Weshallovercome Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 J.J on 8,000 per week Why do you think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Distraught! Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 AT LEAST GBP 5.93 per hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal M Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 AT LEAST GBP 5.93 per hour. Why would we comply with minimum wage? We don't normally pay attention to laws enforced by HMRC.... I move a lot of concrete on the QVC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesWalker Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 J.J on 8,000 per week Divide by 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Business Life 2007 shows average football salaries as below (haven't got anything more recent to hand I'm afraid); Premier League - £676k/year Championship - £196/year League One - £68k/year League Two - £49k/year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i used to be sc_owl Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Business Life 2007 shows average football salaries as below (haven't got anything more recent to hand I'm afraid); Premier League - £676k/year Championship - £196/year League One - £68k/year League Two - £49k/year I would have thought that in the last few years the Premiership figures have been skewed by Man City's spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWednesdayFC Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 It's ridiculous and also not true! I was told it was 6000, Burnley offered him 12,000, then we renegotiated 8000 with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I would have thought that in the last few years the Premiership figures have been skewed by Man City's spending. Certainly would expect that. Did have a look at lunch for more up-to-date figures online, but can't find any. Wouldn't be a surprise to see the Premier League topping £1m/year average given Man City's spending and the general increase in wages - £100k a week would have been for the top talent back in 2007 where those figures are from, now £100k a week just seems the norm for a first team player!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i used to be sc_owl Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Certainly would expect that. Did have a look at lunch for more up-to-date figures online, but can't find any. Wouldn't be a surprise to see the Premier League topping £1m/year average given Man City's spending and the general increase in wages - £100k a week would have been for the top talent back in 2007 where those figures are from, now £100k a week just seems the norm for a first team player!! It's obscene in my opinion. I have no problem with pro athletes being well paid, but some of the amounts being thrown around are simply obscene. It's also a bit of a farce when many of these wages are being paid by clubs that cannot afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Devil10 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Lets face it we do not know what these people earn, how could we?its silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 It's obscene in my opinion. I have no problem with pro athletes being well paid, but some of the amounts being thrown around are simply obscene. It's also a bit of a farce when many of these wages are being paid by clubs that cannot afford it. Problem is you look at other forms of entertainment - Hollywood stars for instance - who get paid just as well as footballers. I think it was Tom Cruise who was reported recently as earning a minimum of £5m a movie - no idea what the standard time is to make a movie, call it 6 months. That is £5m for 6 months from just one film, not forgetting others he might be in. Same goes for music stars - read a few weeks ago that in the 1990's, Noel Gallagher made on average £8m a year (nearly 15 years ago now!) for recording a CD and doing 3 months worth of tours. If the entertainment business is big enough, the stars of that entertainment can demand these crazy sums of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal M Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Problem is you look at other forms of entertainment - Hollywood stars for instance - who get paid just as well as footballers. I think it was Tom Cruise who was reported recently as earning a minimum of £5m a movie - no idea what the standard time is to make a movie, call it 6 months. That is £5m for 6 months from just one film, not forgetting others he might be in. Same goes for music stars - read a few weeks ago that in the 1990's, Noel Gallagher made on average £8m a year (nearly 15 years ago now!) for recording a CD and doing 3 months worth of tours. If the entertainment business is big enough, the stars of that entertainment can demand these crazy sums of money. The economics are different though. Cruise may get GBP 5mm a movie (though it's probably higher - especially if Julia Roberts gets her famously reported $20mm a flick). But that movie will almost certainly pull in anywhere north of $150mm. So his fee is clearly affordable and in economic terms - more than justified. Can you really say the same for a premiership journeyman on obscene wages - or even our own Captain Fantastic on a much more modest salary? Football is a bubble waiting to burst - wages outstrip turnover (or are very close to doing so) at too many clubs. We all know they can't live on the never, never for ever. I move a lot of concrete on the QVC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i used to be sc_owl Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 The economics are different though. Cruise may get GBP 5mm a movie (though it's probably higher - especially if Julia Roberts gets her famously reported $20mm a flick). But that movie will almost certainly pull in anywhere north of $150mm. So his fee is clearly affordable and in economic terms - more than justified. Can you really say the same for a premiership journeyman on obscene wages - or even our own Captain Fantastic on a much more modest salary? Football is a bubble waiting to burst - wages outstrip turnover (or are very close to doing so) at too many clubs. We all know they can't live on the never, never for ever. This was going to be my reply as well! The point is there are a lot of clubs heavily in debt, operating at a loss and paying average players big money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.T.I Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Why do you think that? Let just say shouldn't leave paper work hanging around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twolaptops Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Top Premiership footballers like Wayne Rooney and Gareth Barry are avoiding millions of pounds in tax - and it's all legal. They are using complex tax avoidance schemes that allow them to pay as little as two per cent on the earnings. Manchester United star Rooney has saved almost £600,000 over the past two years by using the tax loophole. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347677/Top-footballers-like-Wayne-Rooney-dodge-millions-tax-cashing-loophole.html#ixzz1HBKBWtP4 2% tax wee wee taking b******s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now