Robin van Persie

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trionz said:
PSG have now, probably.
Everyone said the same last season as well though.

Inter..no chance at all. They are prime example of what happens when you pay too much wages to players without thinking of long term stability.

Look at Milan, desperate to rid of Ibrahimovic & Silva, stating they saved millions on wages.
Click to expand...

The Serie A problem is complex. Clubs like AC Milan etc may look big on paper but financially wise they are pretty small. They lack their own stadium, their mechandise and youth academy is somehow disorganized and they still rely heavily on the owner's wealth. The latter pose a problem since Italy is passing from one of the worst recessions in history.

What many in Britain fail to understand is that the majority of players are cnuts. If a player is not a cnut then probably his agent is. Money speaks volumes these days and unless you cant compete with the big guys then you'll risk heavily of losing your best players.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Is is justifiable when sponsors are willing to pay many £millions each yeah to the most successful sides; the Glazers wouldn't pay wages that couldn't be justified. The clubs owners have decided that Wayne Rooney is worth £200k a week to Manchester United FC; that decision is theirs and theirs alone to make, it's not your decision and it's not our decision; a decent businessman will pay for an asset up to and including the value of the asset to the company, either in immediate terms or as an investment in potential. This same principle dictates wages in all walks of life, in all professions and at all levels of pay; Rooney gets paid £200k a week because he's worth it to the company he works for, that's all the justification that is needed. People on lower wages may complain that these amounts of money are extreme, but then so is the players talent; if we could all play football like Wayne Rooney then you can guarantee he'd get paid minimum wage and no more.

The sugar daddy clubs are somewhat different of course, but even they only pay a player what he's worth, except this time the value is driven by prestige and preeminence rather than profit; there is, afterall, more than one way to justify the value of an asset.
Click to expand...

Jeez, cider. You're messing with his world view. 200K a week translates to 10 mn a year. I know bankers, CEOs, mid size business men, actors and singers who earn more.

Anyways, this is way off topic.
 
Can Juventus even pay £150.000 - 200.000 a week?
 
Floyd said:
Can Juventus even pay £150.000 - 200.000 a week?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. However the Italian club's are their owner's play thing. If the Elkanns/Agnellis decide that they want RVP at all cost they will get him. Stating that its out of their nature to do that.
 
Interval Level said:
Jeez, cider. You're messing with his world view. 200K a week translates to 10 mn a year. I know bankers, CEOs, mid size business men, actors and singers who earn more.

Anyways, this is way off topic.
Click to expand...

It's not off topic, it's in direct relation to the transfer of RVP and Arsenal's inability to keep hold of world class players.
 
devilish said:
What many in Britain fail to understand is that the majority of players are cnuts. If a player is not a cnut then probably his agent is. Money speaks volumes these days and unless you cant compete with the big guys then you'll risk heavily of losing your best players.
Click to expand...

Since when does wanting the best available wage for your services make you a cnut?
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Since when does wanting the best available wage for your services make you a cnut?
Click to expand...

It does make you a cnut if the club had invested alot in you to make you the player that you are, only for you to turn your back to it because some sleezy guy decided to give you an unrealistic salary. We're talking here about millionaires and not people living on the poverty line.

Don't you think that Pogba/agent has acted as cnuts? I do.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Is is justifiable when sponsors are willing to pay many £millions each yeah to the most successful sides; the Glazers wouldn't pay wages that couldn't be justified. The clubs owners have decided that Wayne Rooney is worth £200k a week to Manchester United FC; that decision is theirs and theirs alone to make, it's not your decision and it's not our decision; a decent businessman will pay for an asset up to and including the value of the asset to the company, either in immediate terms or as an investment in potential. This same principle dictates wages in all walks of life, in all professions and at all levels of pay; Rooney gets paid £200k a week because he's worth it to the company he works for, that's all the justification that is needed. People on lower wages may complain that these amounts of money are extreme, but then so is the players talent; if we could all play football like Wayne Rooney then you can guarantee he'd get paid minimum wage and no more.

The sugar daddy clubs are somewhat different of course, but even they only pay a player what he's worth, except this time the value is driven by prestige and preeminence rather than profit in much the same way that fine art is oft traded; there is, afterall, more than one way to justify the value of an asset.
Click to expand...

That's all fair, if that's that.
It's all fair, when commercial & footballing value of a player fluctuates the wages that he earns.
It's all fair, if that increase in wage doesn't make players who are inferior asking for similar amount.

If Rooney tomorrow loses all his form, and respect of world for some racist comment he made; will he lose some of his wages?
No.
You say it's companies decision, well if that were a happy decision to pay Rooney that much, then there would never have been a big fuss to begin with.
Players are taking the clubs for a ride and fans are okay with it, as long as the best players are there. Some fans they are, not caring about resources of their club.

Take Samir Nasri, for instance, what has he done to be an asset for his club to demand what he is earning right now.
Is he a global marketting asset, No.
Is he world class player, No.
Why should Arsenal then pay him 150k/week?

The problem is not of decision making, it's the problem of overall inflation of wages because of us fans, thatit can't even be argued to okayish footballers that they are not worth 70-80k/week.
 
devilish said:
It does make you a cnut if the club had invested alot in you to make you the player that you are, only for you to turn your back to it because some sleezy guy decided to give you an unrealistic salary. We're talking here about millionaires and not people living on the poverty line.

Don't you think that Pogba/agent has acted as cnuts? I do.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Pogba owes nothing to United; he was under contract to stay at the club so long, and once that contract runs out he was under no moral obligation to renew it. He may have made the wrong decision, but that doesn't make him a cnut.

United don't offer every kid who comes through the academy a professional contract at the end of their term; does that make the club cnuts? United train kids and kids train for United with a view to the mutual benefit to all involved, it's a business agreement at the end of the day, an agreement which runs its course upon completion of the initial timescale negotiated upon at the start of that working relationship.
 
It is weird that in any normal job when you move to get a better one it is seen as looking after yourself and career progression. If you a footballer doing the same, you are a disloyal cnut.

We may not like it but Pogba's agent was doing a job for his client.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Not really, no. Pogba owes nothing to United; he was under contract to stay at the club so long, and once that contract runs out he was under no moral obligation to renew it. He may have made the wrong decision, but that doesn't make him a cnut.
Click to expand...

Leaving doesn't, apparently slagging off the club does, if true.
 
Trionz said:
The summer when Flamini & Hleb left, Fabregas was our player of the season then, so our best player stayed.

The summer when Adebayor & Toure left, Robin Van Persie was our player of the season then, so our best player stayed.

The summer Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy left, Wilshere was voted Player of the season then, so our best player stayed.

So your point is invalid.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
The way I see it is there comes a point where enough is enough. When you have enough money to comfortably provide for yourself and your descendents for a couple of generations to come why do you need more money? If a player wants to move clubs to win things, no problem. If a player wants to move clubs because he wants to live in a certain place.....Hmmmmm your going to bloody retire in a few years, but I suppose fair enough. Fallen out with the manager? again fair enough, leave. But leaving a club you like, a home in an area you like, uprooting your family all for a few extra quid, mercenry cnut.
 
Their is so much hypocrisy in this thread that its not even laughable.
 
Trionz said:
The summer when Flamini & Hleb left, Fabregas was our player of the season then, so our best player stayed.

The summer when Adebayor & Toure left, Robin Van Persie was our player of the season then, so our best player stayed.

The summer Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy left, Wilshere was voted Player of the season then, so our best player stayed.

So your point is invalid.
Click to expand...

are you a politician or something? Strangest logic I've ever heard. Your best players leave, period. The fact that they have left kind of makes it difficult for them to be your best player that season :wenger:
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
The way I see it is there comes a point where enough is enough. When you have enough money to comfortably provide for yourself and your descendents for a couple of generations to come why do you need more money? If a player wants to move clubs to win things, no problem. If a player wants to move clubs because he wants to live in a certain place.....Hmmmmm your going to bloody retire in a few years, but I suppose fair enough. Fallen out with the manager? again fair enough, leave. But leaving a club you like, a home in an area you like, uprooting your family all for a few extra quid, mercenry cnut.
Click to expand...

An extra £70k a week to somebody already on £100k a week is still a lot of money though. You must be able to comprehend the fact that people already rich by a poorer man's definition might well still have a desire to become even richer?

From my own point of view I'd say somebody earning £30k a year was pretty wealthy, but I'm sure there are many posters on here who'd laugh at such a notion. That same man on £30k a year might consider another earning £85k a year to be a rich man, but again there would be many who'd disagree. This £85k fella might consider £200k a year as being a rich man's wage, the £200k man half a million, half a million £2m; the bloke on £2m a year might well long for Van Persie's salary, and likewise Van Persie could reasonably wish for some £12m a year in earnings, whilst some billionaires would look down at such a pittance and give a wry smile of pity. The point is, it's all relative throughout the echelons of wealth and worth, and none of us have any reasonable right to call those above us cnuts for feeling the exact same way about money as we do. Are we all cnuts for wanting pay rises just because there exist people in third world countries whose wealth and earnings we already far exceed? I wouldn't say so, but perhaps some of you might, in which case, why bother singling out footballers for such abuse when pretty much the entire human race operates on those exact same principles?
 
ciderman9000000 said:
An extra £70k a week to somebody already on £100k a week is still a lot of money though. You must be able to comprehend the fact that people already rich by a poorer man's definition might well still have a desire to become even richer?

From my own point of view I'd say somebody earning £30k a year was pretty wealthy, but I'm sure there are many posters on here who'd laugh at such a notion. That same man on £30k a year might consider another earning £85k a year to be a rich man, but again there would be many who'd disagree. This £85k fella might consider £200k a year as being a rich man's wage, the £200k man half a million, half a million £2m; the bloke on £2m a year might well long for Van Persie's salary, and likewise Van Persie could reasonably wish for some £12m a year in earnings whilst some billionaires would look down at such a pittance and give a smile of pity. The point is, it's all relative throughout the echelons of wealth and worth, and none of us have any reasonable right to call those above us cnuts for feeling the exact same way about money as we do. Are we all cnuts for wanting pay rises just because there exist people in third world countries whose wealth and earnings we already far exceed? I wouldn't say so, but perhaps some of you might, in which case, why both singling out footballers for such abuse when almost the entire human race operates on those exact same principles?
Click to expand...

well said
 
Trionz said:
:rolleyes:
read the post properly.
Click to expand...

ok. Reread and see what you are trying to say. My point still holds. Your best players (perhaps not player of the season) leave on a very regular basis. Worse, it is at a time not at the club's choosing. RVP looks like more of the same. You can spin it all you like but fachts are facts.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
An extra £70k a week to somebody already on £100k a week is still a lot of money though. You must be able to comprehend the fact that people already rich by a poorer man's definition might well still have a desire to become even richer?

From my own point of view I'd say somebody earning £30k a year was pretty wealthy, but I'm sure there are many posters on here who'd laugh at such a notion. That same man on £30k a year might consider another earning £85k a year to be a rich man, but again there would be many who'd disagree. This £85k fella might consider £200k a year as being a rich man's wage, the £200k man half a million, half a million £2m; the bloke on £2m a year might well long for Van Persie's salary, and likewise Van Persie could reasonably wish for some £12m a year in earnings, whilst some billionaires would look down at such a pittance and give a wry smile of pity. The point is, it's all relative throughout the echelons of wealth and worth, and none of us have any reasonable right to call those above us cnuts for feeling the exact same way about money as we do. Are we all cnuts for wanting pay rises just because there exist people in third world countries whose wealth and earnings we already far exceed? I wouldn't say so, but perhaps some of you might, in which case, why bother singling out footballers for such abuse when pretty much the entire human race operates on those exact same principles?
Click to expand...

It pains me to say this, but...

Good post.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
An extra £70k a week to somebody already on £100k a week is still a lot of money though. You must be able to comprehend the fact that people already rich by a poorer man's definition might well still have a desire to become even richer?

From my own point of view I'd say somebody earning £30k a year was pretty wealthy, but I'm sure there are many posters on here who'd laugh at such a notion. That same man on £30k a year might consider another earning £85k a year to be a rich man, but again there would be many who'd disagree. This £85k fella might consider £200k a year as being a rich man's wage, the £200k man half a million, half a million £2m; the bloke on £2m a year might well long for Van Persie's salary, and likewise Van Persie could reasonably wish for some £12m a year in earnings, whilst some billionaires would look down at such a pittance and give a wry smile of pity. The point is, it's all relative throughout the echelons of wealth and worth, and none of us have any reasonable right to call those above us cnuts for feeling the exact same way about money as we do. Are we all cnuts for wanting pay rises just because there exist people in third world countries whose wealth and earnings we already far exceed? I wouldn't say so, but perhaps some of you might, in which case, why bother singling out footballers for such abuse when pretty much the entire human race operates on those exact same principles?
Click to expand...

Very good points and the cold reality. Regular people are in the same boat. I've been trained by previous employers over the years and left for "greener" pastures ($). The only difference is I don't have thousands of fans watch me move liquid from one tube to the next as I try to cure cancer.:(
 
ciderman9000000 said:
An extra £70k a week to somebody already on £100k a week is still a lot of money though. You must be able to comprehend the fact that people already rich by a poorer man's definition might well still have a desire to become even richer?

From my own point of view I'd say somebody earning £30k a year was pretty wealthy, but I'm sure there are many posters on here who'd laugh at such a notion. That same man on £30k a year might consider another earning £85k a year to be a rich man, but again there would be many who'd disagree. This £85k fella might consider £200k a year as being a rich man's wage, the £200k man half a million, half a million £2m; the bloke on £2m a year might well long for Van Persie's salary, and likewise Van Persie could reasonably wish for some £12m a year in earnings, whilst some billionaires would look down at such a pittance and give a wry smile of pity. The point is, it's all relative throughout the echelons of wealth and worth, and none of us have any reasonable right to call those above us cnuts for feeling the exact same way about money as we do. Are we all cnuts for wanting pay rises just because there exist people in third world countries whose wealth and earnings we already far exceed? I wouldn't say so, but perhaps some of you might, in which case, why bother singling out footballers for such abuse when pretty much the entire human race operates on those exact same principles?
Click to expand...

To a certain point I agree with you, but there comes a point when no matter how much MORE money you earn it is not going to impact your qualiity of life in the slightest as you already have the best of everything.

Take tonights euromillions draw, if I win £138,000,000 and then 6 months later win another £100,000,000 that second sum will not impact my life in any way as Im already having the best of the best.
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
To a certain point I agree with you, but there comes a point when no matter how much MORE money you earn it is not going to impact your qualiity of life in the slightest.
Click to expand...

yeah, our desire to earn more comes from the fact that we are unable to meet the month's end or we have loans to pay off or we want to buy ourselves a house or in rich man's world, we want to invest in said business.

what does a footballer who has no known alliance to any business line, would do with more money, if it doesn't affect his standard of living.
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
To a certain point I agree with you, but there comes a point when no matter how much MORE money you earn it is not going to impact your qualiity of life in the slightest as you already have the best of everything.

Take tonights euromillions draw, if I win £138,000,000 and then 6 months later win another £100,000,000 that second sum will not impact my life in any way as Im already having the best of the best.
Click to expand...

That depends on what you consider the very best as being, the quantity of the best that you want and the frequency at which you want it. There are numerous levels of wealth between Van Persie and the Sultan of Brunei; it may be difficult for plebs like us to understand, but those divisions between people of higher wealth certainly do exist, and to them, at least, those differences will be quite tangible. Would an Ethiopian slum dweller know the difference in haves and have nots between an English man on £25k a year and one on £85k a year? I doubt it. Why would you expect that you yourself would then be fully able to comprehend the financial desires and ambitions of a Premier League footballer?
 
Trionz said:
yeah, our desire to earn more comes from the fact that we are unable to meet the month's end or we have loans to pay off or we want to buy ourselves a house or in rich man's world, we want to invest in said business.

what does a footballer who has no known alliance to any business line, would do with more money, if it doesn't affect his standard of living.
Click to expand...

Are you privy to the state of business interests amongst all the footballers then?
 
ciderman9000000 said:
That depends on what you consider the very best as being, the quantity of the best that you want and the frequency at which you want it. There are numerous levels of wealth between Van Persie and the Sultan of Brunei; it may be difficult for plebs like us to understand, but those divisions between people of higher wealth certainly do exist, and to them, at least, those differences will be quite tangible. Would an Ethiopian slum dweller know the difference in haves and have nots between an English man on £25k a year and one on £85k a year? I doubt it. Why would you expect that you yourself would then be fully able to comprehend the financial desires and ambitions of a Premier League footballer?
Click to expand...

Im sorry cider but we are going to have to agree to disagree.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Are you privy to the state of business interests amongst all the footballers then?
Click to expand...

Trionz said:
No.
Click to expand...

ciderman9000000 said:
Do you know then what loans each of them has to pay off or what houses they wish they could buy?
Click to expand...

Trionz said:
No.
Click to expand...

Trionz said:
ciderman9000000 said:
Are you privy to the state of business interests amongst all the footballers then?
Click to expand...

ciderman9000000 said:
Do you know then what loans each of them has to pay off or what houses they wish they could buy?
Click to expand...

Are you?
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
But yeah, Cider is completely right here. It's all about perspective, which nearly all of us won't be able to relate to or understand. Wealth doesn't just stop at a particular number, nor does the quality or expenditure you can spend to ensure a higher quality of life stop at any number either. It's entirely relative, if you think the best of the best can be reached after a certain number of pounds, ask the billionairre several levels above how they feel about that, and whether their quality of life could be maintained if they were to descrease down to that level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.