Robin van Persie

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Neviller said:
I've thought previously that if i were to win the lottery and win a million quid i'm not sure i'd be overly happy about it, because it isn't enough to impact as many peoples lives as I'd want it to. I'd want my family and friends to be comfortable, were I to have a lottery win, not just buy them a drink or pay for a holiday for them. Footballers may well be seen as amassing vast sums of money, but we've no idea what they're doing with it. Many footballers come from underprivileged backgrounds, and football is their way out of poverty. Why shouldn't they want to amass as much wealth as they can when they can, especially if they are using it to make life more comofrtable for their families and friends who grew up in similar circumstances, and may not have had the talent to find a way out. It isn't always just about them as an individual.
Click to expand...

This is so true. Countless examples of this. One that I've seen locally in SA is that of Benni McCarthy. He's taken his whole family out of their impoverished situations and opened doors for his family and friends. Another SA footballer, Shaun Bartlett, has used his money he amassed in the UK to build a football academy for the under privileged.

Drogba is another example of this.
 
Interval Level said:
You've answered yourself. How about a nice 10 mn pound holiday villa in Greece. Or a small plane to reach there.

Opportunities are endless to spend. Its silly to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
You can always spend it but do you really want a holiday villa in Greece that you spend a couple of weeks in every year. Why not just rent one? And rent one in Spain the next year.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
Not true. Speaking for myself, I could easily double my salary elsewhere, but the set-up I have no both in terms of freedom at work and balance between work and family life is perfect for me.
Click to expand...

poor comparison.

for getting paid half at arsenal, will van persie be able to take less responsibility in terms of tracking back/graft on the pitch or only showing up to half the training sessions required (i.e. more work life balance)?

The work required at arsenal or at another club is the same, the commitments are the same, the work-life balance is the same....so it comes down to location, how he gets on with his work-mates, and future success.

Arsenal scores high on location (and his family is settled there), i don't know how he gets on with his work-mates, and scores low on future success.

There certainly is not the same trade-off that most people make on their wages/leisure utility curve when comparing differing situations.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The cheque is for less than 10m quid. Can't be certain but I'm fairly sure it took him more than 2 years to end up broke.

Anyway, it's a silly comparison. A big chunk of a windfall like that will be spent on stuff like a new house that footballers won't spend every single year of their contract.
Click to expand...

18 months, apparently.

It's not a comparison, silly or otherwise. It's a response to a point suggesting spending £5million in a year is impossible, when it clearly isn't.

Roman Abramovich bought two Maybach 62 Limousines, on the same day in 2004, both bullet and bomb-proof, at a cost of £1million each. He has a yacht that cost him over £200million. He has a further collection of yachts, boats, cars and planes. Is he irresponsible, or is he just rich? Do you reckon Roman Abramovich couldn't, or doesn't, spend £5million a year? He spunked 40 years worth of that spending on a single yacht.
 
Spending 5 million in a year is hardly something you'd be shocked at. I mean yeah of course it's irresponsible and probably a giant waste of money, but is anyone surprised that rich people, might spend 5 million in a year? How? A house might cost them that much for a start. Hell, there's a designer iphone that costs near 10 million I think. I'm sure it's not hard to spend the money once you have it.
 
The Neviller said:
I've thought previously that if i were to win the lottery and win a million quid i'm not sure i'd be overly happy about it, because it isn't enough to impact as many peoples lives as I'd want it to. I'd want my family and friends to be comfortable, were I to have a lottery win, not just buy them a drink or pay for a holiday for them. Footballers may well be seen as amassing vast sums of money, but we've no idea what they're doing with it. Many footballers come from underprivileged backgrounds, and football is their way out of poverty. Why shouldn't they want to amass as much wealth as they can when they can, especially if they are using it to make life more comofrtable for their families and friends who grew up in similar circumstances, and may not have had the talent to find a way out. It isn't always just about them as an individual.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not sure about that. According to Gerrard's book (which I decided not to read), he bought his parents' council house. Kudos Steve.

Of course he could be the exception.
 
VoetbalWizard said:
poor comparison.

for getting paid half at arsenal, will van persie be able to take less responsibility in terms of tracking back/graft on the pitch or only showing up to half the training sessions required (i.e. more work life balance)?

The work required at arsenal or at another club is the same, the commitments are the same, the work-life balance is the same....so it comes down to location, how he gets on with his work-mates, and future success.

Arsenal scores high on location (and his family is settled there), i don't know how he gets on with his work-mates, and scores low on future success.

There certainly is not the same trade-off that most people make on their wages/leisure utility curve when comparing differing situations.
Click to expand...

Wasn't a comparison, it was a direct repky to Interval's claim that no one can ignore the chance of earning 100% more.
 
Liam147 said:
Yeah I'm not sure about that. According to Gerrard's book (which I decided not to read), he bought his parents' council house. Kudos Steve.

Of course he could be the exception.
Click to expand...

If you were a multi-millionaire would you not look out for your family and friends, or would you stick two fingers up at them from the saftey of your £4.9million mansion?
 
The Neviller said:
If you were a multi-millionaire would you not look out for your family and friends, or would you stick two fingers up at them from the saftey of your £4.9million mansion?
Click to expand...

You don't have to spend 1000's every day to help out family and friends.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
You don't have to spend 1000's every day to help out family and friends.
Click to expand...

What if you had a huge extended family, and lots of friends, living in abject poverty somewhere?

The point you're trying to make is that you can't spend £5million a year. I've shown a few examples where it's clear you can.

I've also stated that a footballer wanting to make as much as possible from a football career isn't necessarily simply about personal greed. You have no idea what a footballer does with their wages, how much they spend on themselves, how much they invest, how much they give their friends and families and how much they give to charity. It's easy to say "why does a footballer need x amount of money". The point is, whether they need it or not is of no concern to anyone, whether they want it is all that counts. And many may well want it for a variety of different reasons. And if someone is willing to pay them vast sums for kicking a ball around then fair fecks to them.
 
EricaNo7 said:
Or buy your parents more than a council house? That's a bit cheap isn't it, on Gerrard's money ?
Click to expand...

Depends, they may not have wantted to move from their home, but having it bought for them could have made their lives more comfortable. Not everyone wants a fancy home, some people just want to be financially secure. Not having to pay their mortgage could have been enough for them.
 
The Neviller said:
What if you had a huge extended family, and lots of friends, living in abject poverty somewhere?

The point you're trying to make is that you can't spend £5million a year. I've shown a few examples where it's clear you can.

I've also stated that a footballer wanting to make as much as possible from a football career isn't necessarily simply about personal greed. You have no idea what a footballer does with their wages, how much they spend on themselves, how much they invest, how much they give their friends and families and how much they give to charity. It's easy to say "why does a footballer need x amount of money". The point is, whether they need it or not is of no concern to anyone, whether they want it is all that counts. And many may well want it for a variety of different reasons. And if someone is willing to pay them vast sums for kicking a ball around then fair fecks to them.
Click to expand...

Well, most footballers in England don't have massive families and an extraordinary large bunch of friends living in severe poverty.

Of course you CAN spend £5m a year. Luckily, emnot even 99% of the fotballers do.

Most of the footballers do what other people do with the money, they spend some, they invest some, they save some and some help out family and friends. And a small number use their name, populraity and wealth to help out charities.
 
I'm kind of losing the run of what's being discussed in this thread.

Are footballer overpaid? I'd say definitely. They deserve their cut of the huge sums of money washing round the game but the wages being offered now are unsustainable, thanks to the inflationary effect of sugar daddys, who don't need to run clubs as a viable business.

This is from an article in May this year:

The latest annual review of football finance by Deloitte shows the increase in wages outstripped the growth in revenues.

It has resulted in a wages/revenue ratio of 70% in the Premier League – a record figure having crept up from the low- to mid-60s five years ago.

Wages went up by £201m in 2010-11 to almost £1.6bn, a 14% rise, and overall revenues rose by 12% to £2.27bn. This was mostly driven by a rise in income from the new TV deals, especially from overseas rights.

Alan Switzer, the director in the sports business group at the analyst Deloitte, said wage control was paramount for good business.

He said: "If the wages to revenue ratio is 70% or higher it's very difficult to make an operating profit.

"In our view it is too high as a league and the clubs need to be edging back to the low 60s. Every 1% that it drops should increase operating profits by £20m to £25m."
Click to expand...

Are footballers morally wrong in holding out for wages that are so high they risk putting their club out of business? Possibly. Does this mean they will stop doing so? Of course not. So it's a moot point.

The real issue is clubs like City and Chelsea, the effect they have had on wages and transfer fees and the knock-on effect this is having on all the other PL clubs. Unless the FFP has real teeth and is implemented very aggressively I can see a lot of big clubs hitting the wall and/or a completely non-competitive league - with Chelsea and City sharing all the major trophies between them until their owners get bored.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
Well, most footballers in England don't have massive families and an extraordinary large bunch of friends living in severe poverty.
Of course you CAN spend £5m a year. Luckily, emnot even 99% of the fotballers do.

Most of the footballers do what other people do with the money, they spend some, they invest some, they save some and some help out family and friends. And a small number use their name, populraity and wealth to help out charities.
Click to expand...

But some might, right?

SO you CAN spend £5million a year then? Here was me thinking it was impossible.

How do you know how much a footballer spends, and be so certain that you know to say that 99% of footballers don't spend that much? You presume too much for my liking.
 
Hectic said:
Hell, there's a designer iphone that costs near 10 million I think. I'm sure it's not hard to spend the money once you have it.
Click to expand...
The incremental benefits above a certain level are practically nil that's the point: having/not having a phone/car/house is a big gulf. The difference in having a golf or a maserati isn't all that.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I'm kind of losing the run of what's being discussed in this thread.

Are footballer overpaid? I'd say definitely. They deserve their cut of the huge sums of money washing round the game but the wages being offered now are unsustainable, thanks to the inflationary effect of sugar daddys, who don't need to run clubs as a viable business.

This is from an article in May this year:



Are footballers morally wrong in holding out for wages that are so high they risk putting their club out of business? Possibly. Does this mean they will stop doing so? Of course not. So it's a moot point.

The real issue is clubs like City and Chelsea, the effect they have had on wages and transfer fees and the knock-on effect this is having on all the other PL clubs. Unless the FFP has real teeth and is implemented very aggressively I can see a lot of big clubs hitting the wall and/or a completely non-competitive league - with Chelsea and City sharing all the major trophies between them until their owners get bored.
Click to expand...

I thought the point was that you couldn't spend £5million a year, and as such you shouldn't need more than £5million and shoudn't want £10million. And then something about a lottery win.

Maybe I picked that up wrong though.
 
The Neviller said:
I thought the point was that you couldn't spend £5million a year, and as such you shouldn't need more than £5million and shoudn't want £10million. And then something about a lottery win.

Maybe I picked that up wrong though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you probably did.

You're obviously enjoying this silly tangent, though, so carry on.
 
peterstorey said:
The incremental benefits above a certain level are practically nil that's the point: having/not having a phone/car/house is a big gulf. The difference in having a golf or a maserati isn't all that.
Click to expand...

So it's wrong to want a Maserati because you can afford a Golf, and if someone offers you the money to make it easier to buy that Maserati you should turn it down and just drive away at the Golf?

How big a house are you allowed then, is there a room limit, or should we just limit floor space?
 
The Neviller said:
If you were a multi-millionaire would you not look out for your family and friends, or would you stick two fingers up at them from the saftey of your £4.9million mansion?
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you, I was playing devil's advocate really, and informing anyone who didn't know that the multi-millionaire, Steven Gerrard, bought a house probably worth less than a week of his wages for the people who supported his career.
 
The Neviller said:
So it's wrong to want a Maserati because you can afford a Golf, and if someone offers you the money to make it easier to buy that Maserati you should trun it down and just drive away at the Golf?

How big a house are you allowed then, is there a room limit, or should we just limit floor space?
Click to expand...
Once you've got a bedroom for every kid and a couple of reception rooms etc, a bloody ballroom or conservatory doesn't make a whole lot of difference. You can only park your arse in one room at a time.
 
The Neviller said:
So it's wrong to want a Maserati because you can afford a Golf, and if someone offers you the money to make it easier to buy that Maserati you should trun it down and just drive away at the Golf?

How big a house are you allowed then, is there a room limit, or should we just limit floor space?
Click to expand...

I agree with your point actually. Plus, they cease to earn big when their careers end. From then on, it's only spend spend spend, so they're hoping to secure an extravagant lifestyle for the rest of their lives by earning as much as they can while they can.
 
The Neviller said:
But some might, right?

SO you CAN spend £5million a year then? Here was me thinking it was impossible.

How do you know how much a footballer spends, and be so certain that you know to say that 99% of footballers don't spend that much? You presume too much for my liking.
Click to expand...

I've not claimed that it is impossible to spend £5m a year, I said it is not responsible to do so.

What is of your liking or not is of no concern to me.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I'm kind of losing the run of what's being discussed in this thread.

Are footballer overpaid? I'd say definitely. They deserve their cut of the huge sums of money washing round the game but the wages being offered now are unsustainable, thanks to the inflationary effect of sugar daddys, who don't need to run clubs as a viable business.

This is from an article in May this year:



Are footballers morally wrong in holding out for wages that are so high they risk putting their club out of business? Possibly. Does this mean they will stop doing so? Of course not. So it's a moot point.

The real issue is clubs like City and Chelsea, the effect they have had on wages and transfer fees and the knock-on effect this is having on all the other PL clubs. Unless the FFP has real teeth and is implemented very aggressively I can see a lot of big clubs hitting the wall and/or a completely non-competitive league - with Chelsea and City sharing all the major trophies between them until their owners get bored.
Click to expand...

It is not the playersc responsibilty to keep clubsc wage bills sustainable, that is the responsibility of each club's management.
 
Kevin said:
I agree with your point actually. Plus, they cease to earn big when their careers end. From then on, it's only spend spend spend, so they're hoping to secure an extravagant lifestyle for the rest of their lives by earning as much as they can while they can.
Click to expand...

We are talking about top players earning £5m a year, over +/- 10 years. In wages only, add various sponsorships on top of that. Enough to live extremely comfy for the rest of your life, and leave your off springs with enough cash for a comfy life when you pack it in.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I'm kind of losing the run of what's being discussed in this thread.

Are footballer overpaid? I'd say definitely. They deserve their cut of the huge sums of money washing round the game but the wages being offered now are unsustainable, thanks to the inflationary effect of sugar daddys, who don't need to run clubs as a viable business.
Click to expand...

So am I. Although to be fair the actual original point probably didn't warrant this length of debate over it, and it's something none of us can actually answer. I reckon you'd struggle to find posters who would argue footballers aren't overpaid. I'll all for rewarding them based on the effort they put in and what their bodies are put through, as you say they deserve their cut, but the wages now are insane.
 
Hectic said:
So am I. Although to be fair the actual original point probably didn't warrant this length of debate over it, and it's something none of us can actually answer. I reckon you'd struggle to find posters who would argue footballers aren't overpaid. I'll all for rewarding them based on the effort they put in and what their bodies are put through, as you say they deserve their cut, but the wages now are insane.
Click to expand...

I don't care how much they earn as long as their clubs can afford it.

But I lose respect for extremely high paid players, who move because they will earn even more at their new club.
 
Hectic said:
So am I. Although to be fair the actual original point probably didn't warrant this length of debate over it, and it's something none of us can actually answer. I reckon you'd struggle to find posters who would argue footballers aren't overpaid. I'll all for rewarding them based on the effort they put in and what their bodies are put through, as you say they deserve their cut, but the wages now are insane.
Click to expand...

To be fair to footballers, the same thing can be said for artists and musicians who are even more overpaid. At-least footballers have to run all day.
 
peterstorey said:
The incremental benefits above a certain level are practically nil that's the point: having/not having a phone/car/house is a big gulf. The difference in having a golf or a maserati isn't all that.
Click to expand...

But that's focusing on just one aspect of it, themselves and at this current moment. As others have pointed out there's no telling when and how footballers spend their money, and I'd imagine there's a much bigger concern in all of them for their futures where they won't be earning anywhere near these amounts, these are the years where they make the bulk of their money. I'm not surprised at all that they can look at 5 million and 10 million and see a difference. Not only do they have certain lifetstyles that they want to be able to maintain, but there's also the future and financial security you might want to leave to your family, as they've probably become accustomed to a certain way of life. I'm sure when you're looking at the big picture, the difference is very important. I'm also not saying that the quality of life they have now can't be similarly achieved with a lower amount of money, it can be, but that's not the point is it, what if they want to continue in the same vain, which I'm sure is a trait in most rich people.
 
Ismail Elezi said:
To be fair to footballers, the same thing can be said for artists and musicians who are even more overpaid. At-least footballers have to run all day.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that and I did say the sacrifice they go through means they deserve a large chunk, but nor am I comparing it to other professions because it can work both ways. I don't really care in the sense that it rubs me the wrong way, it doesn't because it's massively irrelevant to me and has zero affect, but they are overpaid in the sense Pogue mentioned, that sustainability comes into question.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
But I lose respect for extremely high paid players, who move because they will earn even more at their new club.
Click to expand...

In that scenario I can understand that, if money was the sole and only motivation to have made the move, but I doubt that happens too often. Usually the club paying more tends to also be a better team, which would be another incentive to move.
 
Hectic said:
In that scenario I can understand that, if money was the sole and only motivation to have made the move, but I doubt that happens too often. Usually the club paying more tends to also be a better team, which would be another incentive to move.
Click to expand...

In that case fair enough.

But there are examples, such as Eto'o moving to Russia and Hazard picking Chelsea as a recent example.
 
Hectic said:
In that scenario I can understand that, if money was the sole and only motivation to have made the move, but I doubt that happens too often. Usually the club paying more tends to also be a better team, which would be another incentive to move.
Click to expand...

true...i can't think of very many times a player moved to a shit team just because the pay was ludicrous...eto'o, anelka, drogba?

If people aren't coming to utd, it's because the wages are bigger at places that now also offer trophies and/or location advantages.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, you probably did.

You're obviously enjoying this silly tangent, though, so carry on.
Click to expand...

Don't be such a pompous twat Pogue.

I disagreed with idiots saying you couldn't spend £5million a year.

Simple fact is, if a footballer gets offered stupid sums to ply their trade elsewhere then fair fecks to them if they take it. All this posturing that you don't need this amount and don't need that amount is nonsense, really. Not many of us would turn down a payrise, and people trying to take the moral highground over a footballer taking a big offer to play a sport is all a bit daft really. People can call them out as greedy bastards all they want, but if a footballer on £5million a year gets an offer of £10million then he'd be an idiot to turn it down, whether people from the internetz think they need it, could spend it, or otherwise. Of course £10million a year would make a difference to someone earning £5million. Not as much as it would to someone earning £30,000, but still a difference.

I hate to say it, but Cider nailed it earlier on. Wealth is subjective, and a footballer looking to improve his contract/wages/standard of living is no different to anyone else trying to do it.
 
CnutOfAllCnuts said:
I've not claimed that it is impossible to spend £5m a year, I said it is not responsible to do so.

What is of your liking or not is of no concern to me.
Click to expand...

How is it not reponsible to spend £5million a year? Is Roman Abramovich irresponsible for being able to spend that in one day on a yacht, and doing so?

It's irresponsible to spend £5million a year if you earn £50,000, not if you earn £50,000,000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.