurl abuse or be negative, but it is a reason to expect a certain amount of , quality effort and respect from the players.

 

Fair enough, but when you see how much more disconnected the fans' wallet is to the players' paychecks--even with the costs of going to games rising steadily in this generation--it may go some way towards explaining an emotional disconnection on both sides between the fans in the seats and the players.

 

Even though I'd argue with certainty that the fans' money and time goes much more towards making the companies and big-shots in charge of the game, the sponsors, and the media richer than it does the players, I can understand why "we pay their wages" is a common visceral reaction amongst fans even if I strongly disagree with it. Fans do play to see the likes of Danny Drinkwater and not the owners or television executives, and player wages have risen sharply in this generation while the cost of attending games has gone up, too. But that phrase is only trotted out when fans have a complaint.

 

 

Good post.

I can only assume he is posting on tops behalf. Almost justifying the fact we spend more than we get in. If he actually read my post we shouldn't be paying more in wages than our season ticket income. That way everthing else is a bonus. Just good business sense.

His figures if anything prove we pay wages. Clearly the rest of the club operations don't generate much. Much profit that is.

I cannot understand how you could see those numbers and come away with these conclusions. 

 

Wouldn't you say some of those numbers I posted are worrisome? I'm hardly carrying Vichai and Top's water here.

 

I may not be as anti-debt as I assume you to be and I wouldn't want to restrict squad wages to just one source of income but I would agree with you in some degree that the club should spend more prudently. The club cannot throw good money after bad.

 

 

You are giving 2011/12 season as your example which we all know Sven went berserk by giving big contracts,I guess wages is still an issue but nothing like 27 million these days and will continue to fall when the likes of Konchesky leave,so the percentage will be a lot more in line...so to say we don't pay the players wages is bull

 

I stand by what I wrote. There's much more to the club's finances than money coming in from the fans and money coming out in the form of expenses and player wages--especially at a club like Leicester City, which operated at losses year after year before the Thais took over an has large and complicated debts (though arguably less complicated now that most of the debt is owed to other companies they own).

 

2011/12 is an excellent example precisely because of how striking the numbers are. Just think about how much money the owners could spend on players without the fans, and how much debt they could borrow from their other business ventures.

 

I didn't mean to take this too far off topic

[Lobsterboyuk]

Great analysis from Jordan, cheers.

Anybody who thinks they can justify their abuse of a player because "they pay the players wages" is wrong.

Looking at the economics the cash cow of football is tv rights, everything else including fan revenue is chump change, especially when you get to the prem. as for atmosphere, that's easily fixed with 'canned' supporter noises on the Tv