whats wrong with football part 94...

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board ARCHIVE' started by Farnham_Red, Aug 29, 2012.

  1. Farnham_Red

    Farnham_Red Administrator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    34,510
    Likes Received:
    23,954
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Farnham
    Style:
    Barnsley
    Walcot has rejected a new 5year deal at Arsenal due to the fact they will only offer him £75000 per week ( Deal worth £20 million over 5 years)

    Looks like his agent is angling for a move to Manche$£er City for more cash

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19406655
     
    Farnham_Red, Aug 29, 2012
    #1
  2. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    40,155
    Likes Received:
    7,178
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I just cannot understand why the ordinary football fan would want to continue subscribing to Sky sports and fuelling this monumental greed and selfishness.
     
    MarioKempes, Aug 29, 2012
    #2
  3. Anderson15

    Anderson15 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Barnsley
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    there are other sports than football on Sky. it isn't the sole reason top 4 clubs are throwing stupid money at average players.
     
    Anderson15, Aug 29, 2012
    #3
  4. Gaz

    Gaz Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    5,210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    No idea. Definitely not at work, though. Honest.
    Home Page:
    Is that all? Poor sod. How's he meant to get by on £75,000 a match? Honestly.
     
    Gaz, Aug 29, 2012
    #4
  5. troff

    troff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    11,173
    Likes Received:
    15,634
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    donny
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Don't actually agree. The money thing isn't just about how much they'll pay him, it's also about ambition.

    He's 23, the next five seasons will be his best where he hits his peak, he got shed loads of assists last season, and to me looks to have improved over the last couple of years.

    If they aren't prepared to pay him half of what another club is, then the same is true that they won't pay anybody else that either. Fair enough - but it restricts the quality of player you can sign. It's alright blaming city and Chelsea etc, but everyone says the business model of the bundesliga is great - bayern Munich pay half their squad over 80k a week, five on over 100k. Psg pay stupid amounts, Russia, five or six clubs pay that and more, china, America, Arab countries. Italy has four or five that pay to that level and obviously the big two in Spain pay astronomical wages.

    Arsenal can bleat all they like and we can criticise their players for moving for money - its clearly not just money. Arsenal haven't a prayer of winning anything with the wage structure they insist on. And their income means they should be able to afford more, it's the greed of expecting large profit and dividends every year that cost them.

    If I was theo Walcott, money aside, I'd be out of arsenal sharpish. Oxlade chamberlain will go next, plus anyone else who shows any kind of quality.
     
    troff, Aug 29, 2012
    #5
  6. Farnham_Red

    Farnham_Red Administrator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    34,510
    Likes Received:
    23,954
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Farnham
    Style:
    Barnsley
    So you dont think there is much wrong with football then?

    The fact that a club who caps its wages at only £75 000 pounds per week has no chance of getting or keeping good players is a good thing - really!

    I wasnt having a go at Walcott in particular - if another club offer to double his wages he wouldnt be normal if he didnt seriously consider going there - its the fact that now - as mentioned ad tedium on this board recently only 3 clubs have any realistic chance of winning anything significant - 2 of who are only in that position because they are the plaything of a mega rich owner who thinks its fun to throw his small change at them.
    And the only way to try and crash the party is to do a Leeds or Portsmouth which isnt generally a good thing for everyone,

    By the way I dont think Walcotts situation is anything to do with sky - they are funding the general stupid salaries in the premiership and distorting the balance between that and the championship but the Manchester Clubs and Chelsea dont need Skys coin they get most of their revenue elsewhere.
     
    Farnham_Red, Aug 29, 2012
    #6
  7. DEETEE

    DEETEE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    10,230
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Can you find a German club with 300m of loans outstanding mortgaged against future season ticket sales and television revenue.

    Although I think the amount of money thrown about from sky etc is stupid you have to look at what people have done with it.

    Cricket for example a lot goes back into grass roots and youth development.
     
    DEETEE, Aug 29, 2012
    #7
  8. Xer

    Xerxes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    5,737
    Likes Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ex-oil Company Project Director
    Location:
    West Riding of Yorkshire or St Selve, France
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    What's wrong with football. Easy answer..

    AGENTS
     
    Xerxes, Aug 29, 2012
    #8

Share This Page