Footballers have too much money

[Kanes]

British soccer star David Beckham may have disappointed some fans by leaving Manchester United to join Real Madrid, but he didn't disappoint the developers of a luxury development in the United Arab Emirates. The 28-year-old just bought a villa, reportedly worth $1.6 million, in a luxury development called the Palm.

His neighbors on the island will include a slew of English soccer players--Michael Owen, Wayne Bridge, Ashley Cole, Joe Cole, Kieron Dyer and David James--who all have signed contracts to buy villas on the island. The Palm, which is located close to Dubai's Jumeirah Beach, isn't expected to be completed until 2005.

Beckham first became familiar with the Palm last year when he was in Dubai for World Cup training. The island will be shaped like a palm tree, and developers say it will be visible from the moon. Perhaps 'N Sync's Lance Bass will one day be able to verify whether that's true. It will be 3 miles long and 3 miles wide, and each villa is said to come with a private beach and swimming pool.

Now when I looked at that lsit of people, it looks like a bunch of guys who were at the England training camp in Dubai and decided one the off chance to buy a place. It's just not fair

 

[Kanes]

Originally posted by Big Kev
I think they deserve their wages, it's a business after all nowadays and they are the main assets.

not a very good business when most of the clubs lose money due to the high wages they pay their players?

 

[Kanes]

Originally posted by Big Kev
Then the clubs concerned are negligent, can't blame the players though.

There are a handful of clubs that turn a profit every year, the majority lose money by the barrel. Some clubs appear rich when actually they're in huge pits of debt but are backed up by the government/royals of their country, it really affects the market.

Take away those clubs, which IMO needs doing, it's a total farce for clubs to be bankrolled by the government. All it does is ensure they get the best players because they can pay the highest wages.

Admittedly big business gets involved but not to that extent. Look at the french leagues, the clubs don't pay the same wages the UK/Italy/Spain pay but they still have some top quality players coming through. But immediately they get poached by those 3 leagues, because if a club gets into financial difficulty in France, nobody in a position of power can back them out, only individuals.

So you don't get the Leeds/Barcelona/Real Madrid situations happening, because they governing body will sort it out and remove you from the league if you operate in huge debts.

At the end of the day, it's the fans who suffer. I'll give a predicition:

ATM Sky has no competition form the UK market, ITV and the BBC are negligable, they can't pay anything near what Sky can. So Sky can happily bid whatever they want for the football rights, nobody else is around to bid against them except for the scraps. Why would Sky spend £600 million on the football rights when it knows full well it can spend something like £80m?

Fans get shafted for tickets already, but they still pay. Grounds are getting bigger and more expensive to build (and they don't get government help like the waste of money that is the Wembley project). I personally thought AFC were having a giggle when they said the stadium would cost over £220m in construction charges (not anything else, no buying land or the council bits or whatever). Just to build, on the other side of the coin, the Millenium stadium cost £132 (but Laing recorded a loss of £30 so let's say £160m for arguments sake), how does that work out? a 60'000 seater open roof costs more to build than a 80'000 (the third tier would actually cost less to build than the 2 tier at Cardiff cost) with a retractable roof? how is that cost effective?

Likewise the huge squads, what's the average Premiership side size now? First team, Reserves, Youth, Junior, etc. Most never make it to the first team, why bother? get a squad of say 24 players and it's sorted?

FIFA have got to start putting embargos on the banrolled clubs, having them around completely ruins the football economy. If they aren't around, it's going to mean clubs can pay their players less, where else can they go? ok possibly to somewhere like Chelsea but even he will have his limits when he knows what he can pay.

 

[Kanes]

Originally posted by Spud21
The problem with the Barca / Real situation is that both are bankrolled by the two major banks in spain, because of this they will never call the debts in, would you like to be the bank that destroyed Real Madrid or Barca, they would fall almost overnight in spain. Is better to have a massive account and not call it in just let them repay it, rather than call it in and have Millions of spaniards pull their accounts, and severly damage tha bank.

Also you can't stop the state getting involved, as they did with Real, they have had links to the Spanish government since Franco, as he was an avid Real fan, so he created links then, and how do you get rid of them ?

Also withdrawing state help would severly dmage Italian football, as the ony stadium that is not state owned is the san siro which was built and paid for by a private architecht and given as a gift to the city of Milan, the rest are all state owned, and state built.

Taking awya clubs that are in debt means you will be left with, Man U, Arse i think, Liverpool and Wallsall. What excitement you would have there They are the ONLY clubs that regularly make a profit, every single other club operates at a loss, do that and you destroy english football, meaning sky wouldn't pay the money, few would watch and the remaining sides would struggle, as they would get nothing like the money they do.

The longer they keep going, the further into debt they go. The more money has to come from somewhere, that will have an affect on the economy. Not jsut the footballing one, what they're doing actually violates some European laws on fair trade and industry and i doubt the EU monetary policy will be very happy. You've also got the banks shareholders to think of, this is costing them money, a lot more important than football fans. When you look into Spain's financial setup, they won't exactly be taking their business elsewhere as there isn't much else to go to. It makes world football a sham, it basically means a team has unlimited paper money and can just buy whoever they like and pay what they like in order to win.

How do you stop this? same way Britain did with Murdoch trying to get Man Utd, far trade and industry, vested interests. A government should not control private organisations out of the tax budget.

Italy has problems. Big clubs just falling into non existance because of their finances. If you can't afford the players or the wages, you can't have them. AC Milan are an odd club, on the one hand the PM controls them but he spends small amounts and apparently it's out of his own wealth (fair enough he is a rich enough bloke). He doesn't buy up their training ground through the government then sell it back to them for a fraction of the price a few weeks later. The stadiums being state owned was something I didn't know, i assumed they would be privately owned and shared. Which is a good enough idea, when a stadium costs hundreds of millions, it won't pay for itself for years, by which time you'd likely have needed a new one years before and had to buy it. The whole thing in London of about 5 different clubs and a national stadium being needed within a 10 mile radius is absurd. For the majority, that's a huge loss that will never be recouped.

I'm saying, operate at a loss unless you have a wealthy owner who can personally give you funds. The clubs who have debts going to banks and governments is going out, it leads down 2 roads; 1. they can't pay it back, the bank takes posession and sells assets and possibly closes club 2. Bank cannot do anything about it, has to keep the loss coming in forever and is stuck with these debts, very bad business.

Clubs paying players wages they can't afford is where the line stops. Look at Arsenal, they need a new stadium and have to have the cash ready and a bank loan set (if they don't pay it back, the assets of the club risk being sold off). That is what i'm talking about by profit, either shareholders, private individuals or operate within your means, that is how football needs to be run. Not living in a fantasy financial world where they can spend as much as they like without having to pay it back.

 

[Kanes]

The reason they were going for little is because of the financial state football is in. Unless you've got a Russian owner or are bankrolled, you're having to survive within your means. Leeds are in debt, they need money, clubs know this, so they can bid what they can afford rather than too much and pray they win some competition or get some more tickets sold. Few clubs will be paying such huge fees for the minute, and I hope for good.

The bad side is if fees continued in thir current way, the only person screwed would be the fans, IE: Club wants player to come to them, another club who is bankrolled can pay more to get him, original club has to match/better that offer and pay more than they can realistically afford. Club has to get higher income now, TV deal is fixed rate and less than last year due to Sky, only thing is merchandise and ticket prices, leaving the fan having to foot the bill.

I'm not saying footballers deserve £40 a day, i'm saying in the current market, £100k a week for someone or £40k for a squad player is not going to be sustainable. Before anyone says movie stars get X million for a movie, films make money and are profitable, the current star will generate viewers and earn their pay. From the majority, footballers don't earn all their pay and make the club lose money, so they need to start being paid realistically.

Barca are in huge debt with banks (several and one major) but the banks are in a bind if they take the money back, IE they can't because the only asset they can do is take the stadium (effectively closing the club) or forcing them into administration. Either way, it's a problem as it's being controlled outside of them. It's cost the shareholders money, it needs to be fixed.

Real's operations are a joke, the government intervenes yearly somehow, be it buying the ground and selling it back, giving them tax breaks or any of their other recent stunts. Also I believe they are in debt to several banks aswell with the same situation.

It's not really difficult to differentiate, football is not an essential public service (awaits flames) it does not deserve millions of tax payers money especially for a club that only represents a small city. It'd be like Blair paying for Arsenal's new stadium and giving it to them as a gift, can you imagine the reaction from other fans?