forlanssister 3,060 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Have a bunch of guys using their talented feet to kick a ball round some grass done enough to earn much more than that? Do two wrongs make a right? May as well argue because Murray and Whyte screwed us over Green & Co should be allowed to too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Have a bunch of guys using their talented feet to kick a ball round some grass done enough to earn much more than that? I get what you're saying but I'm sure you would contradict yourself in an instant if we brought in players on 50k a year. The point is we NEED to pay that to get the quality of player due to market forces. As I said in a previous post, I don't think that applies to the board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Do two wrongs make a right? May as well argue because Murray and Whyte screwed us over Green & Co should be allowed to too. No, I just find the moral outrage at high fees a bit odd when we're all into a sport where the central figures get paid obscene amounts of money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Seems a bit of a contradiction considering all the IPO money is staying in the club. Will you not go to matches on this same basis? And what's the difference between directors being overpaid and players and coaches being overpaid? The wages footballers are on seem far more objectionable to me but it is what it is. Thanks STB - you're spot on. My new moan is about ALL those who are overpaid - eg CEOs. I must add players to my list. Present games would suggest that paying someone 10k a week doesn't get you much better value than if you paid them £100 a week. Likewise, I remain to be convinced that someone earning 350k a year is worth his/her salt. I'm also unconvinced that it's in the best interests of the economy. 10 to 20 people sharing that wage would contribute far more. Rant over - but thanks for pointing it out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Have a bunch of guys using their talented feet to kick a ball round some grass done enough to earn much more than that? Our players aren't earning salaries anywhere near what they were when we were at the top of the SPL. Our player wage bill is a small fraction of what it was as SPL Champions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Our players aren't earning salaries anywhere near what they were when we were at the top of the SPL. Our player wage bill is a small fraction of what it was as SPL Champions. around a quarter of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 What you say seems like a good pitch for a bank but not a football club. This is a one time thing. I can understand a developer who buys a run down house at auction, does it up and sells for market value while making a substantial profit. However, this is more akin to them selling 20% to the previous people who rented the place and love their home, but charging them 40% of the market value and then continuing to charging them full rent. Fundamentally, we are no different to any other business. But you don't have to invest though there are plenty of institutions who seem willing. You can continue being a supporter and, like a customer of any other business, you can always vote with your feet. But the support didn't vote with their feet when Murray was mismanaging us into the ground so why would they for Green? Especially if there is a perception that he is doing a decent job. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I get what you're saying but I'm sure you would contradict yourself in an instant if we brought in players on 50k a year. The point is we NEED to pay that to get the quality of player due to market forces. As I said in a previous post, I don't think that applies to the board. I don't think that's entirely true, would Green have attracted these people without high incentive? You can talk about just getting other people but that pretty much goes back to TBK debate again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Our players aren't earning salaries anywhere near what they were when we were at the top of the SPL. Our player wage bill is a small fraction of what it was as SPL Champions. Yes, our directors wages are more like that of a middling Premiership team than what is basically the equivalent of a lower Championship team. BUT they also get millions of pounds worth of shares on top. Green will have 8.4% of the club for NO investment PLUS the wage. That could be £5m and I'll bet the Man U CEO doesn't get that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Our players aren't earning salaries anywhere near what they were when we were at the top of the SPL. Our player wage bill is a small fraction of what it was as SPL Champions. You have to proportion that to where we are. And the wage bill will go up as we get higher, not as high as it was under Murray but it will inevitably increase. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.