Tie him down to a Newcastle-esk 6 year contract and when he's an England regular in a couple of years we'll get 40m for him On a more serious note, JWP is technically fantastic and i think he'll really come on leaps and bounds next season.
Being a reverse devil's advocate I would say that a lot of those that sit on their arse watching every game that sky show including all other countries leagues may get up to some trouble without TV football making them passive and sedantry. I would also say that take football away and the money it creates directly and indirectly within the country would be a pretty high figure. Beyond the direct sales of tickets, merchandise etc, the money taken by pubs, fast food joints, corner shops, nightclubs etc (and restaurants for some) is of massive value to local economies. Just having a 'known' football club in your town / city means you know that thousands are going to be in the city every couple of weeks. Saying that footballers earning £100k+ a week is all a bit silly IMO.
Crouch said if he wasn't a footballer, he'd be a virgin! The government will get a lot of tax revenue from footballers though, albeit it's best not to do a France and have ridiculously high tax rates where footballers will look to move abroad. I blame Hollande for giving us Lovren.
There has to be something rotten in a world where some people earn more in a week than others do in a year. And there has to be something equally rotten in a sport in which everything and everyone is for sale to the highest bidder. I don't claim to have the answers, but the fact that so many people don't even see a problem is frankly incredible.
I'm on sale to the highest bidder! When I go back to Kuwait it's time to renew my contract and you can bet I'm going to take whichever offer is highest! Capitalism allows many things which may be immoral. But as there isn't really an alternative, why get outraged over it? I live in a country full of ridiculous displays of opulence and wealth, while people are starving in others. However, there's no reality in which I see Hassan El-Sabah have his fleet of cars taken away to redress the balance. Question is, if the world is so rotten, what are you going to do to make it better? The world is cold, but it's very easy to be an active part of making a difference in it. People love a nice moral outrage about how unfair the world is, but they love to pick and choose what they care about. I see so many people complain about this issue, yet how many people also shop at places like Primark or own iPods? Work with charities, work with people who can affect change, be conscious of your decisions in retail etc.
Well actually there are other options than just accepting injustice and doing a bit of charity work to salve your conscience, but thanks for the helpful advice. Someone mentioned France further up this thread; whilst Hollande's high tax presidency is deeply unpopular and will probably be deemed a failure, at least our Gallic cousins are not happy to just accept massive social inequality as a fact of life. Plus they still celebrate their revolution every July; whilst we still fawn all over our Royalty, they beheaded theirs. About time we erected a guillotine in the City of London and dragged a few bankers out to atone for their crimes.
Well we may differ on whether murder and the death penalty is a solution to social inequality or not! Besides it's not really about clearing your conscience, to completely clear social inequality you need to educate people as to the dangers of it, raise people from an early age to understand that we are one human family and that regardless of race or ethnicity, we should be cooperative as a species. Social inequality will not be tackled while 'the haves' resent the work done to address it (as with Hollande). That's the biggest step that must be made.
I was joking about the guillotine mate. Just felt like having a rant. As for JWP, let's pay him what we can afford. And let's not give up hope that qualities like loyalty might still mean something to some of his generation.
James G is on the money there. Its no good to complain about high earners getting so much and then having our low incomes subsidised with tax credits and 'free of tax lower bands'. Yes the higher paid also get the same lower band tax free amount but it is a pittance of their income and it is the tax that they pay on their higher earnings that pay for the lower paid to be taken out of tax for a much higher proportion of their earnings as well as their tax credits. We could of course cap higher earners and get rid of tax credits, get rid of tax free earnings and set a minimum wage @ 30k per year. That would make people hapier but in reality there is no difference. Those at the top are earning less but paying less tax with a similar net 'income'. Those at the bottom are earning more but paying more tax but have a similar net 'income' as before. It will always be the same those at the lower end moaning about those at the top earning so much whilst not ever considering that they themselves are subsidised by income that is funded by taxes from those at the top in one way or another. Trickle down economics is much maligned by socialists and equally championed by capitalists. It was however the last socialist government that chose to go the 'tax credit' route and remove barriers to high pay. That way was a stealthy way to address the balance. People are never happy though. The majority will still be moaning in 20 years about unfairness whilst wanting the cheapest groceries possible even if it means that farms/food production have to be subsidised to survive and they will still be buying clothing / goods that are made abroad as cheaply as possible. Just as they will still be filling Premier League stadiums even if the tickets are ridiculously expensive. Just as they will still be paying for their Sky packages and getting smartphone upgrades every year on inflated contracts whilst saying they are struggling with the 'cost of living'.
Say everything you do with such conviction when you become the loser. In Capitalism, most people have to lose, in order for some to win handsomely. You don't really even get to pick where you lose. It is one thing to be outraged by something, but have to live within it. When people were camped outside St Pauls, protesting against unprincipled Capitalism, some former Conservative politician made a comment that they queued to get their coffee from Starbucks. As if they were supposed to grow their own coffee beans in the City..? Some people are principled enough to not go to Primark or own iPods. That's one you can pick and choose about. You can live within Capitalism and not be entirely happy about it. Or you can just shut your mind off to it and take advantage. It's your choice. [video=youtube;8WvAkhW-XNI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WvAkhW-XNI[/video]
And, within the present lopsided scenario, I hope JWP gets a handsome contract, which I hope he thoroughly deserves and earns in a long and successful career with Saints. But they all get paid too much.
When are people going to stop making these hysterical Daily Express-comment-section comparisons between private and public sector employed individuals? The top football clubs bring in hundreds of millions, if not billions per year. The percentage of this that is spent on players' wages - the "workers" we specifically pay to watch - is actually relatively modest. These are essentially entertainers we're talking about. They entertain billions of people worldwide who, directly or indirectly, fund the football industry. Top Hollywood actors can command fees of up to $50million per movie. Some pop stars regularly make in excess of $1 million per gig. There is sufficient demand for the services they provide and they are compensated for their work accordingly. I would argue that footballers work harder than these types of people, generally have shorter careers, yet earn less. What's the problem?
The board may look at Cork and think there's a chance he could be considered surplus to requirements by next summer. It's pretty unlikely, but why offer him a new contract now when they can wait until closer to the end of his current one? It's not like he's going to have bigger clubs sniffing around him and we need to nail him down.
Thanks to Sky the only real point of a "contract" nowadays is to blow smoke up a player's ass. Fuquin' ridiculous.
