To all the people who I spoke to a year or so ago, I would like to say a smug.....Told you so !! It now gets me believing even more the other story (if you remember that one)
Remind me Stainsey. I have a scrapbook of all your posts, which I print out and glue into a large folio. However, I am indexing in alphabetical order according to the first letter of the first word of each post, which makes searching tricky. With your permission I hope to publish one day, under the title Thoughts of an Anarcho-Syndicalist St Pauli/QPR Wage Slave. Is it a conspiracy theory? Go on, we've not had one for a bit.
I'll remind you when we meet down the C&S...... It didn't get posted on here but I'm sure I told you as well as Nines and Roller.... (I tried to do laughing smilie things but they didn't come out.....)
I can't follow the economics of this example! As the player would be taxed at 50%, his net new salary would immediately be down to £4,000 per month. Now reduce this amount by his NIC contributions on the extra £8,000 per month & his net income has increased by less than the amount he now has to pay the manager! Why accept an increase if the take home pay is less? Now if the monthly payment to the manager was 25% of the increase rather than 50%, this would make sense.
Sorry lads, can't put it in print 'cos I couldn't afford the court hearing But the same source told me about a certain managers dealings with taking players appearance money....seems the same info that the Telegraph has...therefore I can only believe the other stuff I heard was absolutely true
Maybe the increase was based on the take home figure as opposed to the gross one. Otherwise you're correct Tel, it wouldn't make any sense.
