|
Post by johnnymarr on Jan 21, 2004 22:32:18 GMT
The players at Leeds are an absolute disgrace who dont deserve to wear the teams colours-I know theyre not our club but if they were Id be right p*****d off with the usless bunch of twhats. Its about time that premiership players had a good kick up the backside and thought about their club and the people who contribute to their wages. Absolutley shocking J MARR
|
|
|
Post by Rex on Jan 21, 2004 22:34:43 GMT
wrong tree JM...........the club signed them on silly financial contracts to get them in the first place.
If you went to a job and they offered you £100 a week, would you then accept £20 a week if the company were in the cart? the amount of money is irrelevant, its the principal
Rex
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 21, 2004 22:39:56 GMT
Well if they realised that by dropping their principals for once, they would make 100,000's people happy they might see a bit of sense. It must be hard to see reality when you've got your head shoved up your own arse though ??
|
|
|
Post by johnnymarr on Jan 21, 2004 22:46:27 GMT
good point Rex, I dont think Id take a drop at my current job to be honest-but comparing my wages to theirs ( nearly every player at Leeds earns more in a week than I do in 2 years) I think I could go without £32000 for just one week J MARR PLAYS GUITAR
|
|
|
Post by Rex on Jan 21, 2004 22:49:26 GMT
RRP, the club made a massive gamble by buying players and giving them massive wages in order to get them in the first place.
Thats why I really dont have a problem with our board being stringent with the money, they could go silly and buy their way to the premiership and possibly glory, but would end up going bankrupt.
Dont blame the players !!
Rex
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Jan 21, 2004 22:58:05 GMT
Players are overpaid and I am losing respect for both them and the PFA with their "remember it's only a short career" attitude. Hmmmm... Short career at 60k a week (Viduka) and players worried about losing 350,000 by the end of the season. 350,000 for 4 months ??? Is anybody really worth that for playing footie.
HOWEVER, Rex is also right. Some IDIOT was foolish enough to offer them the contract. FULL STOP.
|
|
|
Post by johnnymarr on Jan 21, 2004 23:02:12 GMT
yep-agree with you there Bogus, IMHO money is ruining football-look at how the Premiership is won every season-if teams had as much money as Man Utd and Arsenal and Chelsea then it would be much more even and I think that we'd see a different league altogether, however-u can reverse this at the end of the season if Chelsea win nothing and say money doesnt always buy success. just a thought
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 21, 2004 23:09:02 GMT
Rex,
I never said Mr. Risdale & company were without blame for this little situation.
But if you think the fans probabley pay £50-60 per game out of possibley £200 per week then you could say the fans have taken a 25% wage defferal. And they have done nothing wrong. It was the board who got them into financial trouble and the players that are risking Leeds very exiscent by turning out a number of shit performance.
|
|
|
Post by melbournepotter on Jan 22, 2004 7:13:58 GMT
The quote by Bogus (accredited to the PFA) always amuses me...ie "it's only a short career so they should get paid accordingly".....bollocks !
"Players are overpaid and I am losing respect for both them and the PFA with their "remember it's only a short career" attitude.
I've been employed in around 4-5 completely different careers/jobs none of them lasting more than 7 years.......and I didn't get 30,000 a week !!!
As for Leeds, I don't care if they go under. They offered the wages to get the players in the first place...so bad luck .
|
|
|
Post by Rex on Jan 22, 2004 8:10:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 22, 2004 9:34:25 GMT
Fine they pay £35 per game.
That's still about 10-15% of their wages gone to watch them jupped-up little arseholes
|
|
|
Post by onewaynebiggins on Jan 22, 2004 9:43:30 GMT
Que Romford to start calling me a greedy rip off merchant again, but, If i was Viduka, and when i came to sign for Leeds, i could of signed for Spurs ( this is an example ), but leeds said no, sign for us and we will pay you 5 grand a week more...of course i would sign for leeds!
and i certainly would'nt take a pay cut just because they have fecked up...."listen mate, i know we said come and sign for us and we will pay you 35k a week, well your not going to get it this week because we, not you- have dropped a massive bollock! er, no i dont think so....pay me my wages bitches or I'll see you in court!
onewaynebiggins
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 22, 2004 12:18:50 GMT
It is reported that Mark Viduka is actually on £60,000 a week at Leeds... which idiot gave him that contract? That's who the real anger should be directed at!
|
|
|
Post by romfordstokie on Jan 22, 2004 12:26:55 GMT
Political views are indeed a strange thing OWB because I agree with you. 95% of players are basically going to go the club who pay him most. (geography and other peripheral issues may come in to it for a few). And they have every right to insist on that contract being honoured in full.
In Viduka's case, he has the right to expect that if Risdale has the power to dish out a contract like that then he has the ability to manage a business in such a way as to honour that contract.
As a general rule though, footballers are payed way too much and it will have to change.
|
|
|
Post by JR on Jan 22, 2004 12:32:12 GMT
Footballers are only paid what a club are willing to pay them. If Leeds Utd/Derby etc have dished out contracts to players they can't in the long run afford.why is the player to blame? Bad management is not the players crime.
|
|
|
Post by onewaynebiggins on Jan 22, 2004 14:26:50 GMT
I agree with Romford! onewaynebiggins
|
|
|
Post by seth on Jan 22, 2004 16:25:24 GMT
wrong tree JM...........the club signed them on silly financial contracts to get them in the first place. If you went to a job and they offered you £100 a week, would you then accept £20 a week if the company were in the cart? the amount of money is irrelevant, its the principal Rex Would you accept a pay cut if it stopped the company going out of business, thus saving your job?
|
|
|
Post by onewaynebiggins on Jan 22, 2004 16:29:47 GMT
If i knew i was good enough to get another job doing the same thing,
then yes I would refuse to take a pay cut.
onewaynebiggins
|
|
|
Post by stonetezza on Jan 22, 2004 16:35:58 GMT
Its ok taking a pay cut if everybody is in it together but is Venables going to take a cut in whats due to him, or O'Leary or Fowler or Keane or ........................
|
|
|
Post by seth on Jan 22, 2004 16:54:13 GMT
If i knew i was good enough to get another job doing the same thing, then yes I would refuse to take a pay cut. onewaynebiggins But not in most cases at the same wages
|
|
Macc
Youth Player
Posts: 334
|
Post by Macc on Jan 22, 2004 18:05:47 GMT
If Leeds were to go bump then I assume the players would be free to sign for whoever they wanted without any transfer fee involved.
In that case the player's agent would stump up signing on fee and wage demands to reflect that.
The players would be mad to take a cut in the current circumstances, regardless of whether they can afford to or not. When it comes to players like Viduka, there's bound to be other clubs willing to cough up to get him.
That might be tough on Leeds fans but as has already been said, the blame lies elsewhere.
Macc
|
|
|
Post by Rex on Jan 22, 2004 18:10:16 GMT
Seth, in the trade I'm in I would refuse to take a pay cut, I'd just go to another company that does pay the going rate. which might be the case next week as tomorrow now makes it 4 days on the trot with no 'official' work Rex
|
|
|
Post by smilerandy on Jan 23, 2004 2:10:02 GMT
Players are not to blame.
Fault lies with the people who actually run the club.
|
|