• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Lets Talk About Wages

So being gifted a new stadium will make us better off than if we took out a loan to fund it?

Mind blown.
 
Superted said:
Real Madrid are always getting bailed out by the govt aren't they? Think it's disgusting that the country is about to go down the toilet yet somehow they can fund those 2 clubs.
Click to expand...

Its a local government issue. In both cities the local politicians seek office on the back of the clubs successes, making promises to the electorate on how much they are going to invest in the fortunes of the clubs.

I'm not an expert on Spanish politics, but I'm guessing that it would be the equivalent of Boris Johnston offering to give massive financial support to Spurs, so that they could overtake the Manchester teams. I use him, as opposed to the local MP for the borough that Spurs are in (Haringey?) as he/she has no such financial clout or influence.

Both clubs enjoy massive stadia built off the back of taxpayers money (Emirates Marketing Project?) little or no corporation taxes, rents or social taxes. they probably get free policing and all manner of other concessions which have been granted over the years. As a result they can plough all of their revenues into player salaries and transfer fees.

None of which will contravene financial fair play regs, as they are so unique, I would imagine.
 
Going back to what this thread was originally about; I couldn't give a fudge if a player wants to leave us to earn ?ú250K+ per week... if he does, that says as much about his personality and ethics (in a negative sense) than if he were to stay and play for the shirt... come on, who the fudge needs ?ú250K+ a week? if it's ONLY money that motivates, then don't expect him to put a shift in on **FOOTBALL CLICH?ë ALERT** A wet Tuesday night up at Oldham in the Cup... 'cos they'll only want to play in the Champions League (the League of Champions, right kids?) and won't give a fudge about ANY fan who has paid through the nose and probably gone without a Summer holiday in order to pay for the season ticket to watch the c*nt in the first place!

Footballers don't give two bricks about fans, why the fudge should WE give a fudge about them...? yet we do... 'cos while they play for the club we love, we'll defend them to the hilt, but the moment they leave, they are dead to us!

Use that philosophy, and take it forward into next season... it will serve you well, and save getting too worked up about Luka's inevitable 'pay-day-departure'!
 
And it's disgusting. Even just by taxing the players, simple maths:
$100,000 per week x 22 players x 52 weeks x 2 clubs @ 30% = $68M a year in revenue for the country. How much do they need for the bale out?
 
The whole occupy movement was all about protesting greedy banks and corporates. No one ever mentions footballers, movie stars, Oprah, etc.
 
The state should never get involved in what private citizens earn.

If mugs are prepared to pay movie stars and footballers the money they earn then good luck to them.

Blame the football clubs and studios.
 
Agree I think the whole occupy movement is a pile of toss. But an investment banker has as much right to earn his relative pittance as does a Spanish footballer.
 
Superted said:
Agree I think the whole occupy movement is a pile of toss. But an investment banker has as much right to earn his relative pittance as does a Spanish footballer.
Click to expand...

There is a difference though.

A footballer is brick? Bovvered.

A banker gets incentivized to take risks with other peoples money and put the global economy at risk? Not the same.

Bonuses should be paid over 3-5 years and money should be able to be clawed back.

If FFP had teeth and we had confidence it would be enforced it would work.....but we know it'll be some fudge.

Looking at Chelsea they obviously believe nowt will be done!!
 
Superted said:
And it's disgusting. Even just by taxing the players, simple maths:
$100,000 per week x 22 players x 52 weeks x 2 clubs @ 30% = $68M a year in revenue for the country. How much do they need for the bale out?
Click to expand...

Why? Who are we going to replace him with? Townsend?
 
jimmyb said:
Firstly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit if it has been earned.

Secondly, I'm sorry if I sound like a stuck record but no..........they don't both have the same ending. The examples given couldn't be more different.

Liverpool FC are some ?ú200 million worse off as a consequence of their association with Hicks and Gillette. That's just in terms of the money which Hicks and Gillette leeched off the club. In terms of the ground that Liverpool has lost as a consequence, the figure is far higher. Maybe double. Maybe more than that, even.

Man Utd are some ?ú400 million worse off as a result of Glazer's association with the club.

Quite the opposite for Spurs. ENIC have taken no money out of the club. They have put money into the club. They have turned around a club that limped from season to season in perennial mid table mediocrity (barring the occasional flirtation with relegation) and have had it challenging in the upper echelons of the Premier League table for most of the past seven years.

They have added huge value to the club. That is what good management does.

So, if and when they sell, they will have earned the right to make a handsome profit.
Click to expand...

This. ENIC have been GREAT for the club. When and if they sell, and make a good profit, they deserve it. They have not behaved like the owners of Liverpool or ManU
 
I didn't want more nonesense filling up the transfer thread, so thought I'd start something new...

...I really want to talk about Adebayour and his wages. To me, this seems like idiocy and suicide in equal measure. Surely we cannot seriously be contemplating paying him anything like his current wages at Emirates Marketing Project? All news reports and ITK seem to be pointing towards this, rather than a bumper signing on fee.

- Firstly, even with the increased TV revenue coming our way, we still surely don't have the turnover to support these types of salaries?...
- Given that paying Adebayour silly money will make the rest of the squad clamour for parity or "worth" and massively inflate the wage bill
- Is Adebayour even worth £170k per week?
- For £100k+ we can speak seriously to A LOT of strikers

All this talk of us finding new investment is tinkling me off. So we're going to take £200m of investment and throw it down the toilet by paying outrageous salary demands, which only exist in the first place because of ****s like Mansour and Abramovich distorting the market beyond all recognition? I'm pretty happy with AVB, Sig, Vert... But all this talk of wages is really making me grumpy.
 
Few points

- He isn't worth 170k/week, imv - that's insanity, completely unsustainable and he's nowhere near that good in the first place
- We cannot and will not pay even 100k/week
- My guess would be a golden handshake sign on fee and 70-80k/week take or leave it
- If we could pay massive wages, Modric would have 85% stayed
 
Last edited:
Personally I wouldn't pay him more than 100k, he has to realise that the wages he's currently on are because he signed for a joke club and he can't expect to get them anywhere else other than another joke club like Chelsea, Malaga or PSG. I would hope Levy's been telling him / his agent this.

I could live with paying him 4 or 5 mill in signing on fee because his transfer fee should be fairly low, so you can rationalise it as a complete package, transfer fee + signing on fee = "normal" transfer fee.

I agree, it's certainly not a road I want Spurs to go down.
 
We give him a 4 mill signing on fee then a year down the line he kicks up a fuss and say he wants out? It's a no from me
 
c'mon peeps, this is Levy we are talking about. He will not sanction 170k a week, he will not allow a 4 mill signing on fee to be paid up front, we all know deep down that Ade will be on 90k a week basic, and something like a 5 mill signing on fee will be spread over the 3 or 4 years of his contract, and Emirates Marketing Project will contribute to some of Ade's wages in the same way Middlesboro contributed to Woodgate's wages whilst he was with us

relax and breathe
 
He'll be getting 9m a year. Everyone jizzing themselves that he's only costing 5m needs to cop themselves on. In 3 seasons we'll have paid 32m and he'll have resell value.
We could get Leandro for 24m pay him 50k a week and that would cost us 32m over 3 seasons. But we could sell the Brazilian international striker on for a 30+m.
 
indianspur said:
c'mon peeps, this is Levy we are talking about. He will not sanction 170k a week, he will not allow a 4 mill signing on fee to be paid up front, we all know deep down that Ade will be on 90k a week basic, and something like a 5 mill signing on fee will be spread over the 3 or 4 years of his contract, and Emirates Marketing Project will contribute to some of Ade's wages in the same way Middlesboro contributed to Woodgate's wages whilst he was with us

relax and breathe
Click to expand...

Have you even known a football player to take a wage cut? He's going to be getting 170k a week whether its made up of bonuses, signing on fees or whatever.
 
WhoopWhoop said:
We give him a 4 mill signing on fee then a year down the line he kicks up a fuss and say he wants out? It's a no from me
Click to expand...

That's a very good point, surely there will be some stipulations? Can we give him £1m per year of his contract?
 
ArcspacE said:
Few points

- He isn't worth 170k/week, imv - that's insanity, completely unsustainable and he's nowhere near that good in the first place
- We cannot and will not pay even 100k/week
- My guess would be a golden handshake sign on fee and 70-80k/week take or leave it
- If we could pay massive wages, Modric would have 85% stayed
Click to expand...

If the other 15% made up one of his legs I wouldn't of wanted him to.

I'll get my coat. :tumbleweed:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back