have always wondered why people argue that people who are already rich have to be offered more as an incentive, whilst people who are poor are only going to have an incentive to work harder if they get less.........
wonder what will happen when RA (i can't spell his surname, so i'm not even going to try) gets fed up of his football toy.
I've done some nice holidays in my time and I'm certainly no expert on boats, but why the hell would anyone want two pools? Is one for the staff?
If people are willing to pay it then who can blame someone for taking it, let's face it if we were offered big money for the job we do over being loyal to our current employers would we turn it down? I know I wouldn't.
The richest woman in the world is now an Australian and is the richest Australian. A multi-billionaire she earned last year at the rate of $Aus52 Million/week(about 32 Million Pounds). Would that be enough for you or would you want more?
There is loyalty, and there is being realistic. Back when I presume that you say there was 'loyalty', the financial benefits you could get from a transfer were perhaps minimal, and you would have to pack up and move across the country etc... Only a fool would turn down the opportunity to get wages which are on offer now. Rich owners generally know a thing or two about success. They don't throw away £100,000's a week for the fun of it, by and large, they pay because it is worth it. And anybody who buys tickets to football games, watches football games on TV, buys shirts/merchandise, discusses football on forums etc... can really have no grounds to complain about it - because you are willingly funding and justifying these wages.
I know, I love football, I think that footballers deserve to have fame and fortune because they are role models to the rest of the world, but I won't justify someone on £350,000 a week
