Yeah, I'm sure being a actual fan as a kid (obviously not all of them) as no influence whatsoever Simply question; as a Man Utd fan, if you were a player and you had the choice of playing for a Man Utd side that hadn't won much for a long time and didn't look likely to win anything soon or a Liverpool side that had won stuff and were favourites for titles in the near future, which would you choose? Please note, this is a purely fictional question before you try to twist it in any way If the roles were reversed, I'd choose Liverpool as I could never play for Man Utd no matter how ambitious I am/was.
You say that as a fan. If football was your job, your bread and butter, how you paid to feed your family and I had the choice between playing for Chelsea at 50k a week and playing for Liverpool for 175k per week?? "Choo Choo, first train to Liverpewl please me ol' mukka!" If you would deny your family a much better quality of life over football tribalism.... Thats makes you a great Liverpool fan.....but a terrible husband/father/provider. I know which I hold most important
Any shame I would get for signing for any club would quickly be erased when I got my first weekly £175k credited to my bank account
Come on, if you were a footballer, slumming it at Yeovil or something on £750 a week, and Brendan Rodgers phoned you up now and offered you a 5 year contract at 90k per week, you would say no?"
Is it really a better quality of life though? What can you possibly do on £175k per week than you can't do on £50k per week? I know what you're saying but I genuinely don't think I would. I can understand why others such as Michael Own took the route they did though.
That is different. They came through the youth system so its more a case of a 'all or nothing' scenario. We were talking about signing already established players.
If its a neutral (like Tobes ) than yes. We were talking about choosing one club over another and I said being a fan would influence their decision. Its all too easy for fans to sit back and blame money IMO
Again, that's not the point of the conversation. If it was a make or break deal then of course you'd take it. The discussion was about signing already established players that are probably already millionaires. It started after this comment... ...and I responded saying the player could be a fan. Without doubt in my mind, I would choose Liverpool on £50k per week over £175k per week at Man Utd. What could you not do with £50k per week that you could with £175k...? Its hardly going to be a make or break decision is it?
A s**t load to be fair. Footballers careers are short and they want to maximise income. They can save more, buy bigger properties, more cash to invest in enterprises, better trust funds for their kids, Better life insurance policies with bigger payouts if they ever get sick or die and leave their partner widowed plus a f** ton of other stuff......Donate more to charity to help the unfortunate, and just an all round more secure financial portfolio.....
The words were "a better quality of life". I fail to see how giving more to charity etc gives your family a better quality of life. Insurance policy? Who gives a ****, your rich! Investments? you can still do that as you're on £50k per week!!! Obviously, everything is multiplied but its not going to provide a better quality of life as you can afford to do everything on £50k as you can on £175k unless of course your planning on developing your own helicopter yard or something In reality, the difference would unlikely be £50k to £175k anyway. More likely £125k versus £175k.
An extra 50k a week across a ten year career equates to £26million before tax. You could almost buy a Luke Shaw for that kind of money.
